Response to: “Two different approaches in fighting Ebola”
worker |
March 3, 2015 |
7:14 pm | Africa, Analysis, Cuba, Ebola, International, National, political struggle
By A. Shaw
For clarity, the two different approaches may be called the US imperialist approach and the Cuban proletarian approach.
Imperialist Approach in Fighting Ebola
The Obama regime, which sent about 2,800 military troops to West Africa in October, has announced an end to its Ebola relief mission. Most US soldiers have already returned. The troops did not treat a single patient, much less save a single life. Obama proclaimed the American response to the crisis ( a response which came after months of pleading by international relief groups)  “an example of American leadership.†The Obama regime lists among its accomplishments training 1,539 health care workers & support staff (presumably non-technical and cursory); creating 10 Ebola treatment units (which you could count on your fingers); and constructing a 25-bed medical unit (for a country [Liberia] that has had 10,000 cases of Ebola). Obama regime declares that “the United States has done more than any other country to help West Africa respond to the Ebola crisis.†The regime clearly helped facilitate the delivery of equipment and supplies, but its claims that the U.S. has done more than any other country are dubious. By the end of April, all but 100 U.S. troops will have left West Africa while other countries will extend the presence of their relief workers.
The U.S. response did involve several hundred millions of dollars, which is, indeed, more than most countries contributed. But U.S. personel played mostly a supporting role, collaborating with other actors in the tangential aspects of the crisis. U.S. government employees were not directly involved in treating any patients. Their role was rather to help other health workers and officials on the front lines who actually did. To say this supporting role of the Obama regime is an example of U.S. “leadership” is a vast embellishment.
So much for the imperialist approach to fighting Ebola.
Now, let’s look at the proletarian approach of the Cubans.
The other country who has taken a very public role in the Ebola crisis is Cuba. Unlike the U.S., Cuba sent nearly 500 professional healthcare workers – doctors and nurses – to treat African patients who had contracted Ebola. Before being deployed to West Africa, all the Cuban doctors and nurses completed an “intense training†of a minimum of two weeks, where they “prepared in the form of treating patients without exposing themselves to the deadly virus,â€Â according to CNN. After Cuba announced its plan to mobilize what Cubans call the “army of white robes,â€Â WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said that “human resources are clearly our most important need.†“Money and materials are important, but those two things alone cannot stop Ebola virus transmission,†she said. “We need most especially compassionate doctors and nurses†to work under “very demanding conditions.†The European Commission for humanitarian aid and crisis management last week also “recognized the role Cuba has played in fighting the Ebola epidemic.â€
 MATT PEPPE , the author of this excellent article, reminds us not to forget that behind its humanitarian pretensions, the U.S. military is a worldwide instrument of aggression, oppression and exploitation.
“U.S. troops are used as props. What may sound like a massive effort is little more than propaganda. The idea is to associate troops with humanitarianism, rather than death, destruction and torture. In reality, one doctor can save more lives than hundreds of soldiers. A true humanitarian mission would be conducted by civilian agencies and professionals who are trained and experienced specifically in medicine, construction and administration, not by soldiers trained to kill and pacify war zones” Peppe says.