Recently some articles on the famine situation in the Horn of Africa in general and Somalia in particular have caught my attention. Two of them are by Nicholas Kristof and another from the global poverty blog. I am posting the links below:
Glimpses of the next great famine
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/opinion/sunday/kristof-glimpses-of-the-next-great-famine.html?_r=1&hp
On top of famine, unspeakable violence
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/kristof-on-top-of-famine-unspeakable-violence.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=nicholas%20d.%20kristoff&st=cse
Too little, too late
http://www.globalpovertyproject.com/blog/view/482
It is very heart rending to read and feel the conditions of those fleeing Somalis. The common theme in both is the predatory conditions in which Somalis are living and how even attempts of aid are not much successful. You would be very astonished to know those conditions - rape, mass murder, roving bandits and the militia, choice of being killed by one (the marauding militia or bandits) or the other (starve to death). Even in this world today when total food production is more than that can feed its entire population, situations like these can create extreme cognitive dissonance. All articles warn of the impending disaster of at least 750,000 Somalis about to die in the next few months and as I write this piece scores are perhaps dying already. For every sigh of mine perhaps an unfortunate child's breath is stopping in the other part of the world.
Kristof's description of the situation on the ground is poignant. He brings the human element to the plight. They are people for God's sake, our people (we could have been there if the stroke of misfortune somehow in the larger scheme of things hasn't just passed by leaving us untouched) not just numbers and predictions.
Glimpses of the next great famine
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/opinion/sunday/kristof-glimpses-of-the-next-great-famine.html?_r=1&hp
On top of famine, unspeakable violence
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/kristof-on-top-of-famine-unspeakable-violence.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=nicholas%20d.%20kristoff&st=cse
Too little, too late
http://www.globalpovertyproject.com/blog/view/482
It is very heart rending to read and feel the conditions of those fleeing Somalis. The common theme in both is the predatory conditions in which Somalis are living and how even attempts of aid are not much successful. You would be very astonished to know those conditions - rape, mass murder, roving bandits and the militia, choice of being killed by one (the marauding militia or bandits) or the other (starve to death). Even in this world today when total food production is more than that can feed its entire population, situations like these can create extreme cognitive dissonance. All articles warn of the impending disaster of at least 750,000 Somalis about to die in the next few months and as I write this piece scores are perhaps dying already. For every sigh of mine perhaps an unfortunate child's breath is stopping in the other part of the world.
Kristof's description of the situation on the ground is poignant. He brings the human element to the plight. They are people for God's sake, our people (we could have been there if the stroke of misfortune somehow in the larger scheme of things hasn't just passed by leaving us untouched) not just numbers and predictions.
"WHAT’S most heartbreaking about starving children isn’t the patches of hair that fall out, the mottled skin and painful sores, the bones poking through taut skin. No, it’s the emptiness in their faces.
These children are conscious and their eyes follow you — but lethargically, devoid of expression, without tears or screams or even frowns. A starving child shuts off emotions, directing every calorie to keep vital organs functioning."
And in another article he writes:
"... I often write about the need for more family planning, but Somalis have eight children partly because they know that several may die. If we help save lives now so that parents can be confident their kids will survive, family size will drop. Likewise, educate girls and they will have fewer children."
This is an important insight I gained contrary to the conventional understanding on family planning (addressing the root cause of why they tend to have more children). The fact that not many may have a chance to survive could perhaps be a strong incentive.
Coming to the blog article by Katy Ho on http://www.globalpovertyproject.com/, which rightfully mentions the importance of policy making to prevent famines:
"In the World Food Day Message given by the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the focus was on the accessibility of food, and the impact of political instability and price volatility. This is an important reminder that along with international aid to relieve famines, we should also focus on policies to prevent famine in the future."
And what are those policies?: Irrigation projects, rainwater harvesting, land ownership to women, and preventing the staggering amount of food wastage. Any rational person can agree with these policies - nothing new there. I am not sure how land ownership to women can make it any better as I believe that is not the issue here and for the reasons explained below. It is highly probable that the majority of women that are being referred to are part of the family that owns the land but officially not in their names. In any case that's beside the point - who owns the land doesn't matter but the ownership being protected is what matters. Disclaimer: I have nothing against women. I am just trying to say that the problem hasn't been understood correctly.
In what could be the main reasons behind the economic success of the western world, Niall Ferguson in his Ted talk mentions (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html), one very important reason being property rights. Now how is this related to the current context?
In all these articles, there is a passing mention of the political instabilities and the role of militia (Al-Shabab) as to how it is crippling all aid efforts. Kristof in his article gives up -
"Refugees told me that the Shabab was widely disliked, and one solution to the famine would be stronger international backing for the weak and wobbly government in the Somalian capital, Mogadishu, in hopes of nurturing stability and replacing the Shabab. But that seems improbable."
So, this is where the main problem seems to lie. Most solutions are focused on symptoms and the strategies are very reactive. If people live in constant fear, don't have freedom, nor their property rights protected from marauding bandits and militia, how would any aid programs work or how would who owns a particular resource matter? That freedom is fundamental to development emphasizes my friend and economist Atanu Dey in his book Transforming India,(http://www.deeshaa.org/2011/06/09/transforming-india-the-book/) a book which explains why India is poor. One really need not be a trained economist to recognize this. But the sad part is that the most obvious truths are always missed from being noticed.
Coming back to the topic. In fact, any aid there of would be usurped by these bandits and/or the weak governments - who would maximize their own profits driven by venal motives. Gazillions of aid money could end up in their hands either directly (corrupt channels) or indirectly (via an incremental improvement in the economic situation which can potentially incentivise maximization of the loot). Lot of aid money has been going into Africa and the results are no where to be seen. For both - the seemingly weak governments as well as for the militia this status quo is best for their own benefit - and as always the common man suffers. It would be naive to not assume that significant chunk of aid money circulates between the two and both need the other for their existence.
Coming back to the topic. In fact, any aid there of would be usurped by these bandits and/or the weak governments - who would maximize their own profits driven by venal motives. Gazillions of aid money could end up in their hands either directly (corrupt channels) or indirectly (via an incremental improvement in the economic situation which can potentially incentivise maximization of the loot). Lot of aid money has been going into Africa and the results are no where to be seen. For both - the seemingly weak governments as well as for the militia this status quo is best for their own benefit - and as always the common man suffers. It would be naive to not assume that significant chunk of aid money circulates between the two and both need the other for their existence.
The key therefore is to call spade a spade and eliminate the militia and oppressive governments. If efforts are focused in this direction in a rightful way, there will be a hope to see light at the end of the tunnel. How to get there? One way is to cut off the arms supply to these militia and bandits and perhaps smoke them off from the face of the earth. How much ever easy it may seem, the interests of arms suppliers come into the way - and the very countries that agonize over this poverty problem and pump in gazillions of aid dollars are the biggest arms traders themselves. So, it is not in their interests to end this. A conflict can always be beneficial for the ones fomenting it at the cost of the conflicting parties destruction. Besides, when the powerful are engaged in needless wars over oil and spending there of, why would the death of a malnourished child somewhere in the tiny corner of the horn of Africa be of any significant importance? It is unfortunate that the debate on militia and property rights with stable governments is missing in addressing this scenario. Any funding given to the "weak" governments to make them "stronger"would not reach the people as it is obvious that there is no incentive for them to be strong to begin with. The status quo always benefits the "weak" governments and/or the dictators, and the militia.
One may get a sense of satisfaction by this "do-gooding". How much ever giving is necessary, if it does not go to right hands, the status-quo would not change. Understanding the problem is as important as giving.
One may get a sense of satisfaction by this "do-gooding". How much ever giving is necessary, if it does not go to right hands, the status-quo would not change. Understanding the problem is as important as giving.
Is there a hope? May be not until until the problem is correctly understood and efforts are focused onto where they should be exerted. And yes, being an optimist, I do hope that can happen in my life time.
Yoga
10/16/2011
