Africa Is Not A Country

Over the last two weeks I have been traveling along the Kenyan and Tanzanian coast with my recently arrived girlfriend, Kelly. This has been especially interesting with its fascinating Swahili culture and overwhelmingly Muslim population. Given the state of affairs in the world, I feel as though at least a few words should be said on this.

Until I caught a snippet of CNN the other night I had missed the story of Pope Benedict's inflammatory comments on Islam and almost forgotten about the quagmire of Iraq. All this despite the fact that I was traveling in the Islamic world for the first time. The reason for this is simple: it is totally and completely peaceful here.

When I arrived on the island of Lamu I was told that there was no crime here since everyone was Muslim. The same proved true for the much larger and more chaotic Zanzibar. Yes, it was nice that it was safe enough to walk at night, but more than that, it was actually peaceful. Things move nice and slowly here -- even the touts pushing curios to the tourists seemed a little more relaxed. Indeed, people seemed even more friendly than normal, with calls of "Karibu," or you are welcome, following us everywhere.

And this in a very conservative society. Most women wear ninja's, a garment that covers all but their eyes. The men for their part don't drink or smoke, dutifully reporting to the nearest mosque for each of the five daily prayers. Residents dedication to Islam became even more pronounced with the start of the daily fasts of Ramadan. In an effort at solidarity we tried it ourselves one day, and let me tell you it is no easy task in this heat!

So when I see clips of protesters in the streets over the Pope's remarks, I can't help but wonder why things don't look like that here. Why don't I see T-shirts of Osama bin Laden or graffiti protesting Iraq (almost everyone here belongs to Sadaam's Sunni sect)? Yes, Africans tend to be more pro-US than most, but this is more than politics: I am living in a seemingly entirely different picture than the one I see on CNN.

Here is my point: the pictures we see coming out of the Middle East are not telling the whole picture. Muslims are very upset by what they see (quite fairly) as persecution by the US. However, few make their politics personal and seem to inately recognize the difference between disliking the US government and disliking Americans. More importantly, Islam is not the violent religion that our media, government, and terrorists would like to think it is. It is an easy lesson to forget, and one I hope I won't when I return home to the states and those CNN clips.

I love Tanzania and am happy to be back, especially given that I now know a little more Swahili than I did when I came three years ago. So I hate to skip over talking about the country in favor of another but that is exactly what I am going to have to do. For when I was in Arusha in northern Tanzania I sat in on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR.)

The ICTR was mandated by the United Nations to prosecute those who mastermided the Rwandan genocide of 1994 in which over 800,000 people were killed. The crime of genocide is any action that has the intent of destroying a particular group of people (in this case it was Tutsi's and moderate Hutu's, the two main tribes in Rwanda.) Some time has passed since the first trial started in 1997, so it is not surprising that individual donor nations (the US in particular) have grown tired of pumping millions into this never-ending process and have insisted that the entire process be completed within the next two years. However, on my arrival they were exactly half-way done: 28 trials down (25 convictions and 3 acquitals), 28 to go. The guilty plea and conviction of former Prime Minister Kambanda were both firsts; quite literally this court was history in the making.

It was quite a process getting through security and all, especially given my unintended but interesting detour into a locked down wing of the building. After escaping I was given a headset that translated the proceedings into three languages (English, French, and Kinyarwanda) and shown into the glassed-in viewing room. The courtrooms were very nice, and crowded with a wide array of technology and lawyers. Obviously attire was formal with lots of black robes, red vestments, white scarves, and even a few old fashioned whigs. Even the supposedly "indigent" accused sported fancy suits and nice watches; indeed, this trial in Tanzania would be the best they could hope for for the rest of their lives...

The first case I observed was wrought with theatrical legal wrangling and discrepencies over page numbers, but was quite fascinating when they got down to the business at hand. The witness had written a book about his experience during the genocide, and interestingly, he was there as a defense witness for one of the accused despite losing several of his own family members in the killing. The other trial that I followed was hearing its 67th witness, a woman who's husband had been a prominent politican and was killed immediately after the fighting began. She spoke poignantly about the events of that day, from the UN's abandonment of 2,000 refugees to his soon-after abduction by members of the Presidential Guard. The woman clearly placed blame both at the feet of the accused and the very institution that was trying them (more on this in a minute.) On the cross-examination the defence desperately threw up several alternative theory's to her story, none of them convincing anyone.

When one of my fellow observers asked for my thoughts on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda over lunch, she got an earful. Namely the troubling starting point of the same international body that failed to stop the genocide being placed in the position of determining who was responsible for the murder of the 800,000 Rwandans. This fact created a dangerous dynamic in which the court had an inherent motive of wanting to convict and blame the accused. And this in a conflict that I believed was more a chaotic orgy of killing than a well-ordered master plot for genocide; one of the witnesses insisted on using the term "hoodlum" rather than genocidaire for this very reason. That said, there is a need to hold the bosses accountable and strike a blow to the "culture of impunity" and blind obediance to authority that the court said allowed the genocide to occur. In many ways this would be the biggest impact that the court could hope to have, seeking to deter future human rights abuses with the message that leaders would be brought to (western) justice. Or as my lunch-date and I concluded, the world needed the ICTR, Rwandan's needed the gacacas, or the traditional courts operating back home. But I will be a little more confident in this opinion once I visit the country for myself next month...

"Give me money!" "Give me sweet!" "Give me pen!" "Where is my pension?" These were the calls that followed me throughout Malawi. Not only from children either, with adults getting into the act, asking me to buy them new shoes, put them through school, or even build them a church or a school! This is not to imply that they weren't present in other countries, but they seemed especially constant in this small southern African country, self-dubbed "the warm heart of Africa" (which, I should note, in many ways it is with friendly, outgoing, hospitable people...) These pleas shouldn't be surprising given that most Malawians live on a dollar a day and that mzungus (whites) have deep (or at least relatively deep) pockets. What concerns me though is how these fairly innocent statements point to a sense of dependency on, entitlement to, and helplessness without handouts from others. That can have a very real and debilitating effect on a culture. So where does this come from? Was it from the tourists? The aid workers? To me each group seemed to be equal contributors to this problem (not an exciting prospect as I managed to qualify as both of these culprits...)

Malawi's tourism industry has slumped significantly in recent years, seemingly coinciding with the disclosure that Lake Malawi did in fact have a high incidence rate of the disease bilharzia. But while the number tourists has decreased, the number of Malawians who are dependent on the industry has not. Evidence Cape Maclear, one-time traveler byword for fun in the sun. Now it is the definition of a backpacker ghetto, with crowds of "beachboys" pushing cheap carvings, paintings, guided trips, and, of course, everyone and their mother (literally) selling "dagga," or weed. The travelers themselves are largely to blame, many times seeming to enjoy the sleeze and failing to consider the impact of their actions on such a delicate environment. Even the well-meaning practice of giving pens, sweets, and money to kids has reprecussions with children learning dangerous lessons about race relations, becoming harder to parent, or even dropping out of school to earn more income. If this seems extreme, remember that the impact of even a few tourists adds up quickly in such an impoverished place. All this from individual travelers who generally start with good intentions -- to enjoy beautiful natural landscapes and hospitable people, learning a bit about another part of the world -- but it ultimately leads to what I see as poison for any community with the bad luck of finding itself on the tourist circuit.

The mixed results of foreign aid goes back even further. For three decades western donors purposely propped up repressive dictator Dr. Hastings Banda (a product of the US education system) as a bulkhead against the otherwise socialist tendencies of the region. This is an extreme case but studies show little immediate growth and most damningly, negative results in the long term. The problem with development is that it is ultimately self-interested, coming with many strings attached. Development groups hire their own compatriots so few of their dollars or know-how trickle down to the locals in need. They focus on the sexy projects -- bridges, power-plants, etc. -- failing to provide for the equally pressing needs maintainance and renovation. So things fall apart. And all of this is approached in a top-down manner; locals are not asked what they need, but rather told what they much do. This assumes that western culture has a monopoly on the knowledge of how a society should develop (because we haven't made any mistakes...) So foreign labor, surpluses, and dollars are sunk into various holes in the country with pitiful results, which are blamed on poor execution and even a bad work-ethic on the part of the local recipients. In truth most of the blame lies with this backwards approach to giving aid, encouraging these values of dependency, entitlement, and helplessness.

As I said these are not easy revelations for me. I firmly believe in the importance of experiencing and learning about other cultures as well as the need for rich countries to commit their resources to assisting the poorer nations of the world. And I still do. Once again we must beware the false morals of cynics who would tell us to disengage entirely and instead search for a better solution. There are both good and bad ways of doing most anything; tourism and foreign aid are no exception. What we really need is to reevaluate our current approach. Tourists must be more mindful of the impact of their actions and how they spend their dollars. Aid organizations must seek solutions from the people, empowering them to help themselves. And most importantly, both must put the interest of the Malawian people first in their minds and actions that follow. At that point we foreigners may actually be able to contribute favorably, finally allowing Malawi to become independent, self-sufficient, and prosperous. In the eyes of this traveler-volunteer that would be a much nicer legacy.