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.

中文翻译：

---

履行职责：非洲流行病军事化

即使发生侵犯人权行为，在非洲部署士兵控制疫情也变得更容易被接受。本文概述了这种情况是如何产生的，突出了 20 世纪 90 年代以来的重叠进程以及安理会第 2177 号决议的影响。然后探讨了塞拉利昂和乌干达的影响。它利用长期的实地调查，讨论了埃博拉和 COVID-19 爆发期间的军事流行病控制计划。报告指出了两国在应对疫情方面的相似之处，包括暴力执法，但也存在显着差异。塞拉利昂实现了政府权力的民主过渡，而乌干达的军事化疫情控制则巩固了专制公共权威。就现有数据而言，两国的疾病控制结果差异并不大，但乌干达的应对措施得到了肯定。这突显了一种向不太负责任的治理形式的转变，而所谓的公共卫生目标是合理的。