Is it harder to dig a well for water than to displace yourself to a refugee camp ?

[Heinz]

I feel quite distraught about what is happening in south east Africa, but cannot help but wondering if there was not water available right under their feet?

I hope this question is not inflammatory

[katie1997]

Heinz, the trouble is the water table is too low. If they were able to dig shallow wells, groundwater contamination would cause even more problems.

[Marmora Man]

I think the real problem is that the unstable nature of the government / governance with attendant civil wars and general political unrest has precluded the necessary investment in infrastructure that could make the population in the famine / drought stricken areas self sufficient. Annual or bi annual crises with attendant and understandable calls for charitable giving then create a culture of dependence on donations and charity - making the population supplicants, becoming refugees dependent on others rather than in control of their lives and destiny.

[katie1997]

Ah thank you Marmora Man! Now I understand why the OP hoped the question wasn't 'too inflammatory', didn't get that bit before.

[Marmora Man]

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah thank you Marmora Man! Now I understand why

> the OP hoped the question wasn't 'too

> inflammatory', didn't get that bit before.

And ?? Don't understand your post - do you agree / disagree or hat feel I'm being inflammatory?

[katie1997]

No, I don't think you're being inflammatory. What I meant was that my initial understanding of the OPs question was very simplistic - eg. is there access to water. Whereas after reading your response I gathered the original intimation was more along the lines of should they be sorting it out themselves, which could be perceived in a negative way. Apologies if I have still misunderstood.

I agree that civil wars and political unrest are key factors in hindering help to the famine and drought stricken areas.

[Alec John Moore]

This just in: MOGADISHU, 21 July 2011 (IRIN) - Heavy rains have fallen in the Somali capital of Mogadishu, making life harder for thousands of people displaced by drought who cannot find shelter, officials said.

Link to article: http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportID=93287

Governance is always a question when considering the effects of emergencies on populations but it is also the case that East Africa is a region made up of arid and semi arid areas that are prone to drought. When the rains fail consistently over a long enough period of time there is unlikely to be enough water in the aquifer to supply wells adequately. There is a degree of sense in MM's post about dependency but it's only part of the picture.

It's also important to be aware of the distinction between emergency relief of the type that is provided in refugee camps/situations and the development work that NGOs do continually. The former is responding to extreme need and the latter stives to build self reliance. There is undoubtedly a problem with dependency but the reality is quite complex.

[DJKillaQueen]

Absolutely the reality is complex. Why when other continents are finding a way to advance economically are parts of Africa still struggling? The technology is there and wealthy countries just import food of course.

There is a real moral question over food being treated as a commodity. It is traded like anything else for profit by people for profit. But the consequences are real.

Africa is complex because firstly people forget it's a huge continent of many countries...and some countries have resources, others don't. Secondly there are far too many military dictatorships operating in some countries of Africa and they feed a third of the worlds arms trade (notibly buying from the USA, Russia, the UK and France) when they should be buying food and technology.

And then there is AIDS. That disease in rendering almost half the population in some countries as unfit to work....no western economy can sustain that level of innactivity so Africa is particularly afflicted and the catholic church is partly to blame regarding that.

It will take a massive effort on all fronts over many decades to rescue the continent of Africa from the title of 'poor continent of the world'.

[Heinz]

Thank you for your posts. I heard there was a refugee camp in Kenya that the Kenyan authorities refused to open. It apparently has sanitation and water; and I thought that water was procured from wells.

[James Barber]

I found this blog form Jon Snow useful insight:

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/somalias-famine-agony-historic-part/15838

[DJKillaQueen]

Interesting piece James and the following comments are absolutely right is asking, why when we spent billions on futile invasions and war elsewhere can we not sort out the rebels in Somalia and get meaningful aid to those that need it. We can do it of course, but won't, because I suspect there are no natural resources for us to seek control over.

[mockney piers]

There seems to be something of the self-contradiction about your post DJKQ.

If our other invasions are futile (ie incapable of producing any result), what makes you think an invasion of Somalia would sort it out?

We've seen from other attempts at nation building that you need the engagement of the people, an invasion of Somalia would make the warlords switch to guerilla tactics until such time as we left and they could carry on fighting for control.

I can't see there is any political will to send in troops to maintain control indefinitely.

There is a western backed faction who have set up a recognised government supported by Ethiopian troops and US Special forces and air power. It controls some of Mogadishu and err that's about it; as a work in progress it's clearly early days, but as it is primarily a Somali movement it has a better long term chance of success than a western invasion that will be another proverbial flame to draw jihadi moths to.

Mind you the brutal realist in me thinks it would have been better to back Al-Shabaab as they look the most likely to have the ability to win.

This is with the assumption that any peace is better than war and lawlessness and strife. In a talibanesque fashion things would improve (you only have to see how many afghans would prefer even the Taliban's rule of fear to the instability and war of today) and would probably curb piracy and the like in that rather frightening fashion that fundamentalist interpretations of sharia have of being effective. Of course islamists aren't exactly flavour of the month these days are they.

Ultimately though the only path to long term peace and security in a country where warlordism is rife is either one of giving the brutal warlords jobs in the government and helping them steer towards democracy (the afghan method) or someone will win the war and liquidate their enemies (the chinese method).

[DJKillaQueen]

I don't think invasion would sort Somalia out. What I was suggesting was 'protection' for the delivery of aid, to stop it falling into the hands of rebels. Half the problem is getting aid to those it's intended for.

I tend to agree with the rest of your post (apart from the Taliban bit - don't think many female Afghans what to see power returned to the Taliban). It disheartens me though to see countries like Somalia be so at the mercy of miltary rebels/ leaders. In truth the people per se have very little power, whatever they may think, especially people who are starving - and that's the issue really. Get the people well, then get them educated, and then they may feel they can be part of shaping the future. The West could support that kind of programme through the recognised government as well.

[david_carnell]

DJKQ - what natural resources do Afghanistan or Libya have?

Your cliches are getting as innaccurate as they are tiresome.

[DJKillaQueen]

And your rudeness (like the kind of vacuous post above) to people on the forum is equally tiresome. Are you incapable of being polite in debate?

Libya has oil. Aghanistan was attacked in revenge for 9/11. You know as well as I do that there are strategic and political factors involved when it comes to the middle east....partly because of oil and arms sales, but there were other things in the past such as the cold war for example as well.

[david_carnell]

But just trotting out the same old line of "oh well they don't have oil so we won't do anything" is so over-simplified as to be worthless.

If you want to talk about strategic political and trade aims - fine. Do so. Just know something about what you're talking about first. Or wikipedia it like normal.

[DJKillaQueen]

Actually I have a lot of knowledge of middle-eastern political history and I am fully aware of the complexity of it all. I don't use wiki myself because I find it too full of innacuracies (often written by wannabe researchers/ journalists and bloggers) - there are far better sources for information.

Unless you really are the supreme fountain of knowledge on everything I think it's foolish to assume to know what I or anyone knows. Try being less condascending....you'll be suprised how far it gets you. And anyway you should know by now that I won't put up with belittling insult and intellectual snobbery. There's far too much of that from a small group and they are effectively putting people off from posting.

We all have opinions, and we all think our opinions are well informed...we wouldn't be posting in a public forum if we didn't think that. But I know no more about you, your education, your experinece of life, travelling etc than you do about me, and because of that I would never assume to think I know what you do and don't know about the world.

If you want to know why I have the view I have then simply explore it through debate. Don't resort to condascending insult. It just reflects on you, not me.

[Brendan]

I wish we would invade countries that are easier to be intellectually condescending about than Afghanistan.

[mockney piers]

Like France? Bring back the good old days I say.

[david_carnell]

Unless you really are the supreme fountain of knowledge on everything

Oh, the irony. I can't take it.

There's far too much of that from a small group and they are effectively putting people off from posting

Gosh - with conspiracy theories like this you'll fit in well with any anti-Zionist movements. You know, we're all emailing each other behind your back to organise the resistance don't you?

And your middle-east knowledge may be unsurpassable for all I know but your knowledge of African politics leaves a bit to be desired if you think the only reason we're not wading knee-deep into Somalia is because of a lack of natural resources. Well, that, and the fact that Somalia is abundant with natural resources.

[DJKillaQueen]

What I actually said is that we couldn't gain control over natural resources.....that's exactly the kind of 'reading what you want to read' mentality that get's people's backs up.

Take the massacres in Sudan and Darfur for example. We did nothing there because China vetoed action (because China is heavily invested in Sudan mining it's resources and buying it's oil).

Morally we would never get away with invading a country and then mining it's resources - that was my point. And my following point about safeguarding aid was proved valid yesterday when Somalia's rebels warned the west not to deliver aid, denying that there was even a famine going on.

Happy now?

MP on the other hand, who has consitently demonstrated knowledge in debates on the middle east and africa (I have a lot of respect for his knowledge and views), feels no need to wind anyone up...just simply says he found a statement contradictory, and says why, without having to be condascending.

People do stop posting because of the rudeness of some on this forum (it's not unlike any forum in that respect though). You know that as well as I do and you know what...I don't blame them either.

[Alec John Moore]

Hi DJKQ

It's a bit depressing to see this kind of spat in the drawing room. I've grown to expect them in the lounge since I understood that was where a more "robust" discussion could be had. I see your point about people/posters taking a belittling approach to others who make apparently genuine statements of opinion but that don't quite chime with some others point of view. And, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy or concerted effort on the part of a croup of people for it to have a negative effect. I've noticed that most threads of this type follow a similar pattern. They start off with a reasonable exchange of views and then rapidly descend into sarcasm, in jokes, petty infighting and name calling having often been diverted so off topic that only a few regular posters can understand the exchange - and then they peter out. As you suggest, the lack of respect is a common enough phenomenon but it does put people off from using the forum as a place to share and learn. I've been thinking there must be an EDF version of Godwin's law - Edwin's perhaps - for this but it would need to cover so many types of post that it would become overused very quickly. We could limit it to references to Waitrose within the first ten posts, or something.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree will all of that......but see what you did there? Using the word 'Waitrose' in the drawing room - shameful behaviour ;-)