→ 15 May 12 at 9 am
Chatham House, the UK’s sister organization to the globalist Council on Foreign Relations in America, has unsurprisingly praised the Kony 2012 propaganda video for how it successfully targeted young people and helped push policy changes by Western Governments.
One speaker, Anneke Van Woudenberg of Human Rights Watch told the invitation-only group that “the method by which Kony 2012 was produced was successful and can be regarded as a watershed moment for advocacy.” She said it was “very 21st century, which appealed to a younger generation.”
Although the NGO chief explained that stopping Kony is more complex than the video suggested, she clearly advocates international interference. “Very soon after Congress introduced two resolutions identifying the need for the US government to play its part,” said Woudenberg. “It requires dedication by policy makers to ensure that this momentum remains continual.”
Louise Arimatsu, Chatham House member for the African division discussed the power of social media in promoting the video. Bizarrely she said “…although in the case of Kony 2012, [social media] raised awareness,” she cited the Arab Spring as a negative example of social media, stating “…in some cases it can be used as a powerful force to mobilise people. The Arab Spring was used as an example to illustrate this dangerous aspect.” (Thankfully the NGOs had a hand in it from the start then huh?)
Arimatsu also praised international interference. “Firstly, there have been military operations happening at all levels – regional, international and between states. Secondly, there has been a program in place to facilitate defections of fighting that have been part of rebel groups. This process of reintegration is absolutely crucial. Thirdly, there have been significant efforts at international level in terms of international criminal prosecution at the [International Criminal Court],” a court the war criminals in the Untied States refuse to sign up to.
Although speaker Mareike Schomerus did state the obvious that “the Kony 2012 was thought to be dishonest and played on hidden agendas,” he concluded that it was only the approach taken that was debatable, not the concept of intervention itself.’