Luanda, the largest city in Angola, is home to over 10 million people. In addition to being the capital, it is the economic and industrial center of Angola, serving as the primary gateway for international business in the country. Despite this, there are on average only 27 flights departing from the city a day. In contrast, the city of Hyderabad, India, which has a comparable population of 11 million, hosts almost 300 departing flights daily. This pattern is reflected across the African continent, wherein large cities have significantly fewer daily flights than their similarly sized Indian counterparts. Kinshasa has 15 compared to Kolkata’s 204, Lagos has 72 while Bangalore has 388, and Dar es Salaam has only 40 whereas Ahmedabad has 137.

Flights are the primary means of international travel across long distances. People travel for business, leisure, and to visit friends and family. They represent tangible links connecting cities and countries. Thus, the lack of flights to a particular city suggests a disconnect from the global economy. Like India, the economies of most African countries are still developing. Yet, the difference in flight traffic between the two raises the question: why are African cities so much more disconnected from the global economy than Indian cities?

In order to answer this, it is important to examine how these cities have grown over the past few decades. In the case of Luanda and Hyderabad, both cities have added millions of new residents since the 1990’s, but this growth has been fueled by different factors. The growth of Hyderabad has been driven by job creation across a diverse array of sectors such as the IT, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing industries. Major international companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google have set up offices in the city, bolstering its status as an international economic hub. On the other hand, urbanization in Luanda was primarily driven by the fact that there were few other places in the country for people to move to. During and after the Angolan Civil War, Luanda remained as one of the only safe locations in the country where people could seek out economic opportunities. Meanwhile, the economic opportunities within the city are largely limited to the oil industry, which is not sufficient to create a diversified economy and generate enough jobs to support a city as large as Luanda. People moved to Luanda not because they wanted to, but because they had to, while the few jobs that created actual wealth remained inaccessible to the majority of the population, creating a city with vast inequalities. This has left Luanda disconnected from the global economy.

The situation of Luanda is reflective of a larger trend occurring within various countries across Africa, where countries are urbanizing without globalizing. The economies of many African countries are dominated by the extraction and export of natural resources such as oil, timber, and minerals. The vast majority of Nigeria’s exports are petroleum products; Tanzania’s largest single export is gold; copper and cobalt make up the largest exports for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Resource extraction-based industries generate demand for certain urban goods and services, but the jobs created as a result of this demand are often low-paying service jobs in the informal sector. As a result, wealth in these cities remains concentrated in the hands of the socioeconomic elite, which creates little incentive to build and maintain public services and infrastructure. Only one city in all of Sub-Saharan Africa (Lagos) has a metro system, whereas 17 cities in India have metros. Greater investment in public infrastructure helps lower the cost of doing business in a city, which incentivizes companies to invest and create jobs. Poor infrastructure in cities also disincentivizes tourism, which is another large industry that creates jobs and increases the demand for flights. Out of the top 15 largest cities in Africa, the only two with more than 200 daily flights are Cairo, Egypt, and Johannesburg, South Africa. Egypt and South Africa are the second and fourth most visited countries in Africa respectively, which helps to explain the higher number of flights for cities in those countries. Cape Town, a major international tourist destination in South Africa, has 113 daily flights, whereas Yaounde, Cameroon, has only 8, even though both cities have around 5 million people.

Historically, urbanization has been a sign of economic development since the Industrial Revolution. Cities like London and Paris grew rapidly in the 19th century, New York and Tokyo in the 20th century, and Guangzhou and Shenzhen in the 21st. In these instances, urban growth was largely driven by manufacturing and service sectors creating enough new jobs to entice people to move from rural areas to cities. This traditional pattern of urbanization is the one that most Indian cities are following. Mumbai’s growth has been fueled by the financial and entertainment industries; Hyderabad and Bangalore by the tech industry; and Chennai by the automotive and healthcare sectors. Cities like Luanda, Kinshasa, and Lagos on the other hand, have urbanized due to factors like conflict, climate change, and the lack of rural job opportunities, pushing people to move to the only areas with wealth in those countries. Yet, this wealth remains inaccessible to most people who move, creating a society with severe economic inequality.  

The differences between the wave of urbanization taking place in India versus Africa highlights the failure of many African governments to build cities that serve the people who live there. Instead, many African cities have been built with the rich elite in mind, with projects such as grand stadiums, statues, and high-rise apartments being prioritized over public transit, power, and sewage infrastructure.  If these countries seek to transition from being developing nations to becoming industrialized, globalized states, then they must redefine their development priorities by starting at the city level.

A child marriage is classified as a marriage involving an individual that is under the age of 18. In 2024 it is estimated that 1-in-5 women worldwide entered into a child marriage, with 12 million girls entering into these marriages every year. Most common in Africa and South Asia, the issue disproportionately affects girls, with many international organizations classifying it as a form of violence against women. Girls are often forced into child marriages as a result of factors  including poverty level, gender and societal norms, educational experience, as well as political stability within their home nation.

Girls who live in families that experience economic stress are often entered into transactional marriages that involve the payment of a bride price in exchange for marrying a young girl. In Niger and other areas of Central Africa, child marriages have been used to “settle debts.” In this same region, girls are seen as a financial burden on their birth family, with their only value coming from their ability to become wives and mothers. In Bangladesh, a country with a child marriage rate of 51%, the average age of marriage is 15 among low income families. The bride price paid to the girl’s family decreases as girls get older, encouraging families to marry their child off at younger ages.

Another common reason young girls are entered into child marriages by their families is protection. In nations that are experiencing political instability, violence against young women is common, and it is believed that a marriage will protect them. However, this is not the case. Child marriages often involve physical and sexual violence. Girls married before 18 are twice as likely to receive some form of physical violence from their husbands, and 81% of child marriages described their first sexual interactions as forced. In Kenya, girls who enter child marriages are 50% more likely to receive HIV infections than unmarried girls. In Uganda, where 34% of girls are married before 18, 88% of married girls age 15-19 have HIV as opposed to 63% of single girls. Additionally, girls who give birth between 15-18 are twice as likely to die during childbirth than women 20 and older. They also face a highly elevated risk of suffering from other complications such as sepsis, post-partum hemorrhaging, and eclampsia, which are all potentially life ending. Obstructed labor, another common occurrence, often leads to obstetric fistula—the development of holes in the bladder and rectum—which can lead to chronic medical issues, depression, and isolation among mothers. 88% of girls who give birth before 18 develop this complication that can lead to life-long issues.

Girls in child marriages are not protected from violence but are instead exposed to greater domestic threats. Moreover, girls in child marriages face social and economic hardship. Long standing gender norms are often used to pressure girls into marriage. Families encourage girls to enter into marriages so as to prevent them from committing “shameful acts” that might affect their social status. Girls are also told that they must become wives and mothers. As a result, girls are discouraged from pursuing an education so they can be married. This affects their ability to become a part of the workforce, placing a complete reliance on their husbands to be the financial provider. One study, conducted by the activist group Girls Not Brides, found that girls who enter into child marriages earn a lifetime average of 9% less wages than girls who marry after 18. Girls are also unable to get remarried in the future as they are considered undesirable. Girls who are abandoned by their husbands are left with no means of being independent, thrusting them into extreme poverty and increasing their likelihood of being exploited by others.

The detrimental effects of child marriages are obvious, but what can be done to prevent them in the future? The answer is simpler than one would think. Girls are faced with the choice of pursuing an education or getting married, as marriage requires girls to dedicate all their time to home and child-raising duties which are demanded of them. It is the belief of activists and scholars that if nations prioritize the education of young girls, and work to disincentivize families from forcing young girls to sacrifice their education, it will in turn prevent child marriages. In addition, by encouraging girls under the age of 18 to pursue primary and secondary education, they are able to enter the labor force and provide for themselves. This provides additional protections against furthering poverty but also challenges the strict gender norms that are present within nations with high rates of child marriages. As these norms are challenged, families become less likely to force their daughters into marriage.

It’s hard to say what the biggest generic “ecological” threat facing America is as there is much divide between environmental threats and conservation issues. Environmentalism has to do with toxins that affect humans and is much more anthropocentric, meaning it relates more directly to humankind. Conservation is more concerned with biological diversity: extinctions, loss of biodiversity and habitat, etc.

Recently staff writer Rory Hibbler received the honor of interviewing science-nature author David Quammen on his writings about the clashes between society and the environment. He argues that the climate should be our primary concern, due to its outreaching effects.

When habitats are broken up, populations become trapped and cannot relocate to adapt to climate change. He cites the frittilary butterflies in the mountaintops of Colorado as an example. They need a very specific habitat, and the particular wildflowers they consume are at risk due to encroaching snowmelts, thus endangering the butterfly population as well.

The butterflies are now trapped on top of the mountains of Colorado due to human development- a process called insularization. Scientifically, insularization is defined as the creation of islands of populations, and it’s a huge issue, although the general public typically remains unaware. Studies have shown that the more humans allow wildlife to fractionalize, the more interrupted ecosystems become. For example, the Three Gorges Dam in Sandouping, China created increased interspecific competition among rodent populations. Islands were created due to the disruption in habitat and certain species became trapped on differing islands. More dramatically, in his book Monitoring Ecological Change author Ian Spellerberg writes “the insularization…has resulted in species and population extinctions…insularization has both ecological and genetic implications and reduced variability has long been recognized as a feature of small and isolated populations.”

As Quammen stated it, this is one of America’s biggest conservation crises because “people can move, but habitats can’t.”

Once the need to preserve the earth has been established, the next issue is how to convince society of this. “The best way to conserve…is to mercantilise,” according to Quammen. While capitalism is grossly oversimplified in this question, will allowing people to harvest endangered or threatened species for profit work to benefit the survival of the species? The answer is, there is no answer. According to Quammen, there is no catch-all, one-stop solution. Every animal is different and while perhaps crocodile farms in Australia will preserve the Crocodylus porosus, it may not work as well for elusive Siberian Tigers of Russia.

Other incentives for conservation are “tricky and very important.” The “Muskrat Conundrum” is David Quammen’s term for the balancing act between human desires and wildlife conservation. There is a tension between human safety and ecological safety. Explained in its true detail in Quammen’s book Monsters of God, the impoverished (and often native) populations will remain preyed upon by dangerous predators so the rich can enjoy the benefit of knowing there are still lions, tigers, and bears in the world—as long as those predators aren’t in their backyards. Quammen says “we must have to deal with that reality.” The ethical fix here is to let the poor enjoy the benefits along with the strife of tigers in their village. Quammen cites ecotourism as an example of a way to “monetize these resources” and preserve social pressures along with ecological ones.

However, economics can only go so far. Another prong to this approach is by persuading inherent value to wild spaces left on this planet. Quammen believes that money isn’t the only way to convince populations to conserve our planet. Instead we also must “capture their imaginations.”

In order to conserve, people must ignite “aesthetic and intellectual” inspirations as well as be sensitive to economic needs. The poor and the rich must come together to share the burden and the benefits of coexisting on a planet of monsters.

Turning the situation around, there are also instances when the environment seriously impacts humans. One situation lies in one of modern science’s greatest puzzles: zoonotic diseases. David Quammen specifies with the term: Spillover, coincidentally this is also the name of one of his more recent books in which he discuses where terrifying diseases like Ebola and AIDS came from.

Where does #Ebola hide between outbreaks? Featured article @NatGeo @DavidQuammen http://t.co/0kUWTx41Zi pic.twitter.com/mSbCUxZbfg

— Dr. Thomas Gillespie (@BiodiversHealth) June 18, 2015

Essentially, many of the world’s most detrimental diseases came from animals that we share this planet with. The scary part is often times we have no idea how the disease spilled over to humans or what animal caused the spill. Take MERS for example, a subset of the Corona virus family. It’s a new virus that came from the Arabian Peninsula and it’s an especially alarming type because of its adaptability.

A man came home to South Korea from the Middle East and became incredibly ill. He was admitted to a hospital for respiratory distress and quickly it spread throughout the country. The question soon became, “where did this virus come from?”

Theories emerged, and fingers soon pointed to an animalistic explanation. These diseases are called zoonotic. They spread to humans via animal contact, dubbed the “reservoir host.” For SARS, the cousin of MERS, it is bats. But for many zoonotic diseases, such as Ebola, the reservoir host is a mystery. Lately Quammen’s work has been following scientists who are unraveling these mysteries.

Quammen explains, with each new disease that emerges we have two questions: where did it come from and how did it spillover to humans?

December 2013, a young boy in Guinea died unexpectedly. Soon so did his sister, mother, nurse, etc. There was one spillover from some sort of animal contact and suddenly 27,000 humans have died from Ebola. How did this boy get the disease? What gave it to him and how can we stop it?

Quammen’s advice for the last question is to “understand mechanisms of transmission and interrupt it.” Prodding further into this counsel, how can we interrupt when there are cultural barriers, ie the burial traditions of some African cultures?

“Respect those cultural practices and offer alternatives,” he said.

Compromise is key. Educate both sides of the spectrum: scientists and doctors trying to prevent the spread and indigenous cultures affected by the outbreak. It’s taken almost 40 years of research since Ebola’s discovery and we still don’t know what caused the start. Nonetheless, we can do our best to prevent its spread and the spread of so many other zoonotic killers.

– By Rory Hibbler

The scene is rural Kenya, in the rolling hills dotted with baobab trees, lush with vegetation and sprinkled with straw-thatched huts. In the distance are the shining metal rooftops of the border town where business intersects with the marginalized poor. Struggling areas of the world such as this one have been left behind by globalization and pilfered by agents of capitalism. It is this setting that attracts the charitable aid of the West for its ragged children, uneducated mothers, and AIDS-infected fathers. Helpless without international aid, these victims of disease, famine, and conflict need the benevolent and neutral aid of the messianic West. Left in the shadow of commerce and growth, sorrow blooms.

Modern corporations are portrayed as a blight. Infinitely hungry and insatiably expanding, they seem to seek profits baptized in exploitation, groping blindly from country to country.  Hefty dividends cannot differentiate between the efforts of unions and children. The toils of freemen are the same as the indentured.  The citizens of the world only see the harsh juxtaposition of the Congo’s mighty green forests being carved for the mighty green dollar, and it does not sit well with them.

The opposite end of the spectrum from the image of the dollar-hungry corporation is the nonprofit.  Nonprofits, charities, and foreign aid organizations exist for the generalized purpose of making things better, whether that means entertaining the masses, feeding the poor, or saving lives abroad. Relinquishing greed, they argue, allows for focus on the important things, thereby maximizing the good that can be done. Rather than worrying about how large the profit margin is, these groups can worry about how many people they are helping. There are no shareholders for charities. But, despite their altruistic intentions, do charities truly provide all the help they intend?

To call nonprofits angelic could be an overstatement. Real halos are fragile, and frequently these companies can betray the good they are sworn to. The strong rhetoric begins to break down when the actual results of all of this altruism are examined. There is a massive difference between charity and foreign aid having great intentions and having great outcomes.

Both disaster relief and many types of developmental charity have side effects that can mean life or death for both individuals and economies. On the extreme negative end, humanitarian aid can prolong violent conflicts by providing care and resources for the warring parties. As an example, both developmental and emergency aid have fed armies and supported warlords in Ethiopia and Cambodia. The prospect of receiving aid has in some cases caused the deliberate creation of humanitarian disasters. In Sierra Leone, rebels and government soldiers intentionally created “cut-hands gangs” to attract foreign attention through the press coverage of amputees. In Somalia, food aid was attracted through political instigation of localized famines.

Aid can also flood markets by “dumping” goods, which can undercut local production. In areas where corn is produced, for instance, large donations of the grain cause prices to drop locally; this in turn destroys the ability of local growers to compete. More indirectly, outside provision of goods and services can prevent those capacities from ever being developed on the ground. For example, physicians who fly in to provide medical care and bring supplies with them make local production of those goods and services unnecessary in the short term. Native professionals aspiring to work in medicine or community building leave for more fruitful locations, preventing sustainable indigenous services from developing. Even outside of an assisted region’s market, large inflows of donated goods can artificially cause prices (and exchange rates) to increase across the economy in what is called the “natural resource curse” or “Dutch disease.” Other sectors of the economy lose productivity as well. In the spirit of giving, charity too often takes.

Aid may be given in monetary form to national governments as well. These large donations in many cases do not end up aiding the intended recipients, however, because of corrupt governmental practices. Officials court aid organizations for financial assistance and, in many cases, put the fruits of this labor into their own pockets. Even into the 21st century, governments in developing countries are overwhelmingly funded by foreign aid (up to 70 percent for some including Rwanda, Mali, and Sierra Leone). Many of these countries are ruled by despotic and inept dictators who, by using foreign money for their own ends, further drag down nations they lead.

Consequently, the practice of placing foreign aid directly into the coffers of corrupt governments undermines good governance. Leaders receive their pay not from the taxes of citizens to whom they are accountable, but from donations. As a result, politicians are not accountable to their citizens because their governmental positions and own financial security are not contingent on the satisfaction of their constituents. Aid destroys the proper functioning of a democratic system much like oil funds in petroleum-rich countries support the autocrats in power.

The demonized straw man that is the modern corporation deserves redemption. In contrast to the caricature so often thrust upon businesses, it is impossible to generalize the motives of all firms around the world. Even if every single company only sought profits, that quality would still fall short of a sin. Although it is easy to characterize them as such, earnings and the corporations who seek them are not evil, even though it seems they are playing the role of villain in a Disney movie. The archetypal conglomerate is always polluting the environment, bullying children, or tearing down the homes of adorable old men. Interestingly, fiction is fake.

Capitalism also provides opportunities that charity cannot. Malaria, the great scourge of the tropics, is now curable. Thanks to innovation and invention, worldwide mortality rate for the plague have fallen 42 percent since 2000, according to the WHO. The infrequently lauded hero of this trend is business. While people like Bill Gates (who was a wealthy corporatist before he was a philanthropist) have wielded the mighty dollar to provide preventative care for those susceptible to the disease, the fact cannot be ignored that the cocktail of medicines and nets used for treatment were developed largely by business. These treatments are expensive, especially for the poor who need it most, but this is not without reason. The price to produce one malaria pill may be cents, but the cost to produce the first malaria pill was millions. In addition to this huge initial cost, breaking into a market thousands of miles away is difficult, and it is wrong to ignore all of the efforts involved. While making a profit on medication is morally questionable, without corporations, there would be no malaria medicine.

Throwing hundreds of fish at a man does not make him a fisherman, but it does hurt everyone selling fish. To call a job a social program may seem callous, but that does not make it any less accurate. To profit off pills may raise an eyebrow, but it does not bury a child. It is only through a combination of charity and capitalism that these deep problems can be solved.

Poverty and hunger are heart breaking, and a response is obligatory. But grief and overwhelming concern is better channeled into thought, not just dollars. Harvard law professor David Kennedy writes, “Humanitarianism tempts us to hubris, to an idolatry about our intentions and routines, to the conviction that we know more than we do about what justice can be.” The biggest barrier to effective aid is our own ignorance. As Rwandan President Paul Kagame puts it, Westerners should “have a heart for the poor. But they also need to have a mind for the poor.”

Hammad Khalid

In an ideal world, epidemics would never happen. Barring that impossibility, epidemics would be resolvable, and sources would be identified and contained, as was the case in London 160 years ago.

Great Britain in the 1850s was a conflict-heavy nation. Indian citizens had started revolting against British colonial rule, which would eventually lead to the dissolution of the Mughal Empire. The Crimean War was about to begin. In the United States, Bleeding Kansas had just begun, and Abraham Lincoln was rapidly rising from small-town lawyer to prominent politician.

On the home front, Britain was struggling with a new scourge: cholera. Dr. John Snow, an obstetrician with an investigative bent, had long believed that contaminated water was the source of cholera outbreaks. Politicians and peers were less than receptive to these claims, despite the fact that cholera spread worldwide in the 1800s, causing a pandemic of the worst sort. Snow consequently sought a way to prove his detractors wrong, and became the father of epidemiology, or the study of diseases, in the process.

Cholera first reared its ugly head in Britain around 1831, when Snow was fresh out of medical school. Between 1831 and the 1854 outbreak in London, tens of thousands of people died. Most doctors at the time believed that cholera was caused by breathing a “miasma in the atmosphere,” or inhalation of noxious, disease-carrying air. As such, cholera would have been impossible to contain, much less eradicate. While it is true that some diseases are airborne, it is decidedly not the case for diseases such as cholera and Ebola.

Snow began to investigate the differences between those people afflicted with the disease and those without it. He contrasted the habits of the afflicted and the healthy, and cross-referenced those habits with his own hypothesis about water contamination. Eventually, having established that diseased individuals obtained water from a pump on Broad Street, and that individuals without the disease obtained water from a pump in Soho, Snow was able to take his research to town officials. He convinced them to take the handle off the pump on Broad Street (believed to have been contaminated when a mother washed her baby’s diaper in a town well). Since no one could use the contaminated pump, new cases of cholera abated. Snow had set his reputation in stone.

The technologies and research methods in the employ of modern epidemiologists far eclipse those available to Snow. However, both Snow and epidemiologists of the 21st century are concerned with the etiology, or origins, of any given disease. Diseases are classified based upon their prevalence in any given community. A disease is therefore endemic to a region when it exists permanently in a region or population. It only reaches the level of an epidemic when the numbers of actual instances of a disease far outpace the expected occurrence of that disease.  The pandemic level is reached when a disease is spread on a global scale. The Black Death, which killed a quarter of Europe’s population during the 1300s, is likely the most famous pandemic to date. The 2003 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome is also considered a pandemic, as it spread from Hong Kong to several other countries courtesy of international travel.

Today, the world stands in awe of a different disease: Ebola. Unlike SARS, Ebola is not an airborne disease. Rather, Ebola is spread through physical contact with body fluids including, but not limited to, saliva, sweat, and tears. If you have a cut on your hand, and shake hands with a sweaty Ebola victim, it is entirely possible to become infected. As such, it is easy for Ebola to spread, particularly in those regions with poorer sanitation practices.

Yet, that a February outbreak in the small West African nation of Guinea could spread so far so quickly has taken the world by surprise. By all accounts, this is the deadliest Ebola epidemic ever recorded.

Ebola hemorrhagic fever is a human disease caused by the Ebola virus. The disease is usually acquired when a person comes into contact with the blood of an infected animal such as a monkey or fruit bat. Once a human is infected, contagion is highly likely through direct contact with bodily fluids. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the virus can take anywhere from two to 21 days to incubate and cause symptoms. Therefore, an infected individual may not know that he or she has been infected until a future date. Symptoms typically include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle pains, and headaches, while the fever and internal bleeding attendant to the disease cause death.

Over 5,300 cases of Ebola have been reported in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, and Senegal, including over 3,000 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. This particular strain of Ebola virus, known as the Zaire strain, originated in Guinea and has a 90 percent mortality rate. While there have been other Ebola outbreaks in the past, this case seems especially perilous for multiple reasons. Even though Ebola does not have a cure or vaccine, mortality rates drop dramatically with early medical intervention. However, in countries like Guinea, where medical infrastructure is poor, the spread of a disease can be rapid and devastating.

The international attention bestowed upon West African countries afflicted with Ebola is bringing deeply-rooted societal problems to light, including a lack of healthcare education, as evidenced by a widespread fear of Ebola and subsequent refusal to accept medical care from international relief organizations. This refusal of medical aid is caused by a variety of factors. Some are mistakenly associating the appearance of foreign medical professionals with the presence of Ebola. In other words, they are falling prey to the common logical fallacy of “correlation proves causation” by believing that health workers are somehow causing the Ebola virus to spread.

Fear of health workers is perpetuating the rapid spread of the disease, creating a second crisis. When villagers flee at the sight of a Red Cross truck screaming, “Ebola, Ebola!” as they run, it is no surprise that health workers are having trouble enforcing the containment of the disease.

In fact, the hostility against foreign medical professionals has grown so much in West Africa that workers say they are now battling resentment and aggression in addition to the deadly Ebola virus. Medical professionals from organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and the World Health Organization have been threatened with stones and machetes. Vehicles are surrounded by hostile mobs. Log barriers across dirt roads block health workers from reaching villages where medical attention is needed.

Some West African social and cultural practices may also be expediting the spread of the virus. For instance, the stigma associated with contracting Ebola discourages patients from seeking medical attention that can help them overcome the infection in its early stages. Furthermore, certain funeral practices that involve touching the deceased may be accelerating the spread of the disease.

Although medical care is urgently needed, it is also crucial to address the relevant public health aspects of the outbreak, such as informing Africans about proper prevention methods. After all, the best way to survive the disease is to avoid infection in the first place. The Ugandan government has made efforts to address the stigma of Ebola by creating a network of survivors to educate the public about the disease. Hopefully, with additional similar measures that replace fear and misperceptions with concrete knowledge, the outbreak will have a greater chance of successful containment.

The recent Enterovirus 68 outbreak in 45 U.S. states has proven that the developed world is not immune to epidemics, though. While strains of enterovirus circulate every year, this year has seen a spike in the number of children affected. The first cases were reported to the CDC last month in Kansas City and Chicago. Since then, over half of all confirmed cases in those two cities have been children with a history of wheezing or asthma, according to Anne Schuchat, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. The virus has likely been spreading quickly as children go back to school and mingle with thousands of their potentially-infected peers. Since its symptoms mimic those of an intense cold, parents are unlikely to notice the severity of the disease for some time.

Even though there is no antiviral treatment or vaccine for Enterovirus 68, the good news is that early September is peak season for enteroviruses. Consequently, physicians expect the number of infections to begin leveling off. As of this writing, there have been four deaths linked to the virus, according to the New York Times. Regardless, parents can prevent the virus from spreading by reminding their children to practice standard hygienic procedures such as frequent hand washing.

Unlike Enterovirus 68, Ebola does not spread easily in regions with high sanitation practices and prolific health communications. For one thing, Ebola can only be passed on by an infected individual who is exhibiting symptoms. Given that an infected person with symptoms in the United States would be isolated almost immediately, the chances of the disease spreading are minimal. Furthermore, the U.S. population is receptive to the advice of healthcare professionals. Suggestions made by organizations like the CDC are likely to be adhered to. Quite frankly, the chances of catching Ebola in the United States are far slimmer than the chances of dying on a rollercoaster. Cases of Ebola will appear in the future. However, Ebola will not become an epidemic in the United States.

Diseases cannot be eradicated under most circumstances. Smallpox is the only disease to have been completely obliterated to date, a testament to the scale of the task at hand. That being said, the outbreak of any given disease, and the potential it holds to become an epidemic or pandemic is a daunting prospect on its own. Diseases carry with them grim prospects and portend fear far and wide. Health promotion and communication are therefore of the utmost importance in preventing and containing epidemics of all kinds, ranging from cholera to Ebola.

By: Melanie Kent

Over a hundred years ago, Joseph Conrad wrote a novel about life as an ivory transporter down the Congo River in Central Africa. This novel, Heart of Darkness, perpetuates racist, imperialistic views of a barbarian Africa which high school and college students across America are quick to condemn.

However, although many consider themselves more educated and open-minded than in the past, powerful hidden assumptions about the continent still exist. Most Western references to Africa are framed in homogenous terms and limited to conflict, poverty, and hunger. The main reason Africa seems dark to the West is not because of the lack of education or electricity within it, but because of basic ignorance about it.

Asking the politically incorrect question, “Why is Africa so backwards?” gives both logical and condemning answers.

Three main factors have historically limited the development of the continent.

Geology of the region prevented farming, particularly in arid regions like the Sahara, so that settled agriculture could not be sustained. Poor soils were quickly exhausted and land was difficult to clear because of rainforest growth. Development of metal tools parallel to that in other regions was blocked by a scarcity of coal for iron-smelting (making iron rare and expensive). Diseases, particularly malaria and sleeping sickness, were prevalent in the warm, moist sub-Saharan regions, and kept human and livestock populations relatively small. Despite these limitations, the continent actually experienced a renaissance during the European Dark Ages.

However, the emergence of an extensive intracontinental and then transatlantic slave trade devastated the continent. In the 400 years up to 1900, 11-13 million people were taken into captivity. Apart from the terrible loss of life associated with the trade, this phenomenon disrupted complex systems of government across the continent, cut potential economic growth and disrupted trade networks, created instability and encouraged raiding, and shattered the generational links transferring agricultural knowledge, oral history and literature, and technical skills.

Colonization (beginning with an invasion of Egypt by Napoleon in 1798) continued disruption and turmoil on the continent in new ways. European powers decided to jointly organize the carving of the continent to avoid a war among themselves, and in 1885 at the Berlin Conference, they established a plan for what would by 1900 mean colonial domination of the entire continent, minus Ethiopia.

Colonization had a powerfully negative impact, not only due to the violent administration of the continent, but also because of devaluing of cultures within Africa. The attitudes of Europeans toward Africa were formed by enlightenment philosophers. David Hume expressed the idea that “There never was any civilized nation of any other complexion than white.” Hegel stated that Africa “is no historic part of the world.” This idea is rooted in ignorance about the oral literature, history, and record-keeping which amounted to a hereditary profession in many areas. Europeans couldn’t see much in writing, so they assumed there was nothing. For the colonized, this cultural derogation has resulted in a shame in traditions and rejection of customs and norms, replacing them with a Western ideal. For Westerners, this legacy survives in a general idea that African cultures are simplistic or crude.

The third major limitation Africa has faced came about only in the last 50 years. After World War II, a successful push for independence began, so that by 1960 most African colonies had become states. However, few to none of the independent states had government officials who had been trained or prepared to lead modern states, especially those predicated on inherited Western laws and institutions with their in-built norms and value systems. This disaster is the culprit of the modern stunting of the continent. Corruption, dictatorial abuses of power, and failing or nonexistent infrastructure are only a few of the enduring consequences.

This being said, current trends are exciting and encouraging.

The population of Cairo, Egypt currently tops that of Beijing. Lagos in Nigeria outstrips Paris, and Sudan’s Khartoum is bustling with more citizens than Atlanta. Economic growth rates in Sub-Saharan Africa reached over 5 percent in the past two years, making the region one of the fastest-growing areas in the world, far exceeding the global average. Companies such as IBM and Microsoft are taking note of this growth and investing intentionally in the continent. Responsible for close to 10 percent of global internet use, the continent has over 50 million Facebook users – more in South Africa than in Australia, and more in Madagascar than in Ukraine. Cell phones sales are propelling Somalia’s economy, Nigeria’s Nollywood is the third largest producer of feature films in the world, and the hip-hop scene in Mali is powerful enough to drive political dialogue.

These advances in wealth, health, education, art, and technology are impressive given the challenges the continent has faced. But they have not bloomed out of a void. Mali, even from the age of Timbuktu, has embraced diversity and concentrated its identity on music. Somalia’s nomads have adapted creatively to a lack of conventional political infrastructure for centuries, and Madagascar has a strong history of sophisticated communications systems. It is not the Westernization of Africa which makes it cultured and worthy of respect. Add intelligence and humanity to what is termed “tribal,” “barbaric,” and “starving,” and you get a cultural heritage of millennia – one which the rest of the world overlooks to their great loss.

Developments across the continent are transcending historic damages, but Africa has never been a “Heart of Darkness.”

It’s Dec. 27, 2007, and the largest cities of Kenya – the booming, ordinarily stable, and most developed country in East Africa – are eerily silent and seemingly empty. You can drive through and buy a newspaper from a lone man at the gas station showing the face of each candidate that citizens will vote for as president later in the day.

The next day these streets have burning car tires, gunshots, and broken windows. Many of the silent people from the day before are either hiding out with their kids in the woods, afraid for their lives because of their ethnicity, or they have been silenced for good. In the following month, more than 1,200 of these people will be killed.

The chaos following the disputed election was fueled by lower-level politicians supporting the two candidates. One of these orchestrators was Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s current president. He’s being charged by the International Criminal Court with crimes against humanity, specifically by funding local militia in reprisal attacks.

But the case is stalling, and the West has more to do with this than they might think.

Kenyatta has denied links to the violence. The government of Kenya has been noncompliant in supplying documentation for the case, and witnesses have been removed or compromised. Kenyatta’s defense team is working for the case to be dropped completely. Earlier this month, in an unprecedented move, Kenyatta went to the ICC in The Hague for trial, but this only resulted in further stalling.

This move that slowed momentum on Kenyatta’s case has had the opposite effect on his popularity at home, however. The controversy over Kenyatta’s trial has essentially jump-started a support base for him in the next election as citizens rally behind their president against what he has marketed as Western imperial paternalism and intrusion in African affairs.

There is significant support for this view. The ICC has 21 cases before it, all of which involve situations in African countries. African leaders see this as intentional targeting. The African Union has been consistently opposed to the ICC since its 2009 indictment of Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir. Some countries, including Chad, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Malawi, and Kenya have gone so far as to ignore al-Bashir’s arrest warrant and allow him safe passage through their countries. ICC naysayers point to its neglect of other conflicts, such as those in Gaza, Colombia, the Caucasus, or Iraq.

The reality is that weak national systems for prosecuting wayward leaders are highly concentrated in Africa. These countries recognize this, which is why a majority of the ICC’s cases were actually referred to the court by African governments themselves, instead of by the U.N. Security Council or the ICC Prosecutor. The reason other conflicts are prevented from being brought to the ICC is likely the influence of U.N. Security Council nations in those areas of the world or the existence of capable national legal systems.

The ability of African political leaders to escape accountability for their actions sets destructive precedents. Significantly, it is against high-level officials (those with the ability to engineer genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes) that the ICC generally brings charges, and it is this same level of politicians who are most vocally opposed to the court. The manipulation of post-colonial tensions is used by these politicians to secure both their current positions and their

immunity from interference in future human rights violations. The implications are already apparent. Widespread resentment against the ICC has prevented any decisive effort to bring South Sudanese political criminals to the ICC following its civil war.

The actions of the West, however, set precedents as well. The feeling of Western domination is very present across Africa. This political tension will continue to affect international relations in important ways. The fact that politicians manipulate and misrepresent some actions of the West should not distract from the legitimacy of some of these claims and the importance of serious self-examination by Western political leaders. Asuman Kiyingi of Uganda put it powerfully: “It’s really a colonial context. We were a dominated people. For a very long time we have been taking directives from these people. Even on the economy and politics, we are hardly ever taken seriously because we are dismissed as a people who are incompetent. So, when we speak out, we are not given due attention.” Disrespect cuts justice short before it even has a chance.

In the spring of 1994, the international community witnessed one of the most violent and horrific genocides ever orchestrated. In the tiny East African nation of Rwanda, ethnic conflict finally reached its dreadful crescendo in a 100-day massacre that resulted in the deaths of 800,000 men, women, and children. During the colonial era (1884-1961) the Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa were separated by the Belgians based on the size of their nose and the color of their eyes, in order for the different “classes” to be distinguished between. In the lead up to the genocide, the Hutu comprised around 84 percent of the entire population, while the minority Tutsi made up around 14 percent. The remaining 1percent belonged to the Twa ethnic group. Beginning in the early 1990s Hutu extremists in the government began to blame the Tutsi population for growing economic, social, and political problems.

The genocide began on April 6, 1994. While aboard his plane, President Juvénal Habyarimana—a Hutu who was blamed for the divide between ethnic groups—was shot down by a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG). While there are many disagreements on who actually took the plane down—some say it was Hutus looking for an excuse to begin the war, others say it was the first Tutsi attack—this is largely seen as the conflict’s ignition point. The Hutu radicals spent weeks targeting Tutsi and moderate Hutu in the worst genocide since the Holocaust. America did not intervene, largely due to the Black Hawk Down incident in Mogadishu, Somalia, a year before. The Battle of Mogadishu, in which U.S. Special Operations Forces attempted to capture two warlords, resulted in 18 dead Americans, and another 73 who were injured. Fatigue of conflict made way for a limited U.S. response to the genocide. The fighting ended when the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), led by Paul Kagame, defeated the Hutu extremists. The Arusha Accords would officially end the civil war and establish a coalition government between the RPF and the Rwandan government. In addition, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda would try the genocidiaries for war crimes and genocide.

Today, Rwanda is at peace. Hutu and Tutsi live in harmony together alongside a beautiful backdrop of lush greenery and open spaces. Paul Kagame is now the President enjoying his fourteenth year in office. Rwanda has seen significant economic growth, better public health, and more adequate education. In 2010, more than 600,000 (a five-fold increase) tourists visited Rwanda to marvel at the beauty of a country once ravished with destruction. An influx of banks and retail helped the economy boom in the capital of Kigali, helping Rwanda enjoy a GDP increase of 8 percent annually. Life expectancy has risen from 48 in 2000 to 62 and the GDP per capita is two times as much, an increase from $575 in 1995 to $1,120 in 2012. The Crude Death Rate (CDR) is substantially lower, as is the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR). Women are benefiting from higher education and more political rights. All seems well in the African nation that became the forefront of despair during the early 1990’s. And what a story it is, like a phoenix arisen from the ashes.

Is this, however, the whole story? Is a nation that was so torn apart over ethnicity, eye color, and nose size so well integrated in a flourishing society? Digging deeper, one begins to realize that Rwanda is not at all what it seems. In fact, it may be more sinister than it has ever been before. Paul Kagame was once called, “one of the greatest leaders of our time” by President Bill Clinton and “a visionary leader” by former Prime Minister Tony Blair. However, the Kagame administration has recently been chastised for several major issues—human rights violations, support of rebel militia groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and alleged assassination attempts of former critical administration members. These dirty tricks lead one to ask if Kagame is in control of a group which took back a country, or if Kagame is in control of a group which took over a country.

Human Rights Watch, a nongovernmental organization that reports on human rights abuses around the world, released a report in 2014 that illustrated hostility toward human rights groups by the Rwandan government. The Rwandan League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LIPRODHOR) was taken over by sympathetic government supporters. Reports of torture and illegal detention have gone uninvestigated. These violations, if true, reflect a government that is blatantly disregarding several international treaties, human rights doctrines, and universal international norms. Amnesty International, another human rights activist group, reported that several key benefactors—the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden—all slowed their financial assistnace programs in light of not only these human rights violations, but evidence of Rwandan support to M23, a rebel militia group, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as well.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been engaged in deep-seated conflict for a number of years, playing host to one of the most deadly civil wars ever with over 5 million deaths. The March 23 Movement, or M23, emerged in 2012 in a rebellion against the DRC’s government. Rwanda has played a major role in backing the brutal M23 and allowing them to use government owned land for training. Amnesty reported that Rwandan military weapons and small arms have also been sold to M23 and the Rwandan government has provided intelligence and logistical analysis to the rebel group. The Kagame administration may have also allowed M23 recruitment within their own borders and assisted in the process. These actions have been highly criticized in the United Nations and by the international community at large. Rwanda has essentially provided help to a group that has massacred hundreds, if not thousands of people in the DRC. This sickening air of disregard by the Rwandan government has paved the way for assassinations, murders, rapes, and other human rights violations throughout their war-torn neighbor.

Perhaps most disturbing is the assassination of Kagame critics. In 2007, after reports of insubordination by the Kagame administration, Head of Rwandan External Intelligence, Patrick Karegeya fled into exile. A brutal and violent man, Karegeya was at one time in charge of hunting down Hutu dissidents in the DRC during the 1990s. After receiving threats from government officials, Karegeya began to fear for his life. He sent his family to the United States, hired bodyguards, and spent most of his time in the shadows. He did not have a job because he feared the Rwandan government would be able to track him down more easily. Karegeya was a man scared. On Dec. 29, 2013, Patrick Karegeya, a one-time spy master, was found strangled in his hotel room in Sandton, South Africa. His bruised and battered body was nearly unrecognizable. The Kagame administration has, of course, denied any involvement.

Karegeya was far from the only name on Kagame’s hit list. Former Rwandan army chief of staff, Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, survived two assassination attempts during 2010. A raid on his house by armed men (allegedly Rwandan) in March 2014 resulted in the South African government expelling four Rwandan diplomats and a Burundian envoy. Again, the Kagame administration denied any involvement in the botched assassination attempts. An interesting idea, given that he once said, “Whoever betrays the country will pay the price.… Whoever it is, it is a matter of time.” Defense Minister General James Kabarebe echoed this brutal dialogue in a speech of his own, “”When you choose to be a dog, you die like a dog.”

The history of violence began well before, Karegeya or Nyamwasa. Opposition parliament member Leonard Hitimana disappeared in 2003, his remains never found. Targets have also included journalists like Charles Ingabire who fled to Uganda for safety from the Rwandan government. A Human Rights Watch report  documents 19 years, just after the 1994 genocide, of attacks, detentions, arbitrations, tortures, and assassinations. From 1994-2000 Kagame served as the Vice President and head of the army responsible for rebuilding Rwandan infrastrucutre. Kagame has denied involvement in the “retribution killings” that took place after the genocide. This report has garnered interest from the international community as to what the Kagame administration is really up to. The lack of intervention during the 1994 genocide has played well into Kagame’s hand. Western guilt has caused a huge influx of aid which strengthened Rwanda’s economy and increased its standard of living. Aid and education are more widely available than ever before. The West looks like the hero. But the killings have not stopped, the targets are just different. The violence continues, but the perpetrators have changed. Repression is alive and well, just not as easily seen. As the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide approaches, the question remains: was one animal traded for another?

“Homo Generals Plotted Kampala Terror Attack” claimed a headline in a Ugandan tabloid in November 2010. More recently, Red Pepper, another popular Ugandan tabloid, used “Exposed! Uganda’s Top 200 Homosexuals Named” as their headline. Only three years ago, David Kato, an LGBT rights activist, was brutally beaten to death after a similar tabloid story outed him as a homosexual. The police chalked his death up to a botched robbery.

Though those headlines are from sleazy tabloids, they reflect the attitudes of many Ugandans towards homosexuality. Homosexuality is associated with pedophilia and the degeneration of society in Uganda. These attitudes have resulted in a recent anti-gay bill targeting homosexuals and any persons associated with the LGBT community.

On Feb. 24, 2014, Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni signed the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act. The bill, originally proposed in 2009, was called the “kill the gays bill” by the media due to the death penalty clause attached to it. As it stands, the law does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexuals, but does demand a lifetime prison sentence for engaging in homosexual acts.

This law poses obvious dangers for homosexuals in Uganda. The LGBT community in Uganda already lived in constant fear of hate crimes, but it is especially pronounced now that the government has openly endorsed a staunch stance against homosexuality. The law is laced with stringent, unforgiving language intended to inspire fear in homosexuals and any sympathizers. Worse, the language of this bill is easy to manipulate as some conditions for penalty are vaguely defined. For instance, the law states that “A person commits homosexuality if he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality,” Intention is difficult to conclusively prove or disprove in court, which leaves more people vulnerable to prosecution. The law prompts a very dangerous witch hunt, especially with clauses that penalize anyone who does not report a homosexual act.

Additionally, another lurking fear is the effect these laws will have on AIDS/HIV awareness and the treatment of the patients since AIDS/HIV is still largely associated with the gay community in many African countries. Uganda made some great strides under Museveni in their fight against AIDS; in fact, his 27 years in office have seen the most effective battle against AIDS in Uganda. However, laws like this threaten activists who work to fight and eradicate the disease, since organizations who work with homosexuals can also be penalized.

Understandably, the international community and human rights groups are outraged at the passage of this bill, and Uganda is paying a hefty price. Foreign aid finances over half of Uganda’s budget and accounts for 13 percent of its GDP, so the international community can have some sway in Uganda’s domestic politics. Norway has pulled $8 million in developmental funds, while Denmark is redirecting $9 million to private sectors.

However, Ugandan troops are the main peacekeepers in Somalia, which makes cutting the entirety of foreign aid difficult. The United States and Britain, the two biggest aid contributors to Uganda, are not cutting aid, but are redirecting it in a manner that circumvents the government. Nevertheless, we are undertaking a review of our relationship with Uganda in light of this decision” said White House spokesman Jay Carney. Since the bill passed, Uganda’s shilling dropped 2.9 percent against the dollar. The shilling was one of the best performing currencies in Africa, gaining 3 percent against the dollar this year, but after this bill it faced the biggest decline in all currencies behind only Ukrainian hryvnia and Haitian gourde.

Rather than succumbing to international pressure, Museveni spun the rhetoric to favor him. A spokesperson for the administration says, “in the face of Western pressure and provocation” Museveni has shown Uganda’s independence. Additionally, popular media is aiding anti-gay sentiments and this bill by making anti-gay sentiments synonymous to patriotism. Initially, the bill did not fare well with Museveni. He hinted that he would not sign it when the bill was first presented, even though it was overwhelmingly supported by the parliament. Then, he opted to steer clear of direct decision decision-making by engaging a a panel of scientists to determine whether homosexuals are born naturally or are made so by their environment. He signed the law in front of scientists who determined homosexuality was not genetic.  The flip in his stance comes as elections in draw near in the looming 2016 horizon. As popular opinions stands strong against homosexuals, he has more incentive to take a stand against homosexuality in order to remain in power. Additionally, this law distracts draws attention away from his Museveni’s increasingly authoritative authoritarian 28-year rule.

The bill is one of the most draconian in Africa, where only 18 out of the 52 countries legally allow homosexuality. African countries are generally moving to liberalize their economies, but they remain weak in protecting minority rights. Recently more African countries are moving towards anti-gay laws. In Mauritania, Sudan, and some parts of Somalia and Nigeria homosexuality is punishable with the death penalty. In these countries anti-gay laws are popular and the easiest way for incumbent rulers to distract from other problems.

What would you buy with $75 billion dollars? It could go a long way—a new house, a couple Corvettes, maybe a yacht or two. Even after all of those purchases, there would still be enough money left over to do it 74 more times. China has found an alternate use for this money: trying to buy China. Or at least buy influence in Africa. Since 2000, China has funneled approximately $75 billion dollars to the “Dark Continent.” This “soft power” approach has given China significant economic and political influence in these developing nations. Soft power, a term frequently used in international relations, was coined by Dr. Joseph Nye, a political scientist and former Dean of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. In essence, it means setting a good example by setting a good example for a neighbor, using moral and cultural persuasion to do so. In contrast, the United States has often used a “hard power” approach, by means of economic and military prowess. AidData, a computer matrix that calculates foreign aid, estimates that there are 1,500 Chinese programs directed at technological, commercial, governmental, and educational advancement in about 50 nations across Africa. These projects have supported everything from petrochemical plant construction in Nigeria to the donation of container scanners in Liberia to energy investment deals in Zimbabwe. This leads to a pressing question: what is China trying to do?

 China could be playing the role of the new big brother, helping out friends in trouble However, signs point to something a bit different—Rare Earth Elements (REEs). REEs are 17 chemical elements found naturally in the earth. Some are used for industrial purposes like lanthanum, which is used in lighting instruments for motion pictures. Some are used for more advanced purposes, like scandium, a major component in aerospace technology. Other REEs can be used in clean-energy technology and even cellular phones. REEs typically go into the computer chips and nitty-gritty technology that helps make everyday devices work smoothly. However, the sinister, and even terrifying thing about aerospace technology is that it is the same technology used in missile delivery systems (e.g., cruise missiles and ballistic missiles). The opening of two rare earth element mines in South Africa, a mineral powerhouse in the 1960’s, increases the speculation that China is pouring in financial aid to further its own strategic interests and technological advancement.

The fear of China’s growing power and influence was epitomized by the launch of a new “hypersonic cruise missile” in January. A hypersonic missile travels between Mach 5 and Mach 10 (3,840 to 7,680 mph). Current cruise missiles only have the capability to travel 500 to 600mph. This hypersonic missile test launch took place in response to a launch by the United States in May, a big stand for the Chinese government and possibly a glimpse into a crystal ball. With an economy growing at alarming rates, the largest standing military in the world, and a huge influx of economic aid into Africa, China stands to be a growing threat to the United States in the future. The abundance of REEs has allowed China to significantly grow their military capabilities—they no longer have just a few ships and a giant infantry. As demonstrated by the latest missile test, China now has the capability to deliver a missile faster than Geico can help save on car insurance. The Chinese monopoly of REEs boasts 95 percent of the worlds mine production making anyone and everyone who wants this material to go through them.

The opposite is true in the United States: a severe lack of REEs. This problem was outlined by the Obama Administration when they filed an official case in the World Trade Organization over unreasonable trade of rare earth metals in 2012. The case was resolved in late 2013 as the WTO ruled that China had to ease its trade restrictions on REEs, a ruling the China has vowed to appeal. As the manufacturing sector in China displaces the need for many American made products the terror of Chinese control becomes more realistic. China is attempting to bypass the third sector of economic development, services, and move into the fourth sector of, high technological services. If successful, high technology can be sold for very cheap due to lax labor laws and regulations. This does not bode well for America as Chinese exports to the United States reached $440 billion dollars in 2013, and the U.S. deficit to China continues to rise. If the Chinese were to have access to U.S. technology, weapons manufacturers across the world would leave the American technology market, and rush into the open arms on the other side of the Pacific.

In response to China using the REE trade for strategic military purposes, the United States has produced a hard-lined attack of strict export control measures against to ensure that their control of REEs does not lead to creation of the same advanced weaponry at a cheaper cost. By limiting the amount of “dual-use” technology that the Chinese government can receive, the United States can, in theory, control the output of China’s military technology. Dual-use technology refers to technology that is used in both military and civilian products. For example, certain computer chips are being used in both missile guidance systems and in X-Box or Playstation systems. These technologies have been in increasingly high demand, and have resulted in very strong regulations by the U.S. Government. Even a simple cell phone cannot be shipped overseas without a stamp of approval by Big Brother. Recently, Chinese leaders have been seeking more lenient trade controls, including: more access to circuit technology, transfers of deep water oil and gas exploration equipment, and increased access to aerospace and electronic technology. Their message is becoming increasingly clear: technological advancement.

So what does all of this mean for the United States? From 1999 to 2009, the United States supplied Africa with $10.1 billion worth of aid, paling in comparison to Chinese aid. Much of this was through food and health services by the State Department’s USAID program. Some money also went towards military intervention and counterterrorism support in countries like Uganda and Somalia. Unlike the Chinese, the United States has done very little to stimulate the African economies. While China was providing power plants and jobs, the United States has been working to eradicate Malaria and promote safe-sex practices. China has flexed its biceps as the big player in Africa, while the United States shutters into the shadows of the ever growing darker continent. While feeding children and building clean water wells are noble causes that should not be overlooked, one must ask if they are in the strategic interests of the United States. These practices have not increased trade in REEs between the two continents, and the problems in Africa are certainly not close to being fixed. Chinese influence is far greater than the United States because of the Chinese ability to follow through on programs coordinated towards economic growth.

There may be a way for the United States to achieve both of these objectives. The war for African REEs must become a two sided front—providing moral and ethical guidance while promoting economic stimulation and trade across the region. A concept Dr. Joseph Nye would refer to as “smart power,” the blending of different approaches to reach a strategic goal. As technological advancement has slowed, it is only a matter of time before Chinese scientists develop weapons systems that are similar to U.S. capability. The only seeming hope for the United States to stifle further Chinese advancement is export control measures and controlling dual-use technology. While these measures have prevented China’s economy from skyrocketing, one can only wonder how long the lion can be kept on a leash. With a military that is ever growing and an economy that continues to grow, not to mention a looming U.S. trade deficit, China has the ability to be the next big player at the table. As the looming threat of China begins to peek over the horizon the mighty power of the West can begin to see its door closing.