This post is in reference to the CNN article "Report: First confirmed Ebola patient in Mali dies"
The Ebola outbreaks have struck fear across central Africa, typically near rain forest and most recently in west Africa. The virus, otherwise known as Ebola haemorrhagic fever, has common symptoms of fever, severe headache, joint and muscle aches, and chills that can lead to fatality. According to the Center of Disease Control, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone have been hit the hardest of the West African outbreak. Between the three countries there has been a collective total of 4,912 deaths.
According to the CNN article “First confirmed Ebola patient in Mali dies”, a young 2-year contracted the virus in Guinea after recent travels with her grandmother. The girl was officially diagnosed with Ebola in Mali on Thursday, October 23, 2014. She was pronounced dead on Friday, October 24, 2014. The West African region continues to be hit hard by the Ebola virus as Mali has become the sixth country to report the virus.
The crisis in West Africa has prompted other countries and organizations to provide aid. Most recently, the European Union and China have announced that they will increase their efforts to aid West Africa in their fight against the Ebola virus. According to President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, the European Union will step-up their efforts to $1.2 billion to help West Africa combat the Ebola virus. On Friday, President Xi Jinping declared that the Chinese government will provide $82 million worth of supplies and emergency funding to the three countries in West Africa that are being hit the hardest with the virus.
As arguably one of the most influential and powerful country in the world, it is safe to wonder why the United States has yet to increase their aid in West Africa. Should the United States increase their aid just because China has? Ultimately, The United States is focused on the internal cases of Ebola that have sprouted up within it’s borders. The U.S. government has aimed their attention at containing and quarantining the reported cases. Though China has grown to become a major point of competition for the United States, it is most beneficial to focus on the cases in the U.S. Centering the resources within the states is ultimately more advantageous because as we have learned from the cases in West Africa, the virus can be passed along. This focus promotes human security in the states, this holds a greater priority than attempting to rescue other countries that are an ocean away.
Great topic Tyler! It is interesting to think about the US's lack of intervention regarding the Ebola Virus. Ebola is a threat to our security, but would it be more efficient to prevent the spread of the virus in Africa than in the US? As people come into the country from Africa (or other parts of the world) with the virus, it would be more expensive to counter it in the long run. If we focus on preventing Ebola in Africa, then by extension, we could prevent it from spreading to other countries. Because we woudn't receive the full benefit of preventing it in Africa, this could be considered to be humanitarian aid as many other countries would be better off. On a side note, because China is increasing its involvement in Africa regarding Ebola, is it safe to say that they are increasing their soft power?
ReplyDeleteThanks Ryan, Good point! I did not look at that perspective before. That would be beneficial in the long run to the U.S., as for immediate action I think that would it would be best for the U.S. to focus internally. I think that you bring up a very good point to prevent and contain Ebola in the future.
DeleteTyler: good post. Ebola fears are spreading faster than the actual virus and that can be seen as a good or bad thing. Before reading this article I did not know the virus spread to Mali. I think at this point the US cannot help in West Africa because so many people have died and the virus is so large scale. Cases of Ebola in the US are minimal but the focus should be here.
ReplyDeleteThanks, John. I agree that the US focus should remain internal as the because ultimately the benefits of staying in the US outweigh the benefits of sending resources to West Africa.
DeleteI disagree with your assertion that the US should focus its anti-Ebola efforts on itself. Despite the failures in medical procedure that led to the infection being spread to healthcare workers, our healthcare system and the arguably better education of the populace in how to deal with sick people will supercede intensive government intervention. The most the government needs to do in the US is facilitate the treatment of Ebola patients, not take actions, such as create task forces and hold press conferences, that make people think there is an actual public health threat.
ReplyDeleteYou said that the US government has "aimed their attention at containing and quarantining the reported cases [in the US]." What do government officials not directly involved with the treatment of the patient need to do regarding Ebola that would be of any productive help? The only justifiable involvement I can see from the government is asking caregivers "What can we do to help? Nothing? Oh, ok. Keep up the good work."
The recent actions and words of Governors Cuomo (New York) and Christie (New Jersey) are less motivated by a true desire to prevent the spread of stateside Ebola. The only "good" motive I can see in their actions is trying to quell public unease over the disease (heh rhyme) that has been instigated by the media sensationalizing Ebola and the threat it poses to the US (basically none), which in turn incites more coverage ("Governors Hold Press Conference on Ebola Outbreak"). However, their words and actions exuded a sense of bombast and constructed emergency. I think that a large motive for their actions was to feel important and get a better reputation with their constituents for reelection, and for Christie, for the Presidency.
You said that the benefits of the US aiding West Africa outweigh the benefits of staying on the home front. Since the government need not do much to help with stateside Ebola, and since unnecessary government involvement raises public unease and is a waste of resources, there is little need to focus on the home front, since the existing framework is completely fine, despite recent, improbable failings in medical procedure.
Therefore, if there are no benefits to staying on the homefront, then the benefits for aid merit the delivery of aid. I don't see think many see this as some sort of contest with China, nor that we are making the smarter move for not intervening (by the way, the US is giving significant aid, with the military building hospitals and delivering supplies).
It's important to segment the US government's treatment of Ebola into two sections: domestic and foreign, with one exception: the undeniable truth that the less Ebola there is in West Africa, the less there will be in the US. After all, isn't the best defense a good offense?
I feel the US has more to gain from aiding in Africa than preserving funds for cases within its own border. We face a much bigger threat should the situation in Africa fail to be contained than we face with the few cases among healthcare workers in the states. If ebola were to spread to countries that are less developed like India then we would face a big problem where the outbreak could potentially explode through a densely populated center of business.
ReplyDelete