The issues I had with this summit (the topics covered, how they were covered, the lack of critical framework and the stifling ideological assumptions, who spoke and in what capacity) are quite layered and numerous. I feel that the best way to address them is to identify a set of problematic overarching themes to which I was very sensitive and, at times, by which I emotionally riled. Some of these issues are far more important and beefy than others and they are presented in no particular order.
1. Apparently, we’ve finally reached that lovely post-/neo-colonial space where it is mainstream to constantly discuss how (rich, white) outsiders ought to remain humble (or at least constantly verbalize their feelings of humility) in the presence of every insider, native, and/or indigenous participant.
Now, to be clear, I believe strongly in grounding all of our work in the experiences and struggles of the experts--the experts being those who are have lived in the community to which we are addressing. Ideally, all activists would be in solidarity with these indigenous experts in a very real and tangible way. Arguably this, real and tangible solidarity, would begin to deconstruct the categories of the helped and the helpers (the activists and the acted upon/to). Also, it is paramount that these insiders ought not be solely those individuals whom the outsiders have identified as appropriate for their framework and cause.*
What I believe we largely witnessed this weekend—every (white) person re-affirming publicly (to a captive audience) that they are humbled by and so respectful of the (black) insiders—was a theatrical event.
Why do I say this? Because I understand the ideologies, agendas, and positions of those verbalizing their humility. In fact, the few individuals who were most careful to cushion each remark with these “humble” words were those there from the most entrenched and empowered organizations, like the US State Department and USAID. These figureheads are the most explicitly empowered perpetrators of the violence in Congo. And these individuals, as representatives of their organizations, were those that care least to listen to the insiders, engage with them meaningfully, and acquiesce to their requests.
In fact, Chloe Schwenke—Senior Advisor on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance at the Africa Bureau of USAID—sat next to Congolese journalist and activist Chouchou Namegabe. Chloe expressed her gratitude and humility in sitting on a panel with such an expert as Chouchou from one side of her mouth; she then turned to the audience and said that the US Administration is ultimately doing all it can to support the Congolese (of course neglecting to address the administration’s support of Rwandan Paul Kagame) and that among the most successful programs she felt that USAID had carried out were those meant to change attitudes amongst individual men in DRC. Funny because Chouchou had made it a point in her keynote and initial commentary on the panel that it is vital to consider rape and mass rape as weapons of war, as part of a larger picture, and NOT as a problem of culture or individual behavior and attitudes. But, yes, audience, Chloe was so thrilled to be able to tell us all how much she and the rest of USAID love and respect those insiders.
Another anecdote: One Congolese panel participant, Kambale Musavuli of Friends of the Congo, presented his introductory remarks with incredibly refreshing reality-checking. We were over 2 hours into the event and we were just now hearing—from Kambale—that US foreign policy has in fact impacted Congo and continues to do so (shocker!). Kambale, thankfully, offered us some nice historical context (again, first time we were hearing this): he began with King Leopold and gave us the crash course, including the US-backed ousting of democratically elected leadership and the installation of General Mobutu in 1960 (Mobutu went on to be a very authoritarian and very rich man, but at least he was anti-communist!). Kambale also reminded us that US policy now, such as support of Rwandan strongman Kagame matters.**
Our friend Kambale pled with the audience, his colleagues, scholars, students, NGO workers, and activists to expand our dialogue behind the horrors or rape and the details of conflict minerals (and the ways consumers can lend a helping hand or at least feel better about themselves via purchasing power). He yelled out that this was not the story, that we were burying the lede, that we needed to dig deeper or nothing would ever change and we’d be back here next year having the same conversation.
Now, was this “insider” received with actual respect and support? Was his point of view not only listened to but also upheld as experiential and necessarily central to any narrative that we’d like to concoct about Congo? Did we re-evaluate the direction of the conversation and consider delving deeper, as Kambale eloquently and passionately urged us to do? Well, the audience received him well (likely because many people were just thrilled to hear someone willing to challenge something). But, the moderator predictably delegitimized his position and regained control over her panel by calling him “feisty,” and then later “fiery.” Yes, she did. The others on the panel masterfully acknowledged him (with the greatest respect and humility, of course) without actually acknowledging anything about what he had said. And, largely, once he had ceased speaking, the content of what he had said faded away with his voice.
2. I learned from this summit, that employees and directors of NGOs are henceforth synonymous with activists. Yep. (For great additional reading on this and what this means: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded)
3. The first 4 hours of this event was either speeches or panel discussions. Questions were only received from the audience when 15 minutes remained in each allotted session. They were collected on index cards (which of course take at least 5 minutes to trickle to the moderator) and then they were vetted and paraphrased to be posed by the moderator. At this time, panelists were free to dance around questions and repeat things they had already said or perhaps offer the audience a promotional tidbit for their home NGO. This is not how “activists” (or scholars or any group of engaged participants) ask questions to expand dialogue and understanding. This is not a respectful learning environment; this is a stilted and censored one (and obviously so).
Many people complain about the disruptive nature of many of these tactics…The argument is advanced that disruption violates freedom of speech and press. It’s our feeling that rights such as freedom of the press belong only to those who own one. The same applies to freedom of speech; if you don’t have access to the media, all you can do is speak to yourself.If you seize control of a convention meeting you can create your own meeting, open up a real dialogue, and have true freedom of speech. Genuine and meaningful discussion cannot occur at a convention in America without first disrupting it. Turn the convention into a political education meeting. The disruption is a protest against the elitism, racism, and sexism which abounds at any professional convention, simply by virtue of its being a “convention of professionals.” (“How to be a Radical Therapist,” Rick Kunnes, p. 173 in The Radical Therapist, 1971).
4. The implicit assumption of (nearly) everyone I heard speak was so blatantly reformist that it was uncomfortably stifling. Apply above quote (again) and see below for a specific element of the conference that lacked the critical framework that more radical efforts and thinking necessitates.
5. The sub-theme of this conference was apparently our roles as “consumer activists,” “informed” ones—by the end of the conference—I suppose. This was the outro tagline that summit director Prof. Deborah Dwork provided in an interview prior to the event, “Our point is consumer activism, we have a role, we have a voice, and through our pocketbooks, we have a vote.” Of course, really questioning the design, paradigm, or concept of “consumer activism” was entirely off the table.
My partner (in life, crime, revolution, and conference-going) pushed this a bit in one session led by a Clark professor and representative from the Enough Project, but his points—I believe—were deemed too off-topic to be acknowledged by the discussion. So much for real debate about activism, let alone informed activism. The confluence of “consumer activism” and activism is disheartening (similar to the confluence of NGO work and activism) and if the confluence must occur, I think it is a reasonable expectation to approach the tactic or strategy (of consumerism) with some critical thinking (if not theoretically, then at least practically).
Without getting into this too much, I will offer some thoughts:
- Practically, what more can “consumer activism” accomplish than creating a niche group of consumers who demand niche access to niche products that meet their “consumer activist” standards? At best, this means a change in production only to satisfy a small group of consumers (those who identify strongly as “consumer activists” and those with the capital to “vote with their pocketbooks”). How is this good enough? And interestingly, at this conference many people did speak out about the need for standards and certification (things that are unlikely to occur without government support, which means legislation and regulation, not consumers shifting demand), but no one spoke up to point out that the consumer-point-of-entry that so many were using and advocating for was essentially useless if the desired end result is legislation.
- Now, theoretically (and this is over-simplified for the sake of space AND my tired brain), “consumer activism” places all agency onto individuals as consumers, which robs agency from workers (implicitly and explicitly) and civilians. This type of “activism” is privileging of certain groups, entirely neglects root problems, avoids real solutions, and manages to entirely objectify workers. Of course, worker and civilian organizing to improve the standards wherein our products are produced is the only long-term, sustainable, and broad-based solution.
- One other side note: our desperate need to say something about ourselves via the consumer goods we purchase, wear, tote should not be surprising. It is a logical result of the corporations spending millions on branding and marketing. As such, it is, in fact, to be expected that “activists” who have incredibly good intentions and wish to identify as “activists,” or compassionate global citizens, or whatever would turn to their consumer options. It is this phenomenon, I believe, that makes people so defensive and emotional when you criticize the theoretical or practical merit of consumer activism (it is their identity under attack after all). So, I ask, A) Do you really want to try to beat corporations at their very own game, in order to improve labor and environmental conditions? Hint: No, they will beat your ass. B) Is this really a phenomenon we want buy into and perpetuate? Hint: No, it’s gonna beat your ass (and further alienate you from your identity as a citizen and your relationship with workers [as if by design…Oh wait! Brilliant!]).
*At this conference, it is important to note that the outsiders—whom I was exposed to as panelists and speakers—were a very particular group who were engaged in various ways with represented NGOs. Please imagine how this might impact the characteristics and positions of this particular population of insiders.
** My historical knowledge on this is, admittedly, limited. Please do correct me:
President Kagame has been interested in the riches in the DRC for years. Rwanda, small and resource-poor, has long-experienced a somewhat porous border with its large, resource-rich neighbor. Rwanda’s army (RPA) invaded in 1996 to pursue Hutu fighters (essentially endorsed by the West) and then really invaded in 1998. While Hutu-Tutsi ethnic relations and major fall-out from the Rwandan genocide is certainly important context here, so is Rwanda’s desire to have access to (or to pillage) Congo’s enormous mineral wealth. The recent UN Mapping Report that was tasked with investigating the crimes and violence in DRC between 1993 and 2003 heavily implicates Kagame, Rwanda’s army (RPA), and the AFDL rebel force (led by Laurent Kabila) in the deaths of thousands of Hutu refugees in DRC.
(This is another example wherein overly simplistic narratives portraying the very good and the very bad guys in a complex political-economic situation have fallen very short. We all know the basic Rwandan genocide narrative and it is grossly lacking. For more on this and other problematic “genocide narratives” see: The Politics of Genocide. For the bottom-line (or the one I’m using today): oversimplifying that crisis as black-and-white ethnic cleansing has done us all a great disservice and has absolutely negatively impacted millions of Congolese. One would hope that US foreign policy operates with a more complex narrative than the one the general public understands about Rwanda, but evidence does not suggest so.)
Although Rwandan and Ugandan forces “left” DRC in the early 2000’s, their presence has remained strong, largely in the form of financial backing and security to rebel Congolese forces (e.g. Nkunda's AFDL rebel force). These forces are among those responsible for exploiting child soldiers, raping hundreds of thousands of women, and uprooting thousands of villages. The FDRL—Congolese Hutu militia—are also counted among the perpetrators. Together, these forces are greatly responsible for the massive destabilization the country has been feeling this past decade.
Kagame has long enjoyed US-backing (the 1996 invasion, Kagame’s membership in the “New African Leaders” club, etc.) and continues to (Obama’s state department requested immunity for Kagame in August 2011). Recently, Congolese president Kabila allowed Rwandan military forces back into the country (officially) to fight off FDLR rebel groups this as part of a deal following Rwanda’s arrest of warlord Nkunda—again head nods from the West. Since then, reports of violence against Congolese civilians have risen.
President Kagame has been interested in the riches in the DRC for years. Rwanda, small and resource-poor, has long-experienced a somewhat porous border with its large, resource-rich neighbor. Rwanda’s army (RPA) invaded in 1996 to pursue Hutu fighters (essentially endorsed by the West) and then really invaded in 1998. While Hutu-Tutsi ethnic relations and major fall-out from the Rwandan genocide is certainly important context here, so is Rwanda’s desire to have access to (or to pillage) Congo’s enormous mineral wealth. The recent UN Mapping Report that was tasked with investigating the crimes and violence in DRC between 1993 and 2003 heavily implicates Kagame, Rwanda’s army (RPA), and the AFDL rebel force (led by Laurent Kabila) in the deaths of thousands of Hutu refugees in DRC.
(This is another example wherein overly simplistic narratives portraying the very good and the very bad guys in a complex political-economic situation have fallen very short. We all know the basic Rwandan genocide narrative and it is grossly lacking. For more on this and other problematic “genocide narratives” see: The Politics of Genocide. For the bottom-line (or the one I’m using today): oversimplifying that crisis as black-and-white ethnic cleansing has done us all a great disservice and has absolutely negatively impacted millions of Congolese. One would hope that US foreign policy operates with a more complex narrative than the one the general public understands about Rwanda, but evidence does not suggest so.)
Although Rwandan and Ugandan forces “left” DRC in the early 2000’s, their presence has remained strong, largely in the form of financial backing and security to rebel Congolese forces (e.g. Nkunda's AFDL rebel force). These forces are among those responsible for exploiting child soldiers, raping hundreds of thousands of women, and uprooting thousands of villages. The FDRL—Congolese Hutu militia—are also counted among the perpetrators. Together, these forces are greatly responsible for the massive destabilization the country has been feeling this past decade.
Kagame has long enjoyed US-backing (the 1996 invasion, Kagame’s membership in the “New African Leaders” club, etc.) and continues to (Obama’s state department requested immunity for Kagame in August 2011). Recently, Congolese president Kabila allowed Rwandan military forces back into the country (officially) to fight off FDLR rebel groups this as part of a deal following Rwanda’s arrest of warlord Nkunda—again head nods from the West. Since then, reports of violence against Congolese civilians have risen.
