Hisha Sorel
Senior Member
- Dec 27, 2017
- 192
- 140
Disclaimer: Let me make this clear, lockdown is an effective strategy to reduce the spreading speed of infection. Other measures like washing hands (running water for 20 seconds), social distancing and wearing N95 masks—are equally effective at reducing the capacity of an individual spread of infectious fomites (spit droplets).
Yet any public policy is a trade-off—meaning, a country needs to sacrifice something to gain something. What a Nation chooses to sacrifice depends on its situation.
We need ask, were the aggressive isolation policies appropriate for both Kenya and Rwanda?
The answer to this question depends on what you consider to be the interest of either countries. If your focus is on the needs of average citizens and local economy, then the answer is solid No! Yet if you focus on greater goals of alliances, foreign trade, and investment; then the answer is definite Yes—or so Rwanda and Kenya thought.
It is apparent that both nations initiated these series of policies to appease the international community or the west if we decide to be honest.
Mirroring policies of United States, UK, and European Union would have guaranteed both Kenya and Rwanda preferential treatment post COVID—with both nations hoping to be cleared for tourism, investment, and their nationals’ access to said countries.
Yet with recent declaration by the UK makes this highly unlikely.
Importantly, both Kagame and Kenyatta have overlooked the most consistent character of the west that has defined its foreign policy for decade, RACISM!
Kagame asks, as he should, why does the generosity of his nation count for nothing? After leaving his country open to UK nationals even after reports of the UK the SARS-CoV-2 VUI 202012/01 (UK corona virus variant), why doesn’t the UK reciprocate the favour?
Well, it is because your country is disposable as the UK does Not have allies; but has interest! So, is your nation serving the interest of the UK? If Not, expect nothing.
This is more stinging as Rwanda and Kenya have both introduced series of aggressive COVID control measures that include restrictions on movement, complete lockdown, border access halts (on mostly African countries), and mandatory mask wearing.
Both Rwanda and Kenya have been extremely aggressive in enforcing their polices, especially against their African neighbours and its poorest citizens.
More than 85% of the Kenyan population is employed in an informal sector, which means they rely on their daily wage from small businesses to pay for groceries and other expenses. Their biggest fear is literal starvation.
The living arrangements of these people is unsuitable for self-isolation and some having no access to essential services such as water and food.
The Kenyan police has shown no mercy with aggressive enforcement of masks and curfew. According to the Washington post, at least 20 people have been killed by the police so far.
Meanwhile the nations they are attempting to mimic are not dealing with these challenges. Lockdown measures, which were first introduced in China, were highly suitable for its environment as the Nation had a robust coordination between the local and central government. China and most western Nation are highly experienced in provision of social services with both private and state sector able to handle logistic complexity that come with feeding and servicing people in their homes.
Australia for example, the unemployed were granted a fortnightly (every two weeks) payment of 1200 AUD delivered through their already existing Centrelink program (an existing social service program).
Put it simply, the west adopted lockdown measures because they had existing infrastructure that can sustain it. Both Rwanda and Kenya did not have such infrastructure, nor did they have the experience to implement it.
The actions of both presidents were driven by long term strategic goals that overlooked the interest of their average citizens and overestimated the generosity of the West.
Yet any public policy is a trade-off—meaning, a country needs to sacrifice something to gain something. What a Nation chooses to sacrifice depends on its situation.
We need ask, were the aggressive isolation policies appropriate for both Kenya and Rwanda?
The answer to this question depends on what you consider to be the interest of either countries. If your focus is on the needs of average citizens and local economy, then the answer is solid No! Yet if you focus on greater goals of alliances, foreign trade, and investment; then the answer is definite Yes—or so Rwanda and Kenya thought.
It is apparent that both nations initiated these series of policies to appease the international community or the west if we decide to be honest.
Mirroring policies of United States, UK, and European Union would have guaranteed both Kenya and Rwanda preferential treatment post COVID—with both nations hoping to be cleared for tourism, investment, and their nationals’ access to said countries.
Yet with recent declaration by the UK makes this highly unlikely.
Importantly, both Kagame and Kenyatta have overlooked the most consistent character of the west that has defined its foreign policy for decade, RACISM!
Kagame asks, as he should, why does the generosity of his nation count for nothing? After leaving his country open to UK nationals even after reports of the UK the SARS-CoV-2 VUI 202012/01 (UK corona virus variant), why doesn’t the UK reciprocate the favour?
Well, it is because your country is disposable as the UK does Not have allies; but has interest! So, is your nation serving the interest of the UK? If Not, expect nothing.
This is more stinging as Rwanda and Kenya have both introduced series of aggressive COVID control measures that include restrictions on movement, complete lockdown, border access halts (on mostly African countries), and mandatory mask wearing.
Both Rwanda and Kenya have been extremely aggressive in enforcing their polices, especially against their African neighbours and its poorest citizens.
More than 85% of the Kenyan population is employed in an informal sector, which means they rely on their daily wage from small businesses to pay for groceries and other expenses. Their biggest fear is literal starvation.
The living arrangements of these people is unsuitable for self-isolation and some having no access to essential services such as water and food.
The Kenyan police has shown no mercy with aggressive enforcement of masks and curfew. According to the Washington post, at least 20 people have been killed by the police so far.
Meanwhile the nations they are attempting to mimic are not dealing with these challenges. Lockdown measures, which were first introduced in China, were highly suitable for its environment as the Nation had a robust coordination between the local and central government. China and most western Nation are highly experienced in provision of social services with both private and state sector able to handle logistic complexity that come with feeding and servicing people in their homes.
Australia for example, the unemployed were granted a fortnightly (every two weeks) payment of 1200 AUD delivered through their already existing Centrelink program (an existing social service program).
Put it simply, the west adopted lockdown measures because they had existing infrastructure that can sustain it. Both Rwanda and Kenya did not have such infrastructure, nor did they have the experience to implement it.
The actions of both presidents were driven by long term strategic goals that overlooked the interest of their average citizens and overestimated the generosity of the West.