Allen Tim, Parker Melissa
Glob Policy. 2024 Jul;15(Suppl 4):97-108. doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.13297. Epub 2023 Nov 16.
The deployment of soldiers for epidemic control in Africa has become more acceptable, even when human rights violations occur. This article outlines how this situation has arisen, foregrounding overlapping processes since the 1990s and the implications of Security Council Resolution 2177. It then explores effects with reference to Sierra Leone and Uganda. Drawing on long term fieldwork, it discusses militarised epidemic control programmes during Ebola and COVID-19 outbreaks. It points out similarities in the responses to epidemics in these two countries, including the violent enforcement of regulations, but also striking differences. In Sierra Leone, a democratic transition of governmental power occurred, whereas militarised epidemic control in Uganda helped entrench autocratic public authority. To the extent that there is data available, disease control outcomes in the two countries were not widely divergent, yet the Ugandan response has been valorised. This highlights a drift towards less accountable forms of governance, justified by purported public health objectives.
在非洲,即便出现侵犯人权的情况,部署士兵进行疫情防控也变得更易被接受。本文概述了这种情况是如何产生的,着重介绍了自20世纪90年代以来相互重叠的进程以及联合国安理会第2177号决议的影响。接着,本文以塞拉利昂和乌干达为例探讨了相关影响。基于长期的实地调查,本文讨论了埃博拉疫情和新冠疫情期间军事化的疫情防控计划。本文指出了这两个国家应对疫情的相似之处,包括对规定的暴力执行,但也存在显著差异。在塞拉利昂,政府权力实现了民主过渡,而乌干达的军事化疫情防控则有助于巩固专制的公共权力。就现有数据而言,两国的疾病控制结果并没有太大差异,但乌干达的应对措施却得到了赞扬。这凸显了一种朝着问责性更低的治理形式的转变,这种转变以所谓的公共卫生目标为正当理由。