Post by Mutanatia on Oct 16, 2011 19:07:09 GMT -5
And here it is again 
The famine in Somalia is one of the things, as I've mentioned before, that just gets my blood boiling. It is a classic case of "Religion done wrong," as well as "Radical theology" done wrong, as well as "politics done wrong."
Let's consider what started the famine. The famine, was I beleive, started by a drought. Well, the drought in itself is relatively harmless, provided you have good agriculture (Which Somalia doesn't I don't believe), or you have strong foreign aid.
Foreign aid I am all for, and it seems it could work. The only problem is: there are people unlike you and me, people willing to go such extreme lengths to get what they want. These people are, in this case, (As Lou Dobbs would call them... not that he's a good role model or anything
) "Radical Islamists," from a militant offshot of Al Qaeda called Al Shabbob. While I do not pretend to know how the organization is run, nor do I even want to know, I do know this: they were, for the longest time, screwing up foreign aid.
Why was this? An administrative problem? No. Al Shabbob believes in restoring Sharia Law (or enacting it; not sure if Somalia was ever under Sharia Law) and spreading it throughout Africa. They hate and despise the West. So when the United States sent a relatively large quantity of foodstuffs, Al Shabbob militarized, parked itself at the borders of Somalia and said, simply "No foreign aid shall pass."
The reason for this, I believe, is one of those "We don't want you to corrupt our religion and spread your ideas." Time went by. People in Somalia began to get hungry, and then mass starvation occurred. Al Shabbob, either through wisdom rarely seen in any extremist group (Christian, Muslim, what have you)-- or because they simply could not hold the area any more--withdrew from Somalia. But the damage was already done.
The result of this drought, compounded by human interference for the worse, has led to this deepening crisis. Children are dying in the street, people go hundreds of miles to the better-off countries where there is treatment for them--meanwhile, the very children they try to bring for treatment die.
That is not to say that U.S. political interests are not sullying the waters of this human catastrophe. Far from it. You see, we don't want to aid Al Shabbob any more than we want to aid Al Qaeda. At the surface, I believe this is the right and moral thing to do, to not aid in worldwide terrorism. However, the problem then is: Who is Al Shabbob and who are the innocent people dying? Much like during the Vietnam War, we do not know who is friend and who is foe.
But the other question then is, "Why is Al Shabbob still in power?"
The moral argument, then, is: Do we try to transport as many people out to another country, or give food aid--knowing full well that a few of them can be terrorists--or do we let them all die? The answer to me seems to the obvious: Yes we should help the starving people. Though we may aid the terrorists, all we are doing is providing food and water (in theory) to them. Provided we do that, and provided we make sure that in some way, shape, or form the food aid also gets through to those starving people, I think that making sure everyone survives at the cost of a few, rather than nobody surviving to avoid a few, is the better answer.
Addd to the drought a civil war, brought about when the "the most recent functioning government" of Somalia was removed in 1991 (The Economist, 10/15/2011), and people become desparate. They turn to piracy, which is probably one of the main reasons that Americans are turned away from them. They can make $7-12 Billion a year (Economist, 10/15/2011) by holding foreigners and their ships hostage. This, coupled, with Al Shabbob, is the reason why no one is in power. There is a transitional sort of government, but it is nowhere near perfect and is "protected by the African Union." (Economist-- 10/15/2011).
The other issues is that Somalia does not seem to want foreign aid, much as implied by the movie, Black Hawk Down. The problem here is that America and Ethiopa (A fellow African Nation) have collectively shot themselves in the foot when invading Somalia (Economist-- 10/15/2011). This has made the Somalis collectively against ANY form of foreign involvement--period.
The problem with the above is: I do not have the right answers-- in fact, I don't think anyone does. But the bottom line is: Something has to be done. THe sick need our attention, people are dying do to what I perceive as inaction because of a select few. THe Democrats keep talking about how the Republicans are "holding them hostage." This is nothing. People in Somalia are dying because their lives (and not their political ideology) hang in the balance because of a select, corrupt, and violent few.
So, where might the solutions come from? First and foremost, the solution must come from within Somalia, and not enforced by the international community. Communication within Somalia seems to be fairly easy because there are "few differences of ethnicity, language, or relgion and is among the most homogenous places in Africa." (Economist, 10/15/2011).
However, the transitional government, or rather its foreign backers, gets in the way. This is because it is, again, backed by countries who are not Somalian, and thus would be seen as something akin to foreign meddlers. Add that to fact that its opponents are not in the government, or if they are there are few and far between, and the mess accentuates itself (The Economist, 10/15/2011).
The Economist argues that foreign powers do have somewhat of a power, and can actually do useful things. For instance, they can still provide aid, stop piracy (and actively discourage it), and open their borders to Somalis, like Kenya has done (The Economist, 10/15/2011). However, again, the problems seem to be largely ignored by South Africa and Nigeria--two African nations that might play a key part in solving the crisis.
Let us now address the second question of what is actually the solution. Some suggest that the problem in Somalia can be solved with development. The solution, if not temporary, would be from the Somalis livestock market. Saudi and Lebanese traders have entered the market for the first time since 1991 (Economist, 10/15/2011). Again, according to the Economist, in order to fully unleash the potential of this market, they need about $50m to invest in variou agricultural aids and further develop the economy (The Economist, 10/15/2011). In the meantime, while this is happening, one does have to bear in mind that the aid needs to start now, seeing that the famine has already killed 80,000+ lives (Economist, 10/15/2011).
The third problem then becomes Al Shabbob. Many farmers refuse to return to Somalia until Al Shabbob has been defeated (10/15/2011). The result of this reluctance to return then will hamper the livestock market. But make no mistake, Al Shabbob is not a good force in Somalia. They "take a third of the harvest as taxation, ban singing, whip the men to prayers, force the women to cover their faces and violently break up any gathering of four or more people." (The Economist, 10/15/2011). When they are fleeing from the enemy and trying to regain power, they resort to suicide bombing (Economist, 10/15/2011). But does this fit the true definition of a humanitarian mission?
According to the anceint (Jewish?) philospher Maimonides, "Aid workers and soldiers should do what they can, the best that they can, to promote the independence of individuals and states." (Foreign Affairs, July/Augst 2011, p. 79) What, then, of those who say that this is not our problem, that the Somalis should figure it out themselves? Well, he again say that "opposition to all interventions is a mistake, although opposition to some is sure to be morally necessary." (FA, June/July 2011, p. 77) A caveat to this, though, is that aid must be given proportionally (FA, June/Jule 2011, p. 77). That is to say, a massive incursion, UN peacekeping mission, and assassination of Somalia's leadership would not be a righteous humanitarian mission when all that is needed is a gently nudge. The highest form of humanitarianism, and thus the goal, is "to set up a poor man in business or in work of some sort, [and] make him independent." (FA, June/July 2011, p. 73) With all of the above problems in mind, and with this goal in mind... can something be done? IS there hope?
There is hope. According to THe Economist, those in areas NOT controlled by Shabbob have the greatest chance of prospering (The Economist, 10/15/2011). The diaspora in Africa is a very big help in their area, contributing about $1 billion a year (Economist, 10/15/2011). In northern Somalia, though, there is a much bigger risk of problems. THey need law and order, and no one is going to be able to help. The mercenaries will not give up their arms to patrol villages, and thus the southern part of Somalia is in much dire straits than that of the nothern part of the country.
The time is now to act. The American government can do a few things. First, they need to take an active role in snuffing out piracy, and thus discouraging that lifestyle. Second, they should let the Somali government run itself and foster some semblance of democacy--or even, perhaps, a stable dictatorship--whereby the guise of foreign involvement is lifted. Finally, they need to encourage the livestock markets of Somalia to grow, provide aid in that regard, rather than just handing the government and the people and blank check and saying "Here do with it what you will."
The famine in Somalia is one of the things, as I've mentioned before, that just gets my blood boiling. It is a classic case of "Religion done wrong," as well as "Radical theology" done wrong, as well as "politics done wrong."
Let's consider what started the famine. The famine, was I beleive, started by a drought. Well, the drought in itself is relatively harmless, provided you have good agriculture (Which Somalia doesn't I don't believe), or you have strong foreign aid.
Foreign aid I am all for, and it seems it could work. The only problem is: there are people unlike you and me, people willing to go such extreme lengths to get what they want. These people are, in this case, (As Lou Dobbs would call them... not that he's a good role model or anything
) "Radical Islamists," from a militant offshot of Al Qaeda called Al Shabbob. While I do not pretend to know how the organization is run, nor do I even want to know, I do know this: they were, for the longest time, screwing up foreign aid. Why was this? An administrative problem? No. Al Shabbob believes in restoring Sharia Law (or enacting it; not sure if Somalia was ever under Sharia Law) and spreading it throughout Africa. They hate and despise the West. So when the United States sent a relatively large quantity of foodstuffs, Al Shabbob militarized, parked itself at the borders of Somalia and said, simply "No foreign aid shall pass."
The reason for this, I believe, is one of those "We don't want you to corrupt our religion and spread your ideas." Time went by. People in Somalia began to get hungry, and then mass starvation occurred. Al Shabbob, either through wisdom rarely seen in any extremist group (Christian, Muslim, what have you)-- or because they simply could not hold the area any more--withdrew from Somalia. But the damage was already done.
The result of this drought, compounded by human interference for the worse, has led to this deepening crisis. Children are dying in the street, people go hundreds of miles to the better-off countries where there is treatment for them--meanwhile, the very children they try to bring for treatment die.
That is not to say that U.S. political interests are not sullying the waters of this human catastrophe. Far from it. You see, we don't want to aid Al Shabbob any more than we want to aid Al Qaeda. At the surface, I believe this is the right and moral thing to do, to not aid in worldwide terrorism. However, the problem then is: Who is Al Shabbob and who are the innocent people dying? Much like during the Vietnam War, we do not know who is friend and who is foe.
But the other question then is, "Why is Al Shabbob still in power?"
The moral argument, then, is: Do we try to transport as many people out to another country, or give food aid--knowing full well that a few of them can be terrorists--or do we let them all die? The answer to me seems to the obvious: Yes we should help the starving people. Though we may aid the terrorists, all we are doing is providing food and water (in theory) to them. Provided we do that, and provided we make sure that in some way, shape, or form the food aid also gets through to those starving people, I think that making sure everyone survives at the cost of a few, rather than nobody surviving to avoid a few, is the better answer.
Addd to the drought a civil war, brought about when the "the most recent functioning government" of Somalia was removed in 1991 (The Economist, 10/15/2011), and people become desparate. They turn to piracy, which is probably one of the main reasons that Americans are turned away from them. They can make $7-12 Billion a year (Economist, 10/15/2011) by holding foreigners and their ships hostage. This, coupled, with Al Shabbob, is the reason why no one is in power. There is a transitional sort of government, but it is nowhere near perfect and is "protected by the African Union." (Economist-- 10/15/2011).
The other issues is that Somalia does not seem to want foreign aid, much as implied by the movie, Black Hawk Down. The problem here is that America and Ethiopa (A fellow African Nation) have collectively shot themselves in the foot when invading Somalia (Economist-- 10/15/2011). This has made the Somalis collectively against ANY form of foreign involvement--period.
The problem with the above is: I do not have the right answers-- in fact, I don't think anyone does. But the bottom line is: Something has to be done. THe sick need our attention, people are dying do to what I perceive as inaction because of a select few. THe Democrats keep talking about how the Republicans are "holding them hostage." This is nothing. People in Somalia are dying because their lives (and not their political ideology) hang in the balance because of a select, corrupt, and violent few.
So, where might the solutions come from? First and foremost, the solution must come from within Somalia, and not enforced by the international community. Communication within Somalia seems to be fairly easy because there are "few differences of ethnicity, language, or relgion and is among the most homogenous places in Africa." (Economist, 10/15/2011).
However, the transitional government, or rather its foreign backers, gets in the way. This is because it is, again, backed by countries who are not Somalian, and thus would be seen as something akin to foreign meddlers. Add that to fact that its opponents are not in the government, or if they are there are few and far between, and the mess accentuates itself (The Economist, 10/15/2011).
The Economist argues that foreign powers do have somewhat of a power, and can actually do useful things. For instance, they can still provide aid, stop piracy (and actively discourage it), and open their borders to Somalis, like Kenya has done (The Economist, 10/15/2011). However, again, the problems seem to be largely ignored by South Africa and Nigeria--two African nations that might play a key part in solving the crisis.
Let us now address the second question of what is actually the solution. Some suggest that the problem in Somalia can be solved with development. The solution, if not temporary, would be from the Somalis livestock market. Saudi and Lebanese traders have entered the market for the first time since 1991 (Economist, 10/15/2011). Again, according to the Economist, in order to fully unleash the potential of this market, they need about $50m to invest in variou agricultural aids and further develop the economy (The Economist, 10/15/2011). In the meantime, while this is happening, one does have to bear in mind that the aid needs to start now, seeing that the famine has already killed 80,000+ lives (Economist, 10/15/2011).
The third problem then becomes Al Shabbob. Many farmers refuse to return to Somalia until Al Shabbob has been defeated (10/15/2011). The result of this reluctance to return then will hamper the livestock market. But make no mistake, Al Shabbob is not a good force in Somalia. They "take a third of the harvest as taxation, ban singing, whip the men to prayers, force the women to cover their faces and violently break up any gathering of four or more people." (The Economist, 10/15/2011). When they are fleeing from the enemy and trying to regain power, they resort to suicide bombing (Economist, 10/15/2011). But does this fit the true definition of a humanitarian mission?
According to the anceint (Jewish?) philospher Maimonides, "Aid workers and soldiers should do what they can, the best that they can, to promote the independence of individuals and states." (Foreign Affairs, July/Augst 2011, p. 79) What, then, of those who say that this is not our problem, that the Somalis should figure it out themselves? Well, he again say that "opposition to all interventions is a mistake, although opposition to some is sure to be morally necessary." (FA, June/July 2011, p. 77) A caveat to this, though, is that aid must be given proportionally (FA, June/Jule 2011, p. 77). That is to say, a massive incursion, UN peacekeping mission, and assassination of Somalia's leadership would not be a righteous humanitarian mission when all that is needed is a gently nudge. The highest form of humanitarianism, and thus the goal, is "to set up a poor man in business or in work of some sort, [and] make him independent." (FA, June/July 2011, p. 73) With all of the above problems in mind, and with this goal in mind... can something be done? IS there hope?
There is hope. According to THe Economist, those in areas NOT controlled by Shabbob have the greatest chance of prospering (The Economist, 10/15/2011). The diaspora in Africa is a very big help in their area, contributing about $1 billion a year (Economist, 10/15/2011). In northern Somalia, though, there is a much bigger risk of problems. THey need law and order, and no one is going to be able to help. The mercenaries will not give up their arms to patrol villages, and thus the southern part of Somalia is in much dire straits than that of the nothern part of the country.
The time is now to act. The American government can do a few things. First, they need to take an active role in snuffing out piracy, and thus discouraging that lifestyle. Second, they should let the Somali government run itself and foster some semblance of democacy--or even, perhaps, a stable dictatorship--whereby the guise of foreign involvement is lifted. Finally, they need to encourage the livestock markets of Somalia to grow, provide aid in that regard, rather than just handing the government and the people and blank check and saying "Here do with it what you will."