A War to Save Lives
March 2, 2007
In his February 20 column, New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof wrote about his experiences traveling in Ethiopia with former president and humanitarian Jimmy Carter. His column, “Let’s Start a War, One We Can Win,” described Carter’s efforts to eradicate river blindness, elephantiasis, malaria, and other rampant diseases in some of Africa’s most poverty-ridden nations. He wrote, “Mr. Carter’s private campaign against the diseases of poverty, put together with pennies and duct tape, is a model of what our government could do. Imagine if the U.S. resolved that it would wipe out malaria and elephantiasis…What if we celebrated science not by trying to go to Mars but by extinguishing malaria? What if we tried to burnish America’s image abroad not only with press releases and propaganda broadcasts, but also with a bold campaign against disease?”
Kristof and Carter are correct in voicing a moral tone for a “war” that would save lives rather than end them. And while the call for humanitarian campaigns is not a new one, the time has come for it to be answered with a finality and aggressiveness that have not before characterized international charity. In some small way the Observer would like to add our voice to those with the common sense to know that the money being spent on the deadly quagmire in Iraq, as well the billions being poured into defense across the globe, could be better spent helping those suffering and dying, unnecessarily, from eradicable diseases in Africa and elsewhere. Campaigns against poverty and disease must be undertaken with the comprehensive vitality of the current conflict in Iraq.
River Blindness, the disease Carter is currently working to eradicate on the continent, is spread by mosquitoes that breed in the fast flowing rivers where villagers bathe and wash laundry. Over one percent of the Ethiopian population, close to a million people, is infected with the disease that causes painful itching and partial and complete blindness. One might be surprised to learn, however, that the disease is completely curable with medicine. On top of that, the pharmaceutical company Merck pledged twenty years ago to donate the drug to any who need it, until the disease is eradicated. So why are people in poor African nations still suffering pain and infirmity from a “cured” disease? The answer is distribution. There are simply not enough hospitals and too few aid workers to finish the job and eradicate the disease once and for all. The Carter foundation and other NGOs are doing their best but financial backing from governments is necessary to finally cure these diseases on a global scale.
While not every disease is easily curable, we must still begin serious campaigns against some of the infirmities that plague the poorest among us. HIV, malaria, and guinea worm have already killed millions, and millions more suffer with them daily. Families are broken as parents leave their children orphans and medical care is often inadequate.
The debate is simple: should we pour finances into developing and deploying new weaponry on defenseless people in the Middle East, or should that money go toward financing massive amounts of medical aid for African nations.
Think of the potential. The United States is spending 200 million dollars each day on Iraq. If only a small percentage of that sum was put toward saving lives from the horrors of disease, the world would be a better place as a result.
The questions may come down to one of morals. Are we too isolationist as a nation, too sheltered as a people, and too distant to care about the fate of fellow men across the globe? This does not appear to be the case among the general population when a catastrophic event arouses their attention. The outpour of support after the Southeast Asia Tsunami in 2004 showed that the American people are willing to give money and more to help out those who have suffered through a global tragedy. Columnists like Nicholas Kristof strive to rally the American people around certain causes with stories of genocide in Darfur or slavery in Cambodia—stories that shake our core and upset us while we eat our breakfasts. But Kristof and his colleagues can only do so much. It is the government’s responsibility to eventually guide the United States down the road toward action. If the Bush administration could generally convince the nation to support an unprovoked, preventive war as serving the national interest, than rallying support for an increased effort to prevent millions of people from dying of common, preventable diseases should be relatively easy.
Hopefully our government will come to the realization that something more than bombs and troops is necessary to combat extremism around the world. We our combating not only terrorists on the ground, but distortions of our intentions and what we have historically stood for as a country. When will we stop funneling money into military projects, open our eyes, and realize that if we want to stop issues of terrorism and anti-Americanism, it cannot be alone through a barrel of a gun.
The change must come soon. We must stop relying on an outdated methodology where conflict comes first and peace is a secondary goal. The twenty first century should be one of hopeful outcomes, not more needless death from war, poverty, and disease.