... to think it's time the world sorted out Somalia?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Bandits, murderers, pirates, kidnappers, a hotbed for terrorism ... Somalia is like a vicious boil on the face of Africa. Where is the League of African Nations? The UN?

I mean, Kenya should be frigging loaded. Its people should not be burning to death in slums because they were trying to scoop petrol from a sewer running between their homes. But it isn't, and they are.

To "sort out" a country means removing its autonomy. That is colonialism, whether by us or America or the UN or by other African nations. It would mean going backwards.

I agree with that last statement. 'Sorting' a country is interference in a colonial way.

The West does have a lot to answer for - both then and now. We are still more heavily involved in plenty of corrupt regimes than we care to mention and we have to take responsibility for carving up Africa to suit our own ends. How many nations' boundaries cut straight through a traditional tribal region regardless of the people it affects?

There is a long history of the West creating or helping to create problems in 'independent' nations and then standing well back to watch the fireworks. Biafra was 40 years ago. Nothing changes.

"We are still more heavily involved in plenty of corrupt regimes than we care to mention" -

yes - it's revolting

I mean, what are you going to do - you'd have to take a side. You have to choose a leader or government, ibid Libya, Afghanistan (repeatedly). How's that working out for us? Pretty crappily.

And pretty crappily for the nations too.

Shame it appears to be an afterthought for those making the decisions to get involved though, eh?

'Sorting out' a country which (apart from Somaliland) has no working state, no proper infrastructure, etc is almost impossible. Look at Afghanistan. You can't just fly in and impose a new governing regime from scratch that will miraculously make it all better.

The problem is that if a force shield suddenly went up around Africa, so that the rest of the world couldn't get in/ influence it, the next 10 years would be absolutely dreadful for the majority of countries, but the next 10 would be better than it could ever be with the other countries constantly getting involved.

However, no-one wants the first 10 years to happen on their watch

Yes button - always an afterthought.

Totally agree TheBride.

Blueberties, I know they are stereotypes but they are for a reason. It was so blindingly obvious, an observation but don't know what anyone can do about it to bring about change.

And the aid issue is another thing. I get so wound up watching, for eg, Comic Relief as they show you a womens and childrens clinic stacked to the roof with mosquito nets etc to hand out. If they went back to film later that day there'd be nothing left. They'd have been appropriated and sold!

We often kill with kindness, though I'm not criticising the motivation for that generosity. But we enable the corrupt to continue with their oppression.

In Dead Aid (great book for anyone interested in the Aid issue) the author actually raises the problem of Aid killing off fledgling businesses in villages so that people stay Aid dependent. So, you think you're doing a great thing by donating a mosquito net to a village in Africa, but actually, you just bankrupt the village's major employer which was a cottage industry making mosquito nets. Who's going to buy one when the great white chief will just land his aid plane and give you one?

Result: Everyone has a mosquito net, but no-one has a job.

The presence and actions of the world's navies is all very well, but it is basically like sticking plaster on the problem. Somalia is a lawless state - until that is tackled (and I cannot see how that will be resolved) the problems will continue. The pirates have huge resources and are covering increasing distances. However many military ships you have, they cannot be everywhere.

oops - cross out that is in the first line. "are".

That's interesting. I'd never thought of it that way. I've only seen evidence of what I described but what you said makes perfect sense too.

Jajas: what I mean is, you have to be absolutely aware of what one is talking about. One cannot say "something must be done" with liberal intentions without examining thoroughly one's attitude to the problem. "Something must be done" is tremendously well-intentioned and liberal but from the very minute one ventures beyond "something must be done" one is involved with stereotypes, didactism, colonialism and even possible racism.

There are massive oversight issues in Africa and, for that matter, in south Asia. In Russia they are preventing outside investment. How does one deal with that? "Bring about change?" -- What change, exactly? If you think there is a cultural problem - which it seems you do - do you want to change the culture? Is that your job? Is that your responsibility? Is it your right?

If.... let's pick one out of the air..... Portugal was to be run on the same lines as Somalia, regularly hijacking shipping off the Spanish coast, kidnapping holidaymakers from the South of France, sending terrorists out and generally making life unpleasant for their citizens and neighbours alike, I don't think the European community would be quite so relaxed about it and would see it as a collective responsibility to clean the place up.

"Something must be done" always strikes me as a very dangerous phrase.

What is this something? How exactly is it going to be done (invasion?)? What is the desired end-state, and who will decide when it has been reached?

Unless you have a very clear plan about what you are trying to achieve, and know that both the end-state and the means to reach it will be welcome (or at least palatable), then you are looking at another Afghanistan.

What do you mean, "clean the place up"?

'Nothing can be done' is a far more dangerous phrase ....

Not really. We "sorted out" India and Africa. Far better to have done nothing at all.

What is the "something" Cogito? What do you mean?

What would we do with an unruly Portugal?

Does the fact that we might "do something" about Portugal mean we should "do something" about Somalia? Why?

I am not an expert in managing countries out of anarchy and into some kind of peaceful, working state where the rule of law applies. (Which is what I mean by cleaning a place up.) I would expect that acheiving it involves a carrot and stick approach of talks between the interested parties on the one hand and some kind of sanctions on the other. Multinational policing, force if necessary, promises of investment for resolutions. My example of a 'Portugal' was to illustrate that if the same problem was happening within European borders, we would be acting as neighbouring states to restore order. Whereas in Africa, this isn't happening and Somalia has been left to rot in the hands of thugs for about 20 years.

Given that there are Al Quaeda factions operating out of Somalia as well, the problem goes beyond Africa. When the next atrocity happens and it is traced back to a Somalian cell we'll all be saying 'we should have done something'.

Yes, but whichever way you cut it there is a removal of autonomy.

The carrot and stick approach sounds nice but in a lawless state you will be talking about oversight issues on an unbelievable scale. When the "interested parties" are warlords who appropriate food meant for dying children, a carrot and stick approach is nothing more than a fantasy. When they are powerful families who appropriate infrastructure aid for Swiss bank accounts it is nothing more than a fantasy. Sanctions? On what? Even arms sanctions - obviously a marvellous idea - will have minimal effect when weapons are available under the wire from nations where dealers and politicians operate with impunity. Bring the local people into the law enforcement arena and they will often sell their weapons and uniforms and use their power - the first power they may ever have had in their lives - to extract bribes from poorer and less powerful people than they are. Investment? Who is going to invest without stability? Who is going to promise it? If you promise stability to investors, you have to promise enforcement - again, colonialism and removal of autonomy.