7 ms·

I don't claim to understand African issues very well, so take my comments with the grain of salt that I'm very ignorant. The civil wars that happen in certain

by PakG1 13y ago

I don't claim to understand African issues very well, so take my comments with the grain of salt that I'm very ignorant. The civil wars that happen in certain African nations are troubling. But what was more troubling to me was reading news how factions would take control by poisoning wells that provided water for citizens. It was unthinkable to me that someone could actually do that, especially in certain areas where water was scarce. Long-term effects seemed to be ignored in favour of short-term war gains. Having never experienced such a difficult situation, I can't process what kind of motivation and thinking could cause such horrific action. If such water supplies are found in areas where there is conflict, I worry that it only would add to the conflict, as they would be found as key tactical points to conquer and hold. It makes me sick that such good news brings such negative thoughts to my mind.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
> It was unthinkable to me that someone could actually do that, especially in certain areas where water was scarce. What would be the point of poisoning a well that nobody needed?
- PakG1 13y ago
  Point taken, but I think you know what I meant. :P
chad_oliver 13y ago
You raise some important issues, but if anything I actually think that this aquifer is going to reduce the conflict in this area. The civil wars, rape, and poisoning are all symptoms of a deeper illness: poverty. Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else, they're just poorer and therefore more desperate. Conflict minerals (diamonds, coltan, etc) fuel conflict because they are easy to control. It only takes a relatively few men to control a mine, and any diamonds mined can easily be exported. In contrast, an aquifer is hard to control: each liter of water isn't worth that much, and Kenya doesn't have the infrastructure to export water anyway. The water won't really be a target for militia, but it will be able to be used to develop the region. More water gives more crops, which gives higher living standards, which gives less war. (As a side note, another potential benefit is that this aquifer will promote regional integration, since it's on the border between South Sudan and Kenya. South Sudan is in the process of applying for membership in the East African Community, which has the stated goal of eventually transforming into a political federation. I expect that the EAC will be a very strong driver for regional security.)
- eloff 13y ago
  You can't explain away centuries (millenia in some cases) of tribalism, with hatred and fear and discrimination passed from parents to children for generations as mere poverty. Poverty plays a role to be sure, but the situation is more complex (it always is.)
  - chad_oliver 13y ago
    Sorry, I did not mean to discount the impact of tribalism. It is certainly a significant issue in East Africa (I can't speak for other areas). The history of the USA shows that even affluent western countries suffer from the Us vs Them mindset. That said, I do believe that poverty is the more significant issue. Increased development generally correlates with stronger government [1], and with better access to government. When this happens, disputes are more likely to be resolved through the legal system. I'm not an expert on the interaction between tribalism and warfare in developing countries, so don't think I'm trying to claim infallibility. This is just what I believe to be true. [1] I say correlates, because I can't say that development causes stronger government. It could be the other way around EDIT: Okay, now it's my turn to ask: what did I say wrong? Would you like to discuss it, rather than just downvoting?.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - eloff 13y ago
      I didn't downvote. Even relatively rich countries outside of Africa like Mexico, Chile, and Panama have very high violent crime rates, but mostly among the poor (in Panama anyway, in Mexico I suspect there's a lot more drug related violence.) So poverty is definitely a big issue, but tribalism plays a big role too, e.g. bloody civil wars and ethnic cleansing. A lot of violence in South Africa is either race related or tribal. So it's not that you're wrong, it's just that the picture is more complex than just poverty alone.
  - Jare 13y ago
    First world countries have an equally long history of the same hatred, fear, discrimination and constant warfare. In general terms, it only lessened when a large proportion of the population could move out of poverty and feel reasonably secure about their future. You don't have to look far to see how easy it is to revert to barbaric and uncivilized behaviour and standards when that sense of safety and security is put at risk.
sologoub 13y ago
Africa has a very long history of not only various factions fighting, but tribal conflicts that go back centuries. Things were only made worse as colonial powers played different tribes against each other. Add to this organized crime, religious hatred, and generally low regard for life, and we have what we have. Also, "poisoning the well" is a well documented military tactic in European heritage as well. Similarly devastating to the local populations are scorched earth tactics, for example used in WWII.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  Indeed, African militias do not have a monopoly on "poisoning the well" or other scorched-earth tactics. For a fantastic Western example, I would humbly point us all in the direction of our own nation's conduct in the Vietnam War, viz., with Agent Orange. The explicit aim of the Agent Orange campaigns was to render cropland useless, starving rural Vietnamese out of the countryside and driving them into (US-dominated) cities. Entire ecosystems were devastated as a result, and generations of Vietnamese suffered the aftermath. This was basically the 20th Century equivalent of the old Roman tactic of sewing salt into the enemy's wheat fields.
Wingman4l7 13y ago
It's just basic scorched earth tactics, which have been practiced for centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth It's actually not short-term -- what better way to prevent your enemies from populating an area than to permanently render it unsuitable for habitation?
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  But what is the purpose of that action? Traditionally warfare [it seems to me] has primarily been about geo located resources. That is you want the land or the resources on the land that your neighbour is on. If you destroy the land/resources then you might as well have let the neighbour stay there so long as you ensured they didn't impinge on your resources.
  - Wingman4l7 13y ago
    However, if your end goal is the genocide of a particular out-group, then it makes perfect sense.
ihnorton 13y ago
Kenya itself has been relatively stable and relatively peaceful for several decades. (there was some instability after an election in 2007, and there are simmering issues around the periphery - LRA in Uganda, fiefs in Somalia, continual intervention by Ethiopia in Somalia, North/South Sudan skirmishes).
- abenga 13y ago
  Actually it's the Kenyan military that has managed to dislodge Al Shabaab from significant swarths of Southern Somalia (up to their Mogadishu, and including the largest port, Kismayu). Ethiopia generally used to roll in, depose the warlord they didn't like, then head on back home. The Kenyan military tried to stabilize the region. It's not all altruism though, the intention was to create a buffer near the Kenyan border as the country intends to build a large port in Lamu, a coastal town nearer Somalia than Mombasa, the current main port. *Edit: Minor tense correction.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
smtddr 13y ago
>If such water supplies are found in areas where there is conflict, I worry that it only would add to the conflict I think you are completely right. Incoming anecdotal & speculation: My parents, born in Lagos Nigeria, basically saw this happen. They never planned to be in USA this long; I wasn't suppose to be born here. Basically, Shell(A gas station in USA) is strongly suspected of providing, at least in part, funding for a significant military/political action somewhere around 1970 - 1977. My parents, and several other Nigerians, who traveled to USA to get a degree then return to Nigeria no longer felt comfortable to return and came to the realization that they may have to live in USA for a very long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resources_of_Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resources_of_Africa Quote from Wiki: "Despite these abundance of natural resources, claims suggest that many Western nations like the United States, Canada, France and the United Kingdom as well as emerging economic powerhouses like China often exploit Africa's natural resources today, causing most of the value and money from the natural resources to go to the West rather than Africa, further causing the poverty in Africa."
- jeltz 13y ago
  The key question is if water can be used to start this kind of conflicts. I guess it could if the water means successful agriculture. Minor correction: Shell is a European oil company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell
laglad 13y ago
I speak as an African (Nigerian). As humans, we plan into the future. However, our planning timeframes are limited by how far into the future we can imagine. Further, our ability to imagine the future depends on how likely we believe that future to be. In the West where life is safe and prosperous, planning/imagining 20-30 years out is reasonable. In all likelihood, you will live that long. However, in war-torn African countries, the planning timeframe is much shorter for the people. If one faction can gain an advantage that gives them dominance over another faction for the next 2 years, they'll view that as ok. They do so because they can't actually think further than that. The past has taught them not to. This leads to awful decisions in a 10-yr frame. And so they stay trapped in a shitty situation. I think the actionable question here is "How can an (x+n) year future be imagined?" where x is the current imagined future whether it be a day, month or year and n is any additional time. Sadly, this question is philosophical until the basic needs of survival are met.
- r00fus 13y ago
  What is criminal is that the so-called humanitarian "West" either does nothing to assist longer-term thinking (don't want to create self-sufficient competitors!). Instead we strip-mine, exploit and install puppet governments so our all-important corporations and their profit and resource flows are unhindered.
- GuyCall 13y ago
  This is a great observation about how critically important the expectation of long-term safety is. Take a rich developed country and reduce that expectation from decades down to years and watch the economy collapse. Those guarantees of safety allow a huge amount of wealth to be created. People can invest huge amounts of capital into projects with very long and beneficial payoffs
- Ras_ 13y ago
  This was also an underlying factor when I tried to find why Russian tourists used to spend crazy amounts of money right across the EU border. Few of them told that looking back, it's possible that things might not last, so you mind as well use what you have now. When your planning perspective isn't long, you make different choices.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
This isn't a new thing. Land mines have been used to deny farmland to the enemy, which has effects that last for decades if not centuries. War has always been hell.
w_t_payne 13y ago
Let's stop thinking about Africa as a single entity, for a start. Even within one country, (Kenya), we can see immense variability in culture, economic and political function etc... For example, Nairobi feels (culturally) closer to NYC than it does to Mombasa. Whilst there is undeniably an immense quantity of grinding, debilitating poverty; there is also great wealth, and a good number of very smart people who are not only doing very well, but also helping to build a good future for the country. One should not overlook the crazy bureaucracy and inefficiency of course, but equally, one should not have a uniformly negative view ... we still need to operate, and to get things done.

by PakG1 13y ago

thaumasiotes 13y ago

> It was unthinkable to me that someone could actually do that, especially in certain areas where water was scarce. What would be the point of poisoning a well that nobody needed?

PakG1 13y ago
Point taken, but I think you know what I meant. :P

chad_oliver 13y ago

You raise some important issues, but if anything I actually think that this aquifer is going to reduce the conflict in this area. The civil wars, rape, and poisoning are all symptoms of a deeper illness: poverty. Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else, they're just poorer and therefore more desperate. Conflict minerals (diamonds, coltan, etc) fuel conflict because they are easy to control. It only takes a relatively few men to control a mine, and any diamonds mined can easily be exported. In contrast, an aquifer is hard to control: each liter of water isn't worth that much, and Kenya doesn't have the infrastructure to export water anyway. The water won't really be a target for militia, but it will be able to be used to develop the region. More water gives more crops, which gives higher living standards, which gives less war. (As a side note, another potential benefit is that this aquifer will promote regional integration, since it's on the border between South Sudan and Kenya. South Sudan is in the process of applying for membership in the East African Community, which has the stated goal of eventually transforming into a political federation. I expect that the EAC will be a very strong driver for regional security.)

eloff 13y ago
You can't explain away centuries (millenia in some cases) of tribalism, with hatred and fear and discrimination passed from parents to children for generations as mere poverty. Poverty plays a role to be sure, but the situation is more complex (it always is.)
- chad_oliver 13y ago
  Sorry, I did not mean to discount the impact of tribalism. It is certainly a significant issue in East Africa (I can't speak for other areas). The history of the USA shows that even affluent western countries suffer from the Us vs Them mindset. That said, I do believe that poverty is the more significant issue. Increased development generally correlates with stronger government [1], and with better access to government. When this happens, disputes are more likely to be resolved through the legal system. I'm not an expert on the interaction between tribalism and warfare in developing countries, so don't think I'm trying to claim infallibility. This is just what I believe to be true. [1] I say correlates, because I can't say that development causes stronger government. It could be the other way around EDIT: Okay, now it's my turn to ask: what did I say wrong? Would you like to discuss it, rather than just downvoting?.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - eloff 13y ago
    I didn't downvote. Even relatively rich countries outside of Africa like Mexico, Chile, and Panama have very high violent crime rates, but mostly among the poor (in Panama anyway, in Mexico I suspect there's a lot more drug related violence.) So poverty is definitely a big issue, but tribalism plays a big role too, e.g. bloody civil wars and ethnic cleansing. A lot of violence in South Africa is either race related or tribal. So it's not that you're wrong, it's just that the picture is more complex than just poverty alone.
- Jare 13y ago
  First world countries have an equally long history of the same hatred, fear, discrimination and constant warfare. In general terms, it only lessened when a large proportion of the population could move out of poverty and feel reasonably secure about their future. You don't have to look far to see how easy it is to revert to barbaric and uncivilized behaviour and standards when that sense of safety and security is put at risk.

sologoub 13y ago

Africa has a very long history of not only various factions fighting, but tribal conflicts that go back centuries. Things were only made worse as colonial powers played different tribes against each other. Add to this organized crime, religious hatred, and generally low regard for life, and we have what we have. Also, "poisoning the well" is a well documented military tactic in European heritage as well. Similarly devastating to the local populations are scorched earth tactics, for example used in WWII.

jonnathanson 13y ago
Indeed, African militias do not have a monopoly on "poisoning the well" or other scorched-earth tactics. For a fantastic Western example, I would humbly point us all in the direction of our own nation's conduct in the Vietnam War, viz., with Agent Orange. The explicit aim of the Agent Orange campaigns was to render cropland useless, starving rural Vietnamese out of the countryside and driving them into (US-dominated) cities. Entire ecosystems were devastated as a result, and generations of Vietnamese suffered the aftermath. This was basically the 20th Century equivalent of the old Roman tactic of sewing salt into the enemy's wheat fields.

Wingman4l7 13y ago

It's just basic scorched earth tactics, which have been practiced for centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth It's actually not short-term -- what better way to prevent your enemies from populating an area than to permanently render it unsuitable for habitation?

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
But what is the purpose of that action? Traditionally warfare [it seems to me] has primarily been about geo located resources. That is you want the land or the resources on the land that your neighbour is on. If you destroy the land/resources then you might as well have let the neighbour stay there so long as you ensured they didn't impinge on your resources.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  However, if your end goal is the genocide of a particular out-group, then it makes perfect sense.

ihnorton 13y ago

Kenya itself has been relatively stable and relatively peaceful for several decades. (there was some instability after an election in 2007, and there are simmering issues around the periphery - LRA in Uganda, fiefs in Somalia, continual intervention by Ethiopia in Somalia, North/South Sudan skirmishes).

abenga 13y ago
Actually it's the Kenyan military that has managed to dislodge Al Shabaab from significant swarths of Southern Somalia (up to their Mogadishu, and including the largest port, Kismayu). Ethiopia generally used to roll in, depose the warlord they didn't like, then head on back home. The Kenyan military tried to stabilize the region. It's not all altruism though, the intention was to create a buffer near the Kenyan border as the country intends to build a large port in Lamu, a coastal town nearer Somalia than Mombasa, the current main port. *Edit: Minor tense correction.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

smtddr 13y ago

>If such water supplies are found in areas where there is conflict, I worry that it only would add to the conflict I think you are completely right. Incoming anecdotal & speculation: My parents, born in Lagos Nigeria, basically saw this happen. They never planned to be in USA this long; I wasn't suppose to be born here. Basically, Shell(A gas station in USA) is strongly suspected of providing, at least in part, funding for a significant military/political action somewhere around 1970 - 1977. My parents, and several other Nigerians, who traveled to USA to get a degree then return to Nigeria no longer felt comfortable to return and came to the realization that they may have to live in USA for a very long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resources_of_Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resources_of_Africa Quote from Wiki: "Despite these abundance of natural resources, claims suggest that many Western nations like the United States, Canada, France and the United Kingdom as well as emerging economic powerhouses like China often exploit Africa's natural resources today, causing most of the value and money from the natural resources to go to the West rather than Africa, further causing the poverty in Africa."

jeltz 13y ago
The key question is if water can be used to start this kind of conflicts. I guess it could if the water means successful agriculture. Minor correction: Shell is a European oil company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell

laglad 13y ago

I speak as an African (Nigerian). As humans, we plan into the future. However, our planning timeframes are limited by how far into the future we can imagine. Further, our ability to imagine the future depends on how likely we believe that future to be. In the West where life is safe and prosperous, planning/imagining 20-30 years out is reasonable. In all likelihood, you will live that long. However, in war-torn African countries, the planning timeframe is much shorter for the people. If one faction can gain an advantage that gives them dominance over another faction for the next 2 years, they'll view that as ok. They do so because they can't actually think further than that. The past has taught them not to. This leads to awful decisions in a 10-yr frame. And so they stay trapped in a shitty situation. I think the actionable question here is "How can an (x+n) year future be imagined?" where x is the current imagined future whether it be a day, month or year and n is any additional time. Sadly, this question is philosophical until the basic needs of survival are met.

r00fus 13y ago
What is criminal is that the so-called humanitarian "West" either does nothing to assist longer-term thinking (don't want to create self-sufficient competitors!). Instead we strip-mine, exploit and install puppet governments so our all-important corporations and their profit and resource flows are unhindered.
GuyCall 13y ago
This is a great observation about how critically important the expectation of long-term safety is. Take a rich developed country and reduce that expectation from decades down to years and watch the economy collapse. Those guarantees of safety allow a huge amount of wealth to be created. People can invest huge amounts of capital into projects with very long and beneficial payoffs
Ras_ 13y ago
This was also an underlying factor when I tried to find why Russian tourists used to spend crazy amounts of money right across the EU border. Few of them told that looking back, it's possible that things might not last, so you mind as well use what you have now. When your planning perspective isn't long, you make different choices.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

This isn't a new thing. Land mines have been used to deny farmland to the enemy, which has effects that last for decades if not centuries. War has always been hell.

w_t_payne 13y ago

Let's stop thinking about Africa as a single entity, for a start. Even within one country, (Kenya), we can see immense variability in culture, economic and political function etc... For example, Nairobi feels (culturally) closer to NYC than it does to Mombasa. Whilst there is undeniably an immense quantity of grinding, debilitating poverty; there is also great wealth, and a good number of very smart people who are not only doing very well, but also helping to build a good future for the country. One should not overlook the crazy bureaucracy and inefficiency of course, but equally, one should not have a uniformly negative view ... we still need to operate, and to get things done.