Since the Ebola
virus epidemic began in late 2013, almost 3,000 people in West Africa have
died. From the start, we have been chasing this virus, and watched as it has
affected the lives of thousands in West Africa. Efforts have been made to contain
the virus, but little impact has been made to curb the effects of this vicious
disease, which is continuing to infect more and more people. Sierra Leonean President Ernest Bai
Koroma addressed the UN on Thursday saying that his country “was faced with one
of the ‘biggest life and death challenges’ facing the global human community.”
This is not just a problem of Sierra Leon, Nigeria, Liberia, and West Africa;
it is a global problem, which needs to be addressed at a global level not a
local/regional level.
It has been ten months since the
outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, and we have yet to see significant
intervention from the Western world, such as countries like the United States. This
is a global issue, which needs attention from the world leaders but as of now
the issue has gone pretty much untouched by the world powers.
In the past week,
President Obama, along with other countries, and organizations at the UN,
pledged millions in aid and preached the message that an all out effort needs
to and will be taken to end this epidemic. But leaders of those effected
countries, and aid organizations, along with the sick have put little faith
into the pledges of these donors because of the lack of support thus far.
In many ways this
situation gives off the impression of a realist stance from the US on the issue.
It seems as if we are protecting our own interests over those of the people
in West Africa. Security first, ideals second, in other words the security and
well being of the United States takes precedent over our morals. It would be
ethically moral to go over and offer assistance and aid to these countries, but
it seems as if we have taken our own well being into account first. This idea
is of Realpolitik, only do what is in the national interest, with the idea that
fellow countrymen and women are more important than others. Why risk the lives
of Americans by sending them over to West Africa where they could potentially
contract the Ebola virus?
Actions taken by the
US in regards to the Ebola crisis seem to contradict our liberal ideology of
cooperation, rationality, and the idea that the individual is paramount. Where
has this idea of mutual assistance been for the past ten months? Why haven’t we
done more to help when we are the ones who for years have preached the
protection of the individual and the betterment of society as a whole? We the
US are the hegemon in the world today; we have the resources and money to
respond to such an epidemic that these countries in West Africa do not. And
until the US responds in a way that successfully makes an impact on the fight
against Ebola, we can’t say that we are a country who has strong morals, and
believes that every human being on this earth is of equal importance.
Works Cited:
This is a very good description of the Ebola epidemic, and you did a great job connecting it to realism. While I agree that the United States and other developed countries don't seem to have put in the effort they keep calling for to stop this epidemic, how much do you think customs or lack of healthcare infrastructure in these West African countries contributed to the problem (i.e. custom of kissing dead bodies, lack of sterilization and sanitation in facilities, etc.)?
ReplyDeleteThe United States' response to the Ebola outbreak in Africa can most definitely be described as limited. The lack of sufficient international support or healthcare infrastructure has led us to the staggering death toll of nearly 3,000 people as you mentioned. Now that their are documented cases of Ebola diagnoses inside United States borders one must ponder if U.S. officials now regret their lack of effort to control the outbreak. At this point the Ebola outbreak is now a threat to national security and therefore a realist concern. If U.S. officials had fulfilled their moral obligation to support the struggling regions of Africa affected by Ebola in the first place we would not be faced with this national security threat inside our own borders now.
ReplyDeleteWhat about self interest? This seems like a potential missed opportunity to me. Wouldn't the soft power of the US increase if we helped prevent/contain the outbreak?
ReplyDeleteI really like this description of this outbreak. While I haven't paid too close attention to it, now that it appears it may have or on verge of somehow crossing our border, you have highlighted a lot of ideas i agree with regarding the US's response. I like to have faith, however, that the second our government may feel that the population or a significant group of citizens may be threatened, that interest, funding, and measures of containing Ebola in and out of the US (resources) will increase noticeably
ReplyDelete