Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Rape in Africa : Who Cares?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in the midst of an historic seven nation tour of Africa. So far, her trip has been overshadowed by her husband’s trip to North Korea to bring home the two captured American journalists and by the health care debate in this country. The media seems to be interested only in her looking a bit silly while trying to dance with some Africans who greeted her and by her annoyance at being asked a question about her husband's opinion on an issue. Her trip deserves more attention, and the issues she is investigating deserve more respect than they are receiving. Remarkably, Mrs. Clinton went to Eastern Congo, site of the worst conflict since World War II. Five million people have been killed in this conflict since 1998. And, one of the worst weapons of this conflict has been the use of rape. This is not rape as collateral damage. This is rape as a tactic and strategy of the war itself. Clinton visited a refugee camp on the outskirts of Goma which is ground zero in this conflict. There she met with some rape survivors including a woman who had been gang raped when she was eight months pregnant. Her baby died, and villagers saved her life by stuffing her womb with grass to keep her from bleeding to death since there was no hospital nearby. Mrs. Clinton pledged $17 million dollars to help combat sexual violence in this ongoing East Congo conflict. Hopefully, more important than the money will be Mrs. Clinton’s presence in East Congo. Perhaps this will call the world’s attention to an area which the UN has already labeled “the rape capital of the world”. As I was reading the story of her visit in The New York Times, I turned on ABC’s Nightline. Their story of controversy for the night? Child beauty pageants. What is wrong with this picture?

Is it just that the world does not care what is happening in Africa?

Or is it that the world does recognize that rape can be a weapon just as surely an IED?

Or is it that, like Mrs. Clinton who was described as “emotionally drained” by her visit to the refugee camp, we are too emotionally drained by issues as horrific as this and would rather think about the problems with child beauty pageants?

1 comment:

  1. I think a lot of Americans don't care to make the emotional effort to truly grasp a lot of the terrors of the world.
    What it really ocmes down to is the fact that we are a surviving and competing species, and for our brains to block out that which may cause us depression or unhealthy thoughts is an instinct that can be argued to be fitted for survival. It's really all scientific, in my opinion, but in it's most basic form, we don't care because it doesn't do any good for us. This is especially true for average Joes who don't really have the means to make a change. I think it's natural for a human being to feel compassion for any other, but it's even more natural to repress compassion when we feel like there is nothing we can do to help. Otherwise, the only thing that comes from truly caring and having compassion is a sadness that is detrimental to a healthy lifestyle.
    The reason why Ms. Clinton came out of her trip "emotionally drained" is because she realizes that she can only help so much. She must know that she won't see a complete solution to most of these problems in her lifetime. She's taking on a burden that most Americans would not be able to live with.
    I wonder, however, if this would all be changed if we all felt like we COULD make a difference, individually? It's my opinion that a lot more people would care if they knew that it would actually make a difference.

    ReplyDelete