I am a celebrity and I want to adopt a poor African child. But why are people so repulsed?

I got to thinking about this issue a few days ago after reading a status message on a friend’s Facebook page that read, “I'm not sure how I feel about this whole "I'm so rich I'm going to adopt a poor African child" thing.” Today another friend’s read, “Madonna: please leave the African orphans alone..you worthless attention seeker, u are doing the world no good with your publicity stunts..clean up ur marital mess before bringing innocent african kids into ur home...”

Some people, at least a few of my friends, have a basic knee-jerk repulsive reaction, or as some ethicists have described, “yuck factor ” response to the news of Madonna wanting to adopt yet another poor African orphan. With the media flurry fanning flames of controversy, we itch for glimpses into the many unanswered and unanswerable questions. What is Madonna true motive? Is she simply yearning for some attention? Does she really care? The list of questions is unending. However, the bottom line is that we find it difficult to shake the thoughts of imbalance of power, class, socioeconomic and racial categories that the scenario evokes. Madonna, a rich white western celebrity wants to adopt a poor black African orphan.

The yuckiness expressed by my two friends, both of African decent, is most certainly not universal. I suspect the initial reaction people have to this scenario is dictated by what side of this divide they most relate with. I think exploring the reasons for our initial responses in greater depth and considering empirical information may lead to reconsidering our previously held positions.

Here are some simple basic facts. There are millions of orphan in Africa today, many of whom have lost both parents. The traditional systems of families and communities taking on the responsibility for orphans have in recent times been threatened by the HIV/AIDS. Millions of children are left alone to care for themselves and siblings, and some are privileged to be housed in orphanages. Orphanages are usually under-resourced, understaffed and teeming with children. I need not continue spouting statistics and cliches; but my point is that the reality for so many children is life in despicable situations. Some would say, "But can such children not have some level of happiness and satisfaction in their lives?" They absolutely can; the human spirit has a way of making do with whatever life/fate brings.

However, I have a very difficult time justifying depriving such a child of a chance of having a better life. I think having the luxury of stable meals, attention of care givers, and education, to say the least, qualifies as a 'better life.' Adoption is the least terrible of the few options available to these children. Irrespective of the dodgy motives of Madonna or any other adopting parent, I think the best interest of the child should be the ultimate trump card.

I am certainly not advocating for the removal of kids from poor families simply because they would have a better life in a richer one. The calculation is, however, a whole lot simpler when you talk of orphans with virtually no other options.

Unintended consequences- a lesson for Pope Benedict

Pope Benedict is in the media spotlight again. I guess we should expect regular international coverage, being that he is at the helm of a faith that boasts billions of followers. However, the perverse interest of myself, and that of many fellow world citizens, is not spiked by the gracious and noble achievements this holy man makes but by his major gaffes. Pope-related stories would prove boring if they ranted off narratives filled with things we expect from a Pope, but not so of a little Pope-scandal, whether real or artificially inflated. Hmm, sensational!

In January, the issue of contention was over Bishop Richard Williamson whose excommunication was lifted by the Vatican. Reports later surfaced of Williamson's controversial views, especially of his denial of the holocaust. As you can imagine, the response was absolute outrage from the Jewish community and many others. The Pope later released a letter admitting to mistakes in the handling of the matter. The situation was a real public relations debacle, which was blamed on lack of communication within the high echelons at the Vatican and the inadequacy of their spin establishment. 

Now, the Pope is visiting Africa, his first visit since assuming the position in 2005. However, the predominant media coverage in Europe and America is not of the great spiritual and symbolic significance of the event, but the coverage is about the potential public health nightmare the Pope's recent statement may cause. So, what did the Pope say and what's all the huff and puff about?

Pope Benedict is quoted by Reuters as saying condoms are not the solution to the AIDS crisis and may serve to "increase the problem." Since his statement was translated to English, there have been questions about the appropriate exact wordings. However, the message was quite clear: forget about using condoms, they risk making the HIV/AIDS problem worse. The position of the Vatican on the use of condoms and its sole support for abstinence is very well known; this stance has even been previously publicly ratified by this Pope. But the uttering of what is arguably a very careless statement is an example of an instance when the the potential resulting harm completely obviates any initial good intentions, however noble them may have been.

Here are some well known, dare I say, common-sense facts. HIV/AIDS afflicts tens of millions in Africa; millions have died and many more will die from the disease. Condoms, when properly used, cut the rates of HIV transmission, as well as transmission of other STDs, to less than 10%. Obviously, abstinence is the only full-proof method; but, as the world experience very clearly continually shows, it is not fool-proof. There is also no expert consensus that the use of condoms significantly changes people's level of sexual activity. 

I understand that the Pope is a deeply religious man, clearly with strong spiritual convictions, which he may feel compelled to share. But Pope Benedict is neither an epidemiologist nor a public health specialist and should exercise extreme caution when dabbling into unsure territory especially when many lives, thousands and millions of them are at stake. 

To many, Pope Benedict is a demigod. He speaks for God and has the utmost respect of many. I do not envy such responsibility nor do I crave the power his position wields. I can very clearly envisage religious poor African peoples led by some high-school educated minister latch on to the words of the Pope; abandon condoms and leading to HIV spread between lovers and worst of all to the resulting children. What a wonderful chicken-out excuse to be wielded by many, "the Pope says... so I won't use a condom." If the fornicators and adulterers deserve the retribution of HIV/AIDS for their sins, their faithful innocent spouses and resulting children do not.

The acts of a guilty man

The international spectacle that has arisen after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudan's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, is of little surprise. There had been a hype build-up in the media in the weeks leading to the courts decision, which set the stage for the current showdown. There was, arguably, bound to be strong reactions to whatever decision the court made, whether or not al-Bashir was indicted.

The facts of the matter are that great atrocities were committed against the people in Darfur and the atrocities were committed under the watch of President al-Bashir. With the overwhelming evidence, the deck was stacked against al-Bashir, hence, the indictment. It is important to note that al-Bashir is only accused of committing the crimes but has not been proven guilty.

Should recent progress in the region and the interest of peace have swayed the court to decide otherwise or delay its decision? It is clear that the decision of the court could not, and should not, be entirely divorced from the greater political picture; I believe the prosecutor and judge would agree. However, with the preponderance of the evidence against al-Bashir, the real question is not whether the court could have decided otherwise, but one of the appropriateness of the timing of making the decision public. I am in support of the court's action of indicting al-Bashir immediately after they came to the decision. If Bashir was not indicted now, would there ever be a right time? The human rights infringements and killings have happened and many are still suffering even today; these people deserve justice and peace now. The legal cliche, "justice delayed is justice denied," captures the essence of my assertion.

As for the president's response: defiance, jubilation and flexing of sovereignty muscles. President al-Bashir's reaction should not be very surprising. Considering his history, no one should have expected him to cower in shame and surrender. But firing aid organizations and confiscating their assets have only served to deepen the image of his reckless disregard for his own people. Though I am not a proponent of dependence of African countries on international aid, it is clear in this case that the government lacks the capacity or is unwilling to support the vulnerable populations, and these organizations play a vital role in alleviating suffering. There are already reports of meningitis in a southern Darfur camp, showing the first fruits of much predicted suffering to follow. An eloquent column in the NYTimes column by Nicholas Kristof calls for the international community to take action against al-Bashir and in support of these vulnerable people.

The ICC has sent a symbolic message that country leaders cannot act with impunity and should be held accountable. Though the means of enforcement of the warrant is not certain, the whole world has taken note of the message.

Moreover, the response of the African Union, AU, has been disheartening. Their request to suspend the charges may be one of the last straws that completely shatters my trust in the credibility if the AU. AU leaders have been aptly described as a society of rogue leaders trying to protect one another's interest and not their populace; they may be living up to that description. The AU needs some serious self-honesty. We need to start calling a spade a spade, and realize we cannot continue in self-deception only because we need to oppose the neo-imperialists. The AU continually denies, harsh but true, realities, and continually polishes its reputation of placating and dancing to the tunes of dictators and criminals. We can be authentic and independent from Western pressures but yet also self reflective and courageous enough to call our offending brothers into question.

A man convinced of his innocence would show up in court and present evidence refuting those of his accusers. What would a guilty coward do? Behave like al-Bashir.

An additional idea for the blog

Thanks for following the blog and reading the weekly* country profiles. It is quite obvious that I am not sticking to the earlier country schedule calendar in the first post. Unfortunately, my slacker tendencies frequently get the better part of me. Not to worry, I am committed to completing the task of profiling each country. I may not get done in one year, but hopefully before 1.356 years. Who cares? I have already learned a great deal and hope you have too.

Another idea I have to reduce the blog's rating on the boring scale is to introduce current news and affairs. I try to keep up with African news as portrayed on the international scene and usually have something to say, sometimes insightful, and at other times painfully naive. As I buy time to complete each country profile, I will intermittently post my thoughts, analysis and opinions on interesting current news.

Please share any helpful ideas or suggestions.

P.S.
weekly = a range from every 7-days to every 28-days

Botswana, Gaborone

Botswana

Botswana is a completely landlocked country in Southern Africa, bordered by South Africa in the south, Namibia in the north and west, Zimbabwe in the northeast, and a controversial Zambian border in the north, where both countries flank the Zambezi river.

Botswana enjoys a reputation as being one of the most successful African countries since the start of the post-colonial era. A few reasons for this claim include continued political stability in the country since 1966 independence as evidenced by decades of democratic representative rule; steady strong economic growth as evidenced by having the highest GDP (PPP) in Africa after Equatorial Guinea; and low level of corruption, earning the country the highest rating of any African country on the Transparency International ranking.

The story of Botswana begins in prehistoric times with the Khoisan people, hunter-gatherer "bush men," who have inhabited the area for thousands of years since around 20 000 BC. The migration of the more sophisticated Bantu peoples originally from current day West Africa to this area occurred around the start of the common era, leading to the marginalization of the original inhabitants and establishment of Bantu kingdoms. This migration was mentioned in the Angola post, and will be repeatedly mentioned in relation to other southern African countries. The Bantu-origin Tswana people formed several powerful kingdoms, centered in eastern parts of current-day Botswana. These kingdoms extended into the Kalahari desert, current-day Namibia and South Africa; the Tswana became the dominant ethnic group. Tswana kingdoms flourished in relative peace well into the late 18th century, when there were battles with neighboring empires over raids for slaves and other goods. Due to its inland location, significant European involvement in the area did not begin until the 19th century. Around this time there was increasing trade between the Tswana and the Cape Colony to the south, which was under European control since their arrival in the mid-17th century.

During the Scramble for Africa, Germany laid claim to the areas west of the Tswana territories, while the British, who controlled Cape Colony, claimed the Tswana territories as inroads to access areas of Zimbabwe and Zambia where they had interests. The Tswana area and other nearby kingdoms were named Bechuanaland. Bechuana was derived from the European pronunciation of Batswana; as is typical in Bantu languages, the Tswana people are called Batswana (singular- Motswana). Bechuanaland became an official British Protectorate in 1885 when the area came under threat from nearby kingdoms and from the Boers. The Boers were European descendants from the Cape Colony who despised the British colonial rule and formed a breakaway independent state. A compromise in the early 2oth century led to the formation of a self-governing state, Union of South Africa, which comprised the Cape Colony, Boer controlled areas, German controlled current-day Namibia and the southern areas Bechuanaland. The northern areas remained under British control; which represent present day Botswana. As a result of these boundaries, majority of peoples of Tswana origin actually reside in South Africa not Botswana.

Bechuanaland remained under British control until the 1960's wave of independence of former British colonies led to general elections and eventual independence in September 1966. Seretse Khama became the first president of a newly named Botswana. The prospects for the newly formed country were bleak as they were saddled with a dearth of infrastructure, mounting debt and an unfortunate geography, being trapped between then Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa, both not attaining independence till much later. Seretse was re-elected twice to the post; his good governance, anti-corruption measures and infrastructure investment are generally regarded as responsible for transforming Botswana's economy. It is also generally agreed that there have been regular transparent democratic elections since independence.

Botswana's economy is primarily driven by the mining industry. The country is the world's largest producer of gem diamonds, as well as engages significant activities with other minerals including copper, nickel and gold. Moreover, majority of the populations still live in rural areas and derive their source of livelihood from agriculture. Most of the landscape in the western and central parts of the country is desert, leaving only eastern areas for farming; these eastern areas are much more densely populated. In addition, in more recent times tourism is becoming a greater contributor to Botswana's economy. Large areas or pristine nature have been made into national reserves, the most popular of which is Central Kalahari Game Reserve.

However, HIV/AIDS remains a major problem in Botswana. Current statistics place the prevalence rates at over 20%, making Botswana one of the worst hit countries in the world. The government has done tremendous amount of work in efforts to control the epidemic as the country has some of the most extensive treatment and prevention programs. Nevertheless, the strain on human resources, health infrastructure and the economy have been significant and are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

Botswana has undoubtedly displayed spectacular progress since independence. The Botswana model is proof that wealth from mineral resources do (and should) not necessarily always invite the company of insatiable greed and mismanagement.

Timeline of significant events.

10 000- 20 000 BC- Khoisan people begin living in Southern Africa
200 BC - 100 CE- Arrival of Bantu peoples
1200 - 1400- Establishment of Tswana Kingdoms
1800's- Arrival of the Europeans to Tswana areas
1867- Gold mining begins
1885- British Protectorate of Bechuanaland is established
1910- Union of South Africa is formed and south Tswana areas is incorporated into union.
1950- Seretse, then a chief of Ngwato, a major Tswana kingdom is deposed by the British and exiled primarily for his interracial marriage.
1959- Copper mining begins
1961- Seretse forms nationalist democratic party
1965- Seretse's party wins election and he becomes prime minister
1965- Gaborone is established as capital
1966- Independence from the British, change of name to Botswana and Seretse becomes President
1967- Diamonds discovered
1980- Seretse suffering from cancer dies in office, after being re-elected twice, vice-president Quett Masire takes over office
1995- Government relocates "Bushmen" from ancestral lands in Kalahari reserves
1997- Constitutional amendment to limit presidential terms to two 5-year terms.
1998- Masire retires from office of president after two re-elections and Festus Mogae becomes president
2000- date- continued HIV/AIDS problem
2006- Bushmen win legal battle against government to remain in ancestral lands
2008- Ian Khama, son of the first president, becomes president, while former president Festus Mogae wins $5 million prize- established to reward good governance in Africa.

Other Facts- 2008 estimates

Population: 1.8 million, 35.2% are less than 14, and the median age is 21.2
Life expectancy: 50.2. M- 51.2, F- 49.0
Literacy rate: 81.2% (2003 estimate)
HIV prevalence- 24% (2006 estimate)
Ethnic groups: Tswana 79%, Kalanga 11%, Basarwa 3%, others 7%
Languages: English (official), Setswana, Kalanga, Sekgalagadi
Economy: GDP (PPP): $15 800. GDP real growth rate: 5.2%.
Cities: Gabarone- capital and largest city, Maun, Francistown, Kanye
Currency: Pula (BWP)
Internet TLD: .bw

Sources and for more information

Wikipedia: Botswana, Bechuanaland
CIA World factbook: Botswana
Infoplease: Botswana
Botswana History Page
BBC Timeline: Botswana