A spectre is haunting West Africa, but it’s not the deadly outbreak of Ebola. Ebola has so far caused at least 4,546 deaths and infected more than 9,100 making it an international crisis. So, as is so often the case when we are confronted by a calamity that supposedly threatens the very existence of humans, all of humanity is bound and expected to carry out practical actions to rescue themselves - with, once again, the UN, the United States and other (almost invariably) Western countries at the vanguard. And once again, they do have a response. In the worst-affected areas - Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea - more treatment beds and medical facilities are being set up; more medical experts and volunteers are heading towards the frontline. However, while for the purpose of television and news articles these major countries are honorably fulfilling their lofty responsibilities towards the well-being of the entire human race, the situation is still deteriorating. When talking about international responses, we must first be clear about what is needed the most in the affected countries. Yes: beds, medical facilities and personnel are necessary. But consider that slingshot-wielding youths in Kolo Bengo, Guinea blocked the road into their villages and shouted fiercely “Wherever those people (international aid groups) have passed, the communities have been hit by the illness”. Should we pause, perhaps, for a moment and re-examine the situation? The weak public-health infrasture in the affected countries is undoubtedly one of the main drawbacks in development in that part of the world, and this has exacerbated the crisis. Now, one could argue that this might be ameliorated by massive construction drives (building medical facilities) and the importing of experts; from this angle, the international response so far seems reasonable. However, as illustrated by the resistance of the youths in Guinea, it would seem that what actually prevented or constrained an appropriate self-response and emergent reaction in affected countries against the outbreak was not just a lack of infrastructure, but a seemingly insurmountable mentable chasm. It is this chasm, I might argue, that sets apart marginalized, politically-muted, developing, or, in an explicit way, underdeveloped countries - what I’m going to term “the Lost World” - from what some would call the “civilized world”. If set prevailing western political philosophies and ideologies as standards for linear measurement, then the level of people’s awareness in terms of scientific understanding, political independence and social equality in the Lost World is clearly behind. Submerged in superstitions, ignorance and illiteracy, a considerable portion of the population in the aforementioned three countries - Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea - do not place much trust in the means of treatment and medical expertise brought to them by international intervention. Given the many historical factors that give rise to this drawback (not least of which is colonialism), it is clear that a superficial short-run movement cannot solve the deep-rooted issues of this region. This, however, is exactly the sort of reaction currently being carried out in practice. When calling for effective international responses to this crisis, the media portrays the UN, the United States and other Western countries as the active action-takers. High expectations and pressing demands are placed on them - as if the Ebola is some crisis happening not in the actually affected regions, but in these developed countries. As a result, the true sufferers - the three West African countries from the Lost World - seem to have been deprived of any agency or ability to react. They mostly remain reduced to grammatical objects in news reports and passive receivers in reality. The word “international” in “international community” or “international intervention” thus possesses a connotation marking the demarcation between the World and the Lost World. The World, international as it is, plays the role of parent or custodian over the Lost World. Whenever in trouble, the Lost World, like a feeble infant, is always believed and portrayed to be in constant wait for the helping hand of the World. But the highly expected help and aid from the World is sometimes more close to subtle hypocrisy. The low level of awareness amongst indigenous peoples, the superficial suppliance of beds and personnel - which is more about concentrating the infected in one area than about curing them - and the passiveness of the Lost World: all of these factors coalesce to form the pathetic truth that it is the spectre of paternalism that is haunting West Africa. This paternalism neglects the critical need of the long-term development of West Africa: that what is needed is a systematic public education to improve awareness levels. The spectre paralyzes Western Africa into a state of inertia both in a political sense and in terms its exposure in the Western-dominated media. The international response in the wake of the Ebola outbreak still falls within the shadow of paternalism. Thus placed into perspective, the international response to the Ebola crisis consistently obscures the core problems in West Africa and actually serves only as a desperate superficial rescue with pathetically short-sighted vision; even more seriously, it reinforces the detrimental status quo of the drastic disease --- paternalism. Hence, the international response counts at most as a tranquilizer. It may help contain the crisis, but is not helpful at all for the long-term development of the three countries. How can we justify this kind of international response if, later on in the future, the Lost World is again, and again, and again and again, unable to do anything but wait for help from the all-mighty and benevolent World when encountering other outbreaks of some fatal virus? So why not let this outbreak be a perfect opportunity for awakening and enlightenment? There is, alas, nothing more provoking and eliciting than the tragic massacre of innocent living beings. Why not let the international response be as limited as possible: why not let Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea face the threat of Ebola on their own? Why not let the deaths in extreme agony eventually awaken the indigenous people, who would then embrace science rather than superstitions? Why not let great, strong and truly independent nations finally rise from the abyss of suffering, calamity and chaos? Why not let a new West Africa rise out of its current state through the fierce fusion of people’s deaths, tears, fear, hopelessness, anger and the basic but invincible instinct to survive?! This article was written by Hongbin Chen . Send an email to [email protected] to get in touch. Photo Credit:Tirza Alberta