Mukesh Kapila

Originally, I had intended to finish up a blog post on foreign aid to Africa.  But I changed my mind earlier this evening after hearing a lecture at the Illinois Holocaust Museum given by Mukesh Kapila, who was the United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan in 2003, as the genocide in Darfur was beginning to unfold.  One can only begin to imagine what that job would have been like.

Kapila was one of the first whistleblowers. He was among the first to plug in the GPS coordinates of attacked villages into computers and to realize the disturbing patterns.  When he went to the Sudanese government, he was given excuses.  When he went to the UN headquarters, he was met with silence.  So he went to the world.

During the question and answer period after the lecture, an audience member raised the topic of the Rwandan genocide. Kapila mentioned a grim incident in which altruistic intentions went horribly wrong:

Shortly after calls for the annihilation of Tutsis surfaced on Rwandan airwaves, 5,000 Tutsis, fearing for their lives, sought refuge within the walls of a UN compound.  The local UN peacekeeping force let the people in and agreed to protect them.  But about a week later, the UN in New York ordered the local peacekeepers to leave.  Within a few hours of the peacekeepers’ evacuation, a Hutu mob had macheted to death each and every one of the 5,000 Tutsis and then proceeded to bury them in a grave no larger than the room we were sitting in.

Kapila concluded this story by making the point that it would have been better if the UN had not allowed the Tutsis to enter the compound in the first place. Had these Tutsis been denied entrance, they would have fled to another country, to the wilderness, or to any variety of places, and perhaps some would have lived.

His message was one of honesty: if the UN was unwilling to act, the UN should have admitted that it was unwilling to act. The UN should have told the fleeing Tutsis: “This is regrettable, but you’re out of luck. There’s nothing we can do. Good bye.”  In effect, the UN’s half-baked altruism actually created a concentration camp – it concentrated a group of people which facilitated their efficient murder, en masse (albeit unintentionally).

Kapila raised one other point that I thought was relevant to this blog: the United States spends $300 million each year on a UN peacekeeping mission in Sudan that, more or less, does nothing. (For this, he told the audience that we were stupid Americans. Literally. He yelled at us.) He argued that this is actually harmful, because it allows us to say to the human rights advocates that we are doing something, while we are actually doing nothing.  So it seems that this $300 million is more self-interested than it is altruistic.

Another example of this, but one that he did not mention, is the 100 peacekeepers the U.S. has deployed to Central Africa to provide logistical support to African armed forces.  Invisible Children pushed for government action, and the intentions are certainly good on their part.  But one really has to wonder what 100 peacekeepers will do more: stop the LRA or discredit the arguments of human rights activists.

Overall, I thought the lecture was disturbing in many ways.  If we cannot manage to be altruistic in the face of genocide, who are we?

Wal-Mart Comes To Town

Wal-Mart has expressed its desire to open a 150,000 square-foot store in my hometown. While some welcome the idea, hundreds—if not thousands—of “NO WAL-MART” signs have cropped up all over town in the past few weeks. The village government has held some public forum meetings to discuss the heated issue. 

Just for a little context: the Illinois suburb which I call home can be described as relatively wealthy. A few years ago, when we did not allow Costco to open up shop on the border edge of our town, Costco instead built its store in what is technically part of a neighboring village. So for all intents and purposes, our town still has a Costco... but not the tax revenue.  The nearest Wal-Mart is 13 miles from my house.

Many arguments, including the ones pertaining to Wal-Mart, can be underpinned simultaneously by both genuine altruistic desires and by self-interested motivations.  I decided to break down the arguments I’ve heard in this debate and separate the altruistic ones from the self-interested ones.

Here it goes:

The self-interested Wal-Mart oppositionist says:

“Wal-Mart would create more traffic, which would be a nuisance to me.”

 (Homeowner says:) “Wal-Mart would lower the value of my home!”

(Local business owner says:) “Wal-Mart would drive me out of business!”

“Wal-Marts are such eyesores. Yuck.”

“Wal-Mart will increase the crime rate. This will put a burden on the local police force, costing the taxpayer. Something could happen to me! ” (Interesting: click here)

The altruistic Wal-Mart oppositionist says:

“Yes, a 150,000 square-foot big box store might offer lower prices than the local grocery store.  But I am willing to forego low prices because I believe in local business.”

“Wal-Mart will increase the crime rate. Somebody else could get hurt!”

“Wal-Mart’s ethics are questionable. They treat their workers poorly, are environmentally unfriendly, etc. To me, morals outweigh low prices.”

The self-interested Wal-Mart advocate says:

“It’s unfortunate that local businesses will lose revenue if Wal-Mart comes to town, but above all, I want the lowest possible prices. And hey, it’s the free market.”

“I need a job. I hope Wal-Mart comes to town and hires me.”

“Wal-Mart will be a big source of income for local government. Maybe if they had the money, the village could finally fix up the park/library/downtown that I go to all the time.”

The altruistic Wal-Mart advocate says.

(Wealthy person says:) “It is true that a local Wal-Mart would be a nuisance to us all, and might even drop my property value. There are a lot of affluent people in our community, like myself, who might be able to afford the higher prices at local businesses. But there are also a lot of people who are not as fortunate. It’s easy to forget that relatively poor people exist in our town.  People in our community who don’t have much money would certainly welcome Wal-Mart for its low prices and job opportunities.”

What do you think? Which of the four lines of argumentation above, if any, is the best? The worst?

(Image of Wal-Mart from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart.)