Kony 2012 - yey or nay?

Recently, I committed cyberspace-credibility suicide; I was moved by a cause and sent an appeal email to ALL of my contacts. "Buh bow!!", I here some of you say. Perhaps. Time will tell. You might be relieved to know I didn't pressure anyone to 'pass it on', questioning a lack of immediately shared devotion. ;-)


The responses from this email have nudged me in the direction of my first ever blog. The topic in question; Kony 2012. An awareness campaign started by the charity Invisible Children. I first became aware of this campaign yesterday when I received a youtube link to Invisible Children's Kony 2012 - 30 minute documentary. An 'entry point' film for getting up to speed on the 7 years of their involvement with the plight of civilians (mostly children) oppressed and living with the emotional and physical scars impacted by guerrilla group leader Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), and how and what their attempting to do about stopping this terrible reign of tyranny in several African countries. The campaign "aims to make Joseph Kony famous, not to celebrate him, but to raise support for his arrest", essentially supporting the International Criminal Court's indictment on him.

I was moved by this video to the point of a personal conviction to support it. My first action was to continue spreading the word by emailing all of my contacts, prefaced with a (possibly slightly insecure) proud reminder that I rarely do this, "so give it some cred". Some have responded positively and others (understandably so) have responded sceptically, mostly providing a link to an article that questions the likely effectiveness of the campaign and scrutinises the slicing up of the pie with the funds raised.

The purpose of this blog is not to try and convince you about the legitimacy of the campaign. People will have to make that assessment themselves. However, I am intrigued by the quandary generated by a compelling, (yes, emotive) video going viral and subsequent springing of articles critical of the campaign.

I've read quite a few articles on this just over the past day. Dealing with this situation and the mess of Uganda and the history of military violence against civilians and (what is most likely) a corrupt government - was never going to be a fairytale. A lot of the criticism is directed into a few areas:

1. Employing the help of or aiding the Ugandan military in this is unethical or a contradiction since it is well known they have a tarnished image with a record of their own atrocities against civilians.
2. Too much of the funds raised have been used for the film making and not enough use for the 'ground based' projects and programs.
3. The interpretation of the 'star rating' given by Charity Navigator as being a 'low' score.
4. The emotive style of the video is attempting a pitch at our western guilt.

So far, I haven't found many of these arguments / criticisms very compelling...

• Once the US military became involved - ignoring the existance of the local forces would hardly assist the diplomacy required for such action.
• The breakup of the pie is here. This organisation is completely transparent and adheres to all institutional legal requirements in terms of external, independent audits etc. This is openly an awareness campaign.The money spent on the film making and the campaign has obviously been used very effectively - averaging 10 million views a day on youtube since it's upload 4 days ago.
• Charity Navigator gave Invisible Children an overall 3 out of 4 score - their own adjective for this is 'good', not 'low'.
• It's interesting that some of these articles have mentioned guilt, but have never mentioned compassion - and the appealing to our sense of compassion.
  

What alarmed me was how journalists / bloggers would often add negatively speculative comments and accusations backed up by nothing. Others (as I have just pointed out) would simply quote something that was actually positive and truthful but twist the angle to a negative one.

It wasn't until I started researching all of the negative comments that I realised that (in my humble opinion) only a small percentage of the criticisms were backed by something concrete and were fit for healthy debate. No one has attempted to deny the existence of this horrible reality.

If this shocking violence doesn't stop this year but is significantly reduced over the next, say 5 years, then 'Kony 2012' (again, in my opinion) will have been a significant player. It's messy, not straight forward and involves compromises. It evokes an array of diversified opinions on exactly 'how' this objective should be achieved. But there is no denying that Kony and his evil forces are still at large making countless children's lives an absolute misery. I think this campaign is the biggest threat to Kony so far and is the greatest hope that these African nations will have in the stopping of the violence and atrocities.

This is an example of how cyberspace is put to good use. It's not by luck that this has gone viral, my guess is because people have been touched and have begun to believe that, along with world wide (viral) exposure, their meagre contributions actually have power, serious power in service of the force of good in the world.

Yes, there have been other campaigns that have failed in the past. Yes, there are other ways to skin a cat; Caritas are also involved with this, but in more of a support role than focus on the removal of Kony and the LRA. Perhaps some people might feel more aligned with that approach. Kony 2012 is just another way, a different angle, unique in that it's targeting more specifically the cause than the fall-out and resultant suffering. In my opinion, it's just as legitimate. When an accident occurs and we cut ourselves, we'll attend to the wound. The healing is necessary, but it's equally pragmatic to think about reducing the chances of the accident occurring again.

Fr Robert Barron in one of his blogs opened up the discussion on Christ's teaching about 'turning the other cheek'. He talks about how standing up to violence can convey a strong message of not accepting or co-operating with it. He looks at the classic fight or flight responses to violence and how ...

neither strategy, in the long run, really solves the problem; indeed both tend to exacerbate the situation, the first by awakening further violence and the second by encouraging, even justifying, it.  An ardent student of both the Sermon on the Mount and the campaigns of Gandhi, Dr. [Martin-Luther] King saw that there was a third way, beyond both fighting back and giving in, namely, the path of provocative non-violence, “turning the other cheek.”  The one who turns the other cheek, he saw, is not passively surrendering to violence; rather, he is courageously standing his ground and refusing to cooperate with the assumptions and behaviour patterns of his aggressor.

I'm not surprised that this video, having gone viral has sparked some 'cross-examination'. It's healthy I think. But just because these articles of criticism exist, doesn't make this campaign a scam, fraud or not worthwhile. Invisible Children Inc have a pretty comprehensive response also to these critiques.


Upon discovery of these critical articles, some might be tempted to resolve or say that this is just another un-accountable charity with questionable means. I say, just because it's being questioned, don't be too quick to dismiss it.