It is a really, really simple question that so far nobody seems willing to answer.
If the United States believes Ebola related containment facilities are too politically sensitive, risky and controversial to place on American soil, why should Kenyans be expected to welcome one without question?
??
The debate surrounding the proposed Ebola isolation facility has exposed a growing frustration with how major decisions are made in Kenya, often with little regard for public opinion and sometimes court processes.
To make it worse, the U.S. Embassy makes a statement on ongoing legal action against the project. On their X, they say “We are aware of the court action filed in Kenya against the Ebola isolation facility. We are in touch with Kenyan authorities and are optimistic we can resolve objections.“
Wait a minute, what is there to resolve? There is a reason they are reffered to as objections.
If citizens have gone to court and if judges have seen fit to intervene, then those objections are not administrative inconveniences to be managed away. They are expressions of public concern in a sovereign nation.
Kenya is neither a laboratory nor a testing ground. It is not a convenient location where controversial projects can be relocated simply because powerful countries would rather not host them themselves.
If Ebola containment facilities are so necessary, why are they not being built in the countries most eager to champion them? Why must African nations repeatedly be asked to shoulder risks that wealthier nations appear unwilling to carry? And as one person pointed out, Ebola should be contained at source DRC or at US controlled facilities like Diego Garcia. If even the “source” is rejecting the facility, whomst are we?
??
Supporters of the project argue that disease surveillance and containment are essential for global health security. They are correct. Outbreaks must be contained and dangerous diseases must be studied. By all means. We are not disputing that because public health infrastructure matters.
But public trust matters too. You cannot build trust by dismissing concerns as objections to be resolved. You build trust through transparency and respect for the wishes of the people who will live alongside these facilities.
Where are our priorities? We are constantly told there is insufficient funding for hospitals and specialist care, insufficient funding for cancer treatment, insufficient funding for dialysis and insufficient funding to improve healthcare access in rural communities.
For a country that is always short on funding for one thing or the other, how then does it appear there is funding available for highly specialized facilities tied to international interests?
Aiiiii hapana. We have refused.
What this government is saying is that there is money to prepare for diseases originating elsewhere, but not enough money to adequately address the healthcare crises already affecting millions of Kenyans.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of this entire debate is that it has become a discussion about sovereignty. This is no longer simply about Ebola.
The issue is whether Kenyans have the right to say no. If America wants to make America great again, that is America’s business. If international partners want Ebola containment facilities, they should have an honest conversation with the communities expected to host them.
But Kenyans are under no obligation to accept every project placed before them simply because powerful governments believe it serves a larger global purpose.
The burden of persuasion lies with those proposing the project, not with citizens demanding answers.
So no, take that facility somewhere else, somewhere as far away from Kenya as possible.
