Somalian Drought and Famine

[1two]

How, the **** in the year 2011 can this happen?
Surely this could have been anticipated and stopped.

Its a sad day when a junkies death is bigger news in this country than thousands starving to death, yet not at all surprising!

[Hibrandenburg]

Spot on.

[Marabou Stork]

Indeed.

500 children starved to death in Somalia yesterday. 500 will die today. As sad as 93 people in Norway and Amy Winehouse's death are, there is nothing we can do about either of those situations. The East African situation can be helped enormously if people donate, but there's been amazingly little coverage of the disaster.

[Twa Cairpets]

Most people dont really care, or want to care.

Somalia is regarded as a seriously horrible, foreign place, completely outwith the frames of reference of most people - people cant compute hundreds or thousands of people dying of starvation because its something that doesnt happen to them, ever, other than on the news where it can be turned over. The death of Winehouse and the Norwegian killings are something we can contextualise.

I cant remember where I read it, but the reason why all the appeals for famine feature a single, named child, and what can be done for (usually) her, is that that has more success in engaging people than telling the story of 500 nameless children dying every day. The numbers are too big and uncomfortable to think about, so for the most part we don't.

The opening line is not meant as a pejorative judgement by the way, but it is true. As individuals in the West, donating a tenner does make a dfference, but its mostly done, I believe, to salve the conscience of the donor rather than being an active act of positive charity. That doesnt make it less valuable though.

[RyeSloan]

Most people dont really care, or want to care.

Somalia is regarded as a seriously horrible, foreign place, completely outwith the frames of reference of most people - people cant compute hundreds or thousands of people dying of starvation because its something that doesnt happen to them, ever, other than on the news where it can be turned over. The death of Winehouse and the Norwegian killings are something we can contextualise.

I cant remember where I read it, but the reason why all the appeals for famine feature a single, named child, and what can be done for (usually) her, is that that has more success in engaging people than telling the story of 500 nameless children dying every day. The numbers are too big and uncomfortable to think about, so for the most part we don't.

The opening line is not meant as a pejorative judgement by the way, but it is true. As individuals in the West, donating a tenner does make a dfference, but its mostly done, I believe, to salve the conscience of the donor rather than being an active act of positive charity. That doesnt make it less valuable though.

I don't entirely agree.

Somalia is a failed state and to answer the OP's question it doesn't matter if it's 2011 or 1011 if there is no rule of law and no one can get in or out to help then famine, illness and death are always going to be there.

I don't think it's a fact that people don't care it's simply a matter that there is little they can do. Yes donating might help but most people realise that the biggest thing that would help these poor Somali's would be the Africans themselves. For far too long the continent as a whole has tolerated dictators and warlords stomping over all and sundry...just look at how South Africa treats Mugabe as one of the more obvious cases. Yes the West should so what it can but it cannot seriously directly intervene.

I also don't get the fact that there is some sort of moral outrage that this is not headline news every day...it's certainly been in the news plenty but the unexpected death of a 'cultural icon' (in the loosest sense) and the horrible killing of scores of innocents very near our shores is also news worthy. Both incidents will pass quite quickly so a saturation of news coverage in the short term would be expected. A slow and developing famine in Somalia is hardly going to stop overnight so slightly less headlines but still plenty of coverage would be absolutely normal from my perspective.

[PeeJay]

Somalia is a failed state ...


Unlike the Western world in which governments can TAKE money from taxpayers without asking to pay several billions to banks and financial institutions (what was that about rule of law!) to rescue our "successful" system!

Seems our western, civilised and oh-so successful countries/governments have so little money left over after bailing out the banks that they now have to resort to actually asking taxpayers something, i.e. if they could kindly donate money to the hunger crisis - funny old world!

Something wrong somewhere, and it's not just in corrupt, failed states like Somalia IMO ...

[RyeSloan]

Unlike the Western world in which governments can TAKE money from taxpayers without asking to pay several billions to banks and financial institutions (what was that about rule of law!) to rescue our "successful" system!

Seems our western, civilised and oh-so successful countries/governments have so little money left over after bailing out the banks that they now have to resort to actually asking taxpayers something, i.e. if they could kindly donate money to the hunger crisis - funny old world!

Something wrong somewhere, and it's not just in corrupt, failed states like Somalia IMO ...

Who said it was perfect here?

If I had a choice of which system or country to live in or follow I know which one I would choose.....

[Twa Cairpets]

Unlike the Western world in which governments can TAKE money from taxpayers without asking to pay several billions to banks and financial institutions (what was that about rule of law!) to rescue our "successful" system!

Seems our western, civilised and oh-so successful countries/governments have so little money left over after bailing out the banks that they now have to resort to actually asking taxpayers something, i.e. if they could kindly donate money to the hunger crisis - funny old world!

Something wrong somewhere, and it's not just in corrupt, failed states like Somalia IMO ...

Miles off the mark.

I know which governmental system I'd prefer to live under, warts and all.

Also, requests for donations by charities and quangos happened before the credit crunch, so your point is wrong anyway.

[PeeJay]

Who said it was perfect here?


No-one - the OP asked how this could happen, in this day and age - your suggestion that Somalia is a failed state (as opposed to what BTW if not here?) seemed to me to imply that such things happen to failed states; my intention was to point out that the system you are happy to be living in cares more about banks and financial institutions than starving, dying millions - if you're happy with that situation, fine. Personally, I feel something is wrong when "our society" is prepared to throw billions at banks and financial institutions but has little money (relatively speaking, I guess) for more deserving causes IMO, of course.


I know it's not a simple black or white issue in terms of how to solve the problem of aid to starving nations, but I dislike intensely the discrepancy between what can be done for banks, etc. and what is done for ailing nations. I am also fully aware that many peope are quite happy to be where they are! After all, who in their right mind would want to swap places - but then I didn't imply that anyway, or I certainly didn't mean to.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't entirely agree.

Somalia is a failed state and to answer the OP's question it doesn't matter if it's 2011 or 1011 if there is no rule of law and no one can get in or out to help then famine, illness and death are always going to be there.

I don't think it's a fact that people don't care it's simply a matter that there is little they can do. Yes donating might help but most people realise that the biggest thing that would help these poor Somali's would be the Africans themselves. For far too long the continent as a whole has tolerated dictators and warlords stomping over all and sundry...just look at how South Africa treats Mugabe as one of the more obvious cases. Yes the West should so what it can but it cannot seriously directly intervene.

I also don't get the fact that there is some sort of moral outrage that this is not headline news every day...it's certainly been in the news plenty but the unexpected death of a 'cultural icon' (in the loosest sense) and the horrible killing of scores of innocents very near our shores is also news worthy. Both incidents will pass quite quickly so a saturation of news coverage in the short term would be expected. A slow and developing famine in Somalia is hardly going to stop overnight so slightly less headlines but still plenty of coverage would be absolutely normal from my perspective.

Personally, I think its both. It's a defence mechanism to an extent I think.

If you were to have full compassion for every tragedy, you'd end up topping yourself pretty quickly. Famine, disease, violence, child abuse, war, rape, accidents, slavery, people trafficking. The world has a lot of very horrible stuff going on, but for most of the people here, in this country, we dont see it unless it affects us directly. This is why you see lots of people taking part in the moon walk for example, as many individuals have their lives touched by cancer, for example. Thats why I saw dozens of people on Saturday on Ben Nevis with charity t-shirts on doing something for a cause close to them. It doesnt mean that alzheimers is more deserving than African famine, for example, its that people cannot afford (emotionally as well as financially) to care to the same degree about everything. Its not possible, its not the way we are programmed.

I dont think this means that we are bad people - far from it. But you could make the same statment as the OP but change the words "thousands starving to death" and insert "children abused each year" or "people dying unnecessarily from malaria" and the right to be (correctly) morally outraged would be the same. Unless you are a Daily Mail headline writer, it isnt possible to be permanently outraged all the time.

[Twa Cairpets]

No-one - the OP asked how this could happen, in this day and age - your suggestion that Somalia is a failed state (as opposed to what BTW if not here?) seemed to me to imply that such things happen to failed states; my intention was to point out that the system you are happy to be living in cares more about banks and financial institutions than starving, dying millions - if you're happy with that situation, fine. Personally, I feel something is wrong when "our society" is prepared to throw billions at banks and financial institutions but has little money (relatively speaking, I guess) for more deserving causes IMO, of course.


I know it's not a simple black or white issue in terms of how to solve the problem of aid to starving nations, but I dislike intensely the discrepancy between what can be done for banks, etc. and what is done for ailing nations. I am also fully aware that many peope are quite happy to be where they are! After all, who in their right mind would want to swap places - but then I didn't imply that anyway, or I certainly didn't mean to.

This is a false dichotomy. It isn't a choice between one or the other.

The fact that the money "thrown at banks" sadly needed to be to prevent a much worse collapse, which would have created poverty and destitution here and ultimately would have meant less money going overseas in aid. We can argue till the cows come home about if thats morally right or wrong, but it is a fact nonetheless.

[PeeJay]

Miles off the mark.

a) I know which governmental system I'd prefer to live under, warts and all.

b) Also, requests for donations by charities and quangos happened before the credit crunch, so your point is wrong anyway.

a) Well, fair point, but not one I was actually contesting, I personally wouldn't want to live under the UK system, but then I don't and haven't done for 30+ years anyway. As I said that wasn't my point - I stand by my view that our society (which has the resources after all) could put them to better use than saving banks and financial institutions; this can in no way be construed to mean that I would rather live under the Somalian (or similar) governmental system, I do feel entitled however to point out what I feel is not working in our society without it being interpreted as a blanket put-down of our society per se.

b) My - badly put point perhaps - was the discrepancy between money being taken (without asking from taxpayers) to prop up banks etc. and the need to ask taxpayers or people in general for donations. If you're happy with that, fine, I think we as a society should be doing better than kowtowing to the banking and financial institution lobbies - we point our fingers at the lack of any rule of law in failed states, yet we - as a society (our elected politicians) have no control over the banks.

[PeeJay]

This is a false dichotomy. It isn't a choice between one or the other.



I agree, it's not a choice between one or the other, I never intended to suggest that, yet I still feel it was a fair comparison to make.

I'm self employed - I've got to go otherwise I'll be in big trouble with myself ...:bye:

[RyeSloan]

No-one - the OP asked how this could happen, in this day and age - your suggestion that Somalia is a failed state (as opposed to what BTW if not here?) seemed to me to imply that such things happen to failed states; my intention was to point out that the system you are happy to be living in cares more about banks and financial institutions than starving, dying millions - if you're happy with that situation, fine. Personally, I feel something is wrong when "our society" is prepared to throw billions at banks and financial institutions but has little money (relatively speaking, I guess) for more deserving causes IMO, of course.


I know it's not a simple black or white issue in terms of how to solve the problem of aid to starving nations, but I dislike intensely the discrepancy between what can be done for banks, etc. and what is done for ailing nations. I am also fully aware that many peope are quite happy to be where they are! After all, who in their right mind would want to swap places - but then I didn't imply that anyway, or I certainly didn't mean to.

Not quite sure how you have turned this into the fault of the banks to be honest.

Quite clear to me that a failed state, and that is what Somalia is, will result in what we have seen. Death, Famine, War Lords and absolutely no rule of law. To try and even compare that with any country in the west or to the financial crisis is just plain silly in my opinion.

There has been plenty on here about the 'bank bailout'...however in summary it was a necessary requirement to prevent an even bigger crisis, one that may well have brought pain and poverty to many more millions. It may have stuck in many a craw but it was absolutely essential.

You seem to think Germany is significantly different to Britain..in terms of basic economic policies it's not really and there was plenty pain in the German financial sector as well (and a lot currently being avoided with the fudging of the Greek debt crisis as well!).

My rather straight forward point was that the west can do little to prevent famine in failed African states and that it is the African continent that should be doing more...I fail to see how the bank bail outs are relevant to that comment in any way

[PeeJay]

Not quite sure how you have turned this into the fault of the banks to be honest.


Well I haven't actually done that - I was comparing the willingness of society or government (voluntary or not) to shore up/rescue "failed" banks/banking system on behalf of some 700 EU banking lobbyists et al, with a failure to do something similar on an appropriate scale for famine stricken countries. If there's a will, surely there's a way? By the way my intention was not to compare Somalia - the failed state - with any western state - I - perhaps badly worded - was simply pointing out the different financial resources readily deployed to tackle the different problems. Is this morally defensible?

I think it's a fair point to make - banks/financial institutions are not THE problem, they're part of it - speculating on grain prices etc. (I know it's just what banks / Hedge funds do..)?

Germany certainly has had it problems regarding some banks, debt exposure - we've also had the ongoing problem of incorporating a failed state into this successful state - my point about Germany was a general one, I prefer the federal state system, lifestyle and so on - like any state it has its good and bad points. It's not perfect.

I feel the West could do more, but apparently it's not in its interests to actually do so - the list of what could be done is endless of course, perhaps most people don't really care anyway?

[Dashing Bob S]

Most people dont really care, or want to care.

Somalia is regarded as a seriously horrible, foreign place, completely outwith the frames of reference of most people - people cant compute hundreds or thousands of people dying of starvation because its something that doesnt happen to them, ever, other than on the news where it can be turned over. The death of Winehouse and the Norwegian killings are something we can contextualise.

I cant remember where I read it, but the reason why all the appeals for famine feature a single, named child, and what can be done for (usually) her, is that that has more success in engaging people than telling the story of 500 nameless children dying every day. The numbers are too big and uncomfortable to think about, so for the most part we don't.

The opening line is not meant as a pejorative judgement by the way, but it is true. As individuals in the West, donating a tenner does make a dfference, but its mostly done, I believe, to salve the conscience of the donor rather than being an active act of positive charity. That doesnt make it less valuable though.

I think this a very accurate reading of affairs. Another big problem/issue/obscenity is that, like everything else, charity and famine relief has become inextricably linked to our media and celebrity culture and that our empathy is now only ignited by through such campaigns. This can probably be traced back to Live Aid, when it was discovered that such campaigns might not 'make poverty history' (I still laugh bitterly at the shallow, cynical vacuity of that one) but might well make big bucks for the entertainment industry.

Public response to humanitarian issues is now tightly bound up with celebrity/fame/entertainment industry issues. It's undoubtedly helped raise the profile of such causes in the past, but the fatigue/ennui/hyperbole/ and general self-aggrandising nonsense has become a sword a lot of charities are now falling on.

I know people who have worked over the years with UNICEF, to name one charity, but now no longer feel comfortable doing so, as the tail of celebrity is definitely, and is increasingly seen by the public, as, waging the dog of the decent cause.

I'm not saying people should stay away from charity for that reason (I personally don't) : just that it's almost certain to have an effect.

How many people really want to see a painfully sincere billionaire pop star or actor telling them what they should be doing to help in a crisis far away, when they're struggling at home with cutbacks, price hikes, wage freezes, the threat of unemployment?

[Woody1985]

Are people kicked into action by viewing destruction? We see a lot of giving when tsunamis and earthquakes happen.

Do people give because subconsciously they feel it will do some good that way? Does this thought happen before considering the human side of things?

[RyeSloan]

Well I haven't actually done that - I was comparing the willingness of society or government (voluntary or not) to shore up/rescue "failed" banks/banking system on behalf of some 700 EU banking lobbyists et al, with a failure to do something similar on an appropriate scale for famine stricken countries. If there's a will, surely there's a way? By the way my intention was not to compare Somalia - the failed state - with any western state - I - perhaps badly worded - was simply pointing out the different financial resources readily deployed to tackle the different problems. Is this morally defensible?

I think it's a fair point to make - banks/financial institutions are not THE problem, they're part of it - speculating on grain prices etc. (I know it's just what banks / Hedge funds do..)?

Germany certainly has had it problems regarding some banks, debt exposure - we've also had the ongoing problem of incorporating a failed state into this successful state - my point about Germany was a general one, I prefer the federal state system, lifestyle and so on - like any state it has its good and bad points. It's not perfect.

I feel the West could do more, but apparently it's not in its interests to actually do so - the list of what could be done is endless of course, perhaps most people don't really care anyway?

I think the financial system was 'saved' for slightly more than 700 EU banking lobbyists!

You ask if the substantial support given to the financial sector is morally defensible, I'm not sure what against but using the nations resources to prevent a full blown financial collapse would seem a pretty defensible position to me.....that doesn't mean it should have been allowed to happen in the first place but once the gravity of the situation was clear there was little else to be done. Agaian I think that situation is compeltely different from starvation in Somalia and no matter how much I think we should help these poor people I doubt as a nation we would accept or even expect that we would intereve in humanitarian crisis after humanitarian crisis all over the globe, especailly if that intervention was costing hundreds of billions of pounds we didn't have.

I agree the West could do more but my point was that ultimatley it's not the West that can fix Africa, it has the ability to do that itself now that it finally has some economies that are growing quite substantially...that is where the lead should be coming from in this situation.

Finally I'm with you on the Federal system, I agree that it seems to work better by and large and of course the Germans have the money to support quite a generous funding system for it's states although it's interesting to note that there has been a lot of changes in Germany that politically would probably be impossible to implement here, substantial private sector involvement in health and education for example.