I have a lot of friends (and family) who are basically asking me if I really think that fasting for Bahrain is going to do anything?
I've answered in the same way each time: well, I am not sure, but I do hope so, and to be honest, a friend who I recently made and have totally fallen in friend-love with (Fatima), asked me to do it and so I needed to.
When it's about connecting with others, it becomes two-sided and I am allowed to benefit as well, and I like that. The conversations I've had over this week have been so enriching for me, building friendships that I will hold onto. I think human rights issues get called "causes" sometimes in a way that makes protestors or activists seem selfless, even holders of a higher moral ground. And I think this really turns people away from political activism, even urges them to criticize it. ("The same protestors on Wall St. are holding iPods...")
When I was talking with my cousin--a high-powered businesswoman--about the Occupy movement, her comment was: Nikki, do you know how many people at Goldman & Sachs would be open to a discussion about more fairly distributing wealth? You just need to reach out to them and make a clear statement, not go occupy Wall St, what does that even mean?
Furthermore--and I've seen this in the DRC--activism can go awry when you do not connect with people on the ground. I have heard many misrepresentations about the story in Congo from people whose voices are often valued sources on the matter--actors, politicians, and politicians’ spouses--which can lead to legislation like the Dodd-Frank Act in the DRC. This act was meant to make deals between miners, smelters and electronic companies sourcing minerals more transparent. But much of the criticism shows Congolese voices that say the Act ended up hurting them.
The Pole Institute, a Congolese think-tank based in Goma, put out a statement which is exactly in line with what people in Congo have told me about this issue. They basically say, thanks for the Act, it was a good idea, but this amounts to an embargo, given all the rules the Act has set up.
I've also talked with both Congolese miners and Mining Co. Big Whigs in eastern DRC who feel certain, more than just hurting the economy by acting like an embargo, this Act brought more conflict because it put selling power in the hands of artisanal miners, who are more likely and able to work with the more violent militias--which they have historically done.
It seems like this Act, which was such a good idea, such a wonderful way of trying to harness the positive potential in US foreign policy, could have benefited from a couple of conversations with local Congolese folks.
When I spoke with local miners this summer (in 3 different mining regions), most of them said they weren't consulted about the matter. I found two people in all who said they remember researchers coming through, but that they were operating solely in French and therefore couldn't communicate with really anyone.
The politicians behind the Act came to Goma this summer and I had a chance to meet with them. When I voiced some concern over the human consequences, they scoffed at me with a don't you think this was better than nothing, Ms. D'Errico?
I am not sure I do.
So while this sounds like a giant rant, I don't mean it to. I actually think it's quite exciting that there are politicians thinking about how their securities and exchange acts could affect countries in conflict. And I actually think the solution here--the theme of today's posts--is personal connections. Those are free! And easy to acquire, if you just ask :) How wonderful!
No comments:
Post a Comment