The countries reeling under the Ebola outbreak were recovering from
prolonged conflict that had destroyed health infrastructures. Additionally,
in the 1980s through the 1990s, these countries implemented neo-liberal
reforms imposed by IMF and World Bank, whereby welfare systems were
abandoned in exchange for donor support.
Before the onset of the Ebola crisis, there were many things about the food
habits of Ghanaians that I knew little about. I have always seen bats as a
mere nuisance. Now all of a sudden and from the blue, the little poor bat
has been elevated to celebrity status, cited as a carrier of the Ebola
virus. In previous years, the 'African green monkey' was also cited for the
HIV/AIDS virus. In Ghana, the 'grass cuter' which is something of an
aphrodisiac in Ghana, has been lumped into something called 'bush meat' and
added to a growing list of suspects. A bush meat seller somewhere in the
Ashanti region of Ghana called one FM station to bemoan the loss of her
'bush meat' business. She blamed this 'Ebola thing' for all the bad
publicity. As an unapologetic sceptic, should I join the bandwagon for those
who seek to blame the poor bat because it cannot speak for itself, at least
for now?
Apportioning blame is hardly an effective method for combating what is
becoming a deadly epidemic. The spread of this virus is alarming. The
initial response from West African governments was lacklustre. By October
2014, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia had lost more than 4,000 lives to
Ebola. [WHO now said at the end of November the death toll was approaching
7,000] Unlike other epidemics, Ebola affects those who are trained to combat
it - doctors and nurses. Those who have been affected outside these three
regions are those who have come into contact with people carrying the Ebola
virus from these regions. As a writer pointed out, all evidence suggest that
despite the repeated assurances from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and
the United Nations, there is much that is not known about how the disease is
transmitted.
We now have to admit that what started off as a single case of infection in
West Africa could potentially turn into a huge health catastrophe, calling
into question the ability of governments in West Africa and beyond to deal
with such emergencies. As a writer in the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS)
pointed out, 'the Ebola outbreak in West Africa is a catastrophe for the
people of that region. More than 8,000 people have been infected and more
than 4,000 have died, with no signs that the epidemic has been curtailed.
The heroic efforts of doctors, nurses and aid workers have been sabotaged by
the collapse of the healthcare systems of these countries, among the poorest
in the world. Only 20 per cent of the affected population in West Africa has
access to a treatment centre.' There are well founded fears that Ebola could
soon become a global plague. Is this Ebola crisis a warning of things to
come?
First, it is important to recognise that currently, Ebola is concentrated in
Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea. Of these, Sierra Leone and Liberia had
protracted civil wars - the viciousness of which has not been seen on the
continent. This also led to the complete destruction of state institutions
and basic health infrastructure. Post-civil war reconstruction takes time.
In the meantime, international aid organisations, including those from the
United States and so called 'donor communities' take advantage of weak
structural systems to set up medical laboratories without control. More than
this, the urge for donor money also makes these countries susceptible to
pressure to allow this or that global institution to test this or that drug.
Is it possible that western donor nations, in particular, the United States,
took advantage of this to experiment with deadly viruses and drugs? Could
these have gone rogue?
A writer of the WSWS pointed out that 'it is no accident that the Ebola
outbreak takes place in countries that are former colonies of imperialist
powers. Guinea was a French colony, Sierra Leone a British colony, and
Liberia a de facto US colony since its founding by freed American slaves.
Despite their nominal independence, each country remains dominated by giant
corporations and banks based in the imperialist countries, which extract
vast profits from the mineral wealth and other natural resources. Guinea is
the world's largest bauxite exporter, Sierra Leone depends on diamond
exports, and Liberia has long been the fiefdom of Firestone Rubber (now
Bridgestone).' Since then, stories have surfaced on Facebook increasingly
pointing to the role of the US laboratories in Sierra Leon, Guinea and
Liberia. We need answers from the United States.
Another significant factor, which West African countries should heed is the
role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the complete destruction of
health infrastructure due to the IMF conditionalities. In the 1980s through
the 1990s, most West African countries implemented Structural Adjustment
Programmes (SAPs). As part of these IMF conditionalities, schools,
hospitals, health clinics, welfare systems, were abandoned in exchange of
IMF support. In addition to this, health professionals who could not stand
declining service and emoluments, packed bag and baggage, further depleting
health resources. Ghana is a typical example of this trend. West African
countries therefore lack basic health infrastructure able to deal with such
health emergencies. In Ghana for instance, it took some time for the Health
authorities to respond to the outbreak of cholera. Poor sanitation remains
to be a big problem in Ghana's capital Accra, and other urban centres.
Instead of affordable and free health services at the point of need, most
citizens have been corralled into a National Health Insurance Scheme. Those
outside this scheme are forced into the cash and carry system of cash only
before treatment. Most West African countries are therefore unable to
provide even rudimentary healthcare services to their citizens. The reason
is not due to lack of resources, but an unjust national and international
system suffering from ruthless exploitation.
What makes the Ebola virus disease even more worrying is the fact that the
United States, Britain and other countries are using this crisis to resolve
their geopolitical interests. The US sent in 4,000 troops (marines) to
Liberia. President is calling on his top guards to prepare to 'intervene'.
On the other hand, the UK government has also announced its intention to
send 3,000 soldiers to Sierra Leone. Historically American Marines are
routinely used to restore public order or enforce consent.
If these countries are not at war, and there is no civil disobedience, why
send in troops instead of doctors and nurses? In contrast, Cuba sent 160
Doctors and nurses to Sierra Leone, and will send additional 296 health care
works to Liberia and Guinea. The approach of the Cuban government is
humanitarian whilst the approach by the US and UK governments is
militaristic, seeking to exploit the crisis for geopolitical reasons. 'The
real agenda of Washington is to secure a basis for its Africa Command
(AFRICOM), up to now excluded from the continent by local opposition, thus
advancing the interests of American imperialism against its rivals,
particularly China,' writes Patrick Martin in the World Socialist Website.
The real question is, since Ebola has been known since the 1970s, why is the
response so lacklustre and weak? Kofi Annan's claim that the response is
weak because the virus is affecting Africans is rather questionable. Is it
that the West did not anticipate that Ebola would leave the shores of West
Africa and penetrate Europe and United States of America? The reason,
according to Patrick Martin, is because 'the giant pharmaceutical companies
that control medical research saw little profit in saving the lives of
impoverished villagers in rural Africa.' So far, we know that research has
been conducted on possible cures and vaccines funded by the US Pentagon, for
dubious reasons. The US claims that this research was to protect 'US
soldiers who might be deployed to the jungles of central Africa.' How many
US bases are located in Central Africa to warrant this approach? However,
claims that the Ebola research carried out by the US Pentagon as an antidote
to 'whether the virus could be weaponised for use against potential
enemies,' in my view, seems more credible. The chickens have come home to
roost.
How should West Africa and Africa in general respond to this crisis? And how
should the world respond in a more positive way? The Africa Union should
spearhead a coordinated response by mobilising doctors, nurses, medical
personnel and work with the international community to end the spread of
this virus immediately. A strategy for investigating its rapid spread and
the nature of this virus way beyond the 'bat' and 'bush meat' theories are
necessary. The role of private funded Western medical laboratories in some
parts of West Africa should form part of this investigation.
Finally, West African governments should show leadership in the face of this
massive threat by mobilising resources (both human and medical equipment)
from friendly countries to lead the fight against what is fast becoming a
threat to the human race. If soldiers are required, we have enough
battalions to deal with this threat. We have enough carpenters to construct
Ebola centres. West African governments should take this responsibility away
from western military establishments because we are not at war. We do not
need marines on our soil. The rapacious, giant global pharmaceutical firms
should no lead the fight against Ebola. This fight is not about profit. It
is about saving lives. If this virus is being engineered and exploited for
profit, should we not make sure they do not profit form it at all?
* Zaya Yeebo is a Ghanaian journalist and commentator on Pan African
affairs.