Somalia and South Sudan to receive £100 million each in UK aid

[kjgood]

Be careful what you wish for, I have considerable experience of Somalia and had seen millions of pounds given there in differing ways and by many conduits. £100m doesn't mean £100m to starving children who become dependent on overseas hand outs, but means £40m channelled through Save the Children, £1 through Oxfam etc etc. The best performers I ever saw were Medicins Sans Frontier and Medicins du Monde. The worst performers I ever saw were the UN and the EU, both self serving, first to run when it became difficult and both just so poorly out of control financially it actually became embarassing. Dig deep to find the real story and you'll find out how little much reaches its target. Aid is a racket and a huge industry now.

To be honest this is true unfortunately, I would understand the benefit of making these sort of donations easier if the aid actually got to the people that need it on the ground, but it doesn't, only a small percentage does. We cant sit back and ignore the horrible circumstances that these people find themselves but every pair of hands the aid goes through takes their percentage. Then in country as others have also said the aid ends up in some cases in the wrong hands and is used for the wrong reasons either to make money or military gain. There are also in some cases tribal favouritism's involved. I wish i knew the answer of how to make it better.

 

[Smirko]

I agree with the rest of your post but am not sure that's entirely fair. The UN have been key in reporting on political developments, the evolution of the war, Al Shaabab and coastal piracy etc. They've brokered numerous peace agreements between warring factions and facilitated the involvement of untold numbers of NGOs. They've coordinated, or been involved in, all of the humanitarian assistance so far since 1990 ish. They've deployed forces, though the im[pact of these in the most hard hit areas is perhaps debateable.

They perhaps could have done more, but the fact that it's a shitpit now doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worse, or a much larger shitpit without the help of the UN.

Thank You Boutros Boutros Ghali

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Possibly starting with education on the use of Caps Lock?

that hasn't solved the situation of people dying from starvation
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Forgetting the grammar lesson for now, perhaps just take a history one.

really, all is see is the same situation in Africa time and time again, that's the history I see
regards
DR

 

[Bold Seagull]

really, all is see is the same situation in Africa time and time again, that's the history I see
regards
DR

If only you could look outside your tiny bubble of existence, you may enlighten yourself.

 

[sjamesb3466]

I agree with the rest of your post but am not sure that's entirely fair. The UN have been key in reporting on political developments, the evolution of the war, Al Shaabab and coastal piracy etc. They've brokered numerous peace agreements between warring factions and facilitated the involvement of untold numbers of NGOs. They've coordinated, or been involved in, all of the humanitarian assistance so far since 1990 ish. They've deployed forces, though the im[pact of these in the most hard hit areas is perhaps debateable.

They perhaps could have done more, but the fact that it's a shitpit now doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worse, or a much larger shitpit without the help of the UN.

Yet despite all of their efforts Somalia has been in civil war for over two decades, an estimated 500,000 killed in the fighting alone and hundreds of thousands killed in various famines.

The UN has also presided over the Rwandan Genocide, Bosnian Genocide, Sri Lankan Civil War and Ukraine annexation. In Rwanda, Bosnia and Sri Lanka in particular they had the opportunity to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and yet their ridiculous rules of engagement wouldn't allow it and they were concerned that by taking civilians out of harms way they would be effectively ethnically cleansing the nation. Instead they sat by and watched as people were butchered on the streets. I understand and agree that they should not take sides during a civil war however protecting civilians should take priority and their is nothing wrong with protecting civilians against anyone trying to attack them.

The UN was set up over 70 years ago to prevent another world war and is simply not fit for purpose in the modern world. It's remit has become too large, full of career politicians who line their pockets as they preach to the world's dictators who pay **** all attention because they know that the puppy doesn't even bark let alone bite. Added to that all the Russians/Chinese have to do is veto a resolution that the rest of the world can see should be implemented but they don't want due to their own political motives (see Ukraine-Crimea/Tibet).

 

[Leekbrookgull]

How much is a Hi Viz Vest to buy ? As that is always only what i see !

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The UN, what a joke they are, I spent six weeks in Somalia attempting to find the then Zone Director of East Africa in the bush with tribal elements and gaining intelligence to find out that he had flown back to Ghana...... along with $1m. You have to see these people to believe the life style they live, the UN representatives are the new colonial powers, spending unaccountably other peoples money. They are poor beyond belief, would you allocate your best ambassadors to the UN? of course not, jobs for the boys.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

HOW ABOUT GETTING THEIR COUNTRYS LEADERS TO GET THEIR HOUSE IN ORDER
regards
DR

In the case of South Sudan, it has only been an independent nation for less than six years, having gained its independence from Sudan, the Arab nation to the north in 2011. Sudan left a heritage of civil war that lasted on and off for over twenty years. Establishing peace is a huge challenge for a new nation was starved of investment throughout its domination by Sudan and, before that, Britain.

"Get your house in order" is an easy shout from the sidelines. The new nation needs all the support it can get. I'm pleased that Britain is at least making a modest contribution.

 

[Westdene Wonder]

HOW ABOUT GETTING THEIR COUNTRYS LEADERS TO GET THEIR HOUSE IN ORDER
regards
DR

Too Right,we make huge payments to countries that fail to look after their people however little of this reaches the poor,If the UN cannot supervise food supplies it is pointless

 

[GT49er]

Yet despite all of their efforts Somalia has been in civil war for over two decades, an estimated 500,000 killed in the fighting alone and hundreds of thousands killed in various famines.

The UN has also presided over the Rwandan Genocide, Bosnian Genocide, Sri Lankan Civil War and Ukraine annexation. In Rwanda, Bosnia and Sri Lanka in particular they had the opportunity to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and yet their ridiculous rules of engagement wouldn't allow it and they were concerned that by taking civilians out of harms way they would be effectively ethnically cleansing the nation. Instead they sat by and watched as people were butchered on the streets. I understand and agree that they should not take sides during a civil war however protecting civilians should take priority and their is nothing wrong with protecting civilians against anyone trying to attack them.

The UN was set up over 70 years ago to prevent another world war and is simply not fit for purpose in the modern world. It's remit has become too large, full of career politicians who line their pockets as they preach to the world's dictators who pay **** all attention because they know that the puppy doesn't even bark let alone bite. Added to that all the Russians/Chinese have to do is veto a resolution that the rest of the world can see should be implemented but they don't want due to their own political motives (see Ukraine-Crimea/Tibet).

Sad, but pretty accurate............................

 

[Insel affe]

Yet despite all of their efforts Somalia has been in civil war for over two decades, an estimated 500,000 killed in the fighting alone and hundreds of thousands killed in various famines.

The UN has also presided over the Rwandan Genocide, Bosnian Genocide, Sri Lankan Civil War and Ukraine annexation. In Rwanda, Bosnia and Sri Lanka in particular they had the opportunity to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and yet their ridiculous rules of engagement wouldn't allow it and they were concerned that by taking civilians out of harms way they would be effectively ethnically cleansing the nation. Instead they sat by and watched as people were butchered on the streets. I understand and agree that they should not take sides during a civil war however protecting civilians should take priority and their is nothing wrong with protecting civilians against anyone trying to attack them.

The UN was set up over 70 years ago to prevent another world war and is simply not fit for purpose in the modern world. It's remit has become too large, full of career politicians who line their pockets as they preach to the world's dictators who pay **** all attention because they know that the puppy doesn't even bark let alone bite. Added to that all the Russians/Chinese have to do is veto a resolution that the rest of the world can see should be implemented but they don't want due to their own political motives (see Ukraine-Crimea/Tibet).

Bingo.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

In the case of South Sudan, it has only been an independent nation for less than six years, having gained its independence from Sudan, the Arab nation to the north in 2011. Sudan left a heritage of civil war that lasted on and off for over twenty years. Establishing peace is a huge challenge for a new nation was starved of investment throughout its domination by Sudan and, before that, Britain.

"Get your house in order" is an easy shout from the sidelines. The new nation needs all the support it can get. I'm pleased that Britain is at least making a modest contribution.

i never said I was against any help
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

If only you could look outside your tiny bubble of existence, you may enlighten yourself.

it's been there for everyone to see for years , maybe you should open up your eyes
regards
DR

 

[sydney]

200 million quid......and where the flying **** is that gonna come from ......complete and utter joke.......!!!

 

[Hamilton]

Yet despite all of their efforts Somalia has been in civil war for over two decades, an estimated 500,000 killed in the fighting alone and hundreds of thousands killed in various famines.

The UN has also presided over the Rwandan Genocide, Bosnian Genocide, Sri Lankan Civil War and Ukraine annexation. In Rwanda, Bosnia and Sri Lanka in particular they had the opportunity to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and yet their ridiculous rules of engagement wouldn't allow it and they were concerned that by taking civilians out of harms way they would be effectively ethnically cleansing the nation. Instead they sat by and watched as people were butchered on the streets. I understand and agree that they should not take sides during a civil war however protecting civilians should take priority and their is nothing wrong with protecting civilians against anyone trying to attack them.

The UN was set up over 70 years ago to prevent another world war and is simply not fit for purpose in the modern world. It's remit has become too large, full of career politicians who line their pockets as they preach to the world's dictators who pay **** all attention because they know that the puppy doesn't even bark let alone bite. Added to that all the Russians/Chinese have to do is veto a resolution that the rest of the world can see should be implemented but they don't want due to their own political motives (see Ukraine-Crimea/Tibet).

I think the language 'presided over' is misleading at worst and colourful at best.

I have no appreciation of how the UN is set up, but would be interested in what reforms you'd suggest. I assume you're not suggesting we just do away with it and each go our own way?

 

[sydney]

I just hope the food and water gets to the people that need it and it doesn't fall into the hands of either side in the civil wars as it will undoubtedly be used as a recruiting tool to further their cause (join us and your family can eat).

Whilst I do think that the UK needs to be part of the international community that helps in these situations I find it very depressing that those in power in these countries still seem to find the money to buy guns and ammunition.

Somalia has been in ruins for over 20 years with little sign of improvement, what the solution is I don't think anyone knows. A perfect example however of how pointless an organisation the UN is.

just another non descript off-shore slush fund for all the usual suspects to wallow in .....joke...!!

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Be careful what you wish for, I have considerable experience of Somalia and had seen millions of pounds given there in differing ways and by many conduits. £100m doesn't mean £100m to starving children who become dependent on overseas hand outs, but means £40m channelled through Save the Children, £1 through Oxfam etc etc. The best performers I ever saw were Medicins Sans Frontier and Medicins du Monde. The worst performers I ever saw were the UN and the EU, both self serving, first to run when it became difficult and both just so poorly out of control financially it actually became embarassing. Dig deep to find the real story and you'll find out how little much reaches its target. Aid is a racket and a huge industry now.

The situation over there is terrible.
My sister works for 'save' and i tend to agree, they seem poorly run and managed (in general terms), MSF is a much more professional outfit i'm sad to say.

It would probably be better to 'nationalise' aid (not harking back to the days of tying countries into contracts with British companies), but expanding DFID.
You never know the next country we invade and destroy their government and infrastructure, we could send some teams out and perhaps not completely lose the 'hearts and minds' war.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

The UN was set up over 70 years ago to prevent another world war and is simply not fit for purpose in the modern world.
...

I agree with your post, just pointing out that it has been successful in this endeavour. Mainly because of the veto...

Although saying that Korea was an interesting situation, UN troops were used - the soviets were sulking at the time and were boycotting the UN.

 

[Titanic]

200 million quid......and where the flying **** is that gonna come from ......complete and utter joke.......!!!

£200m is approx 0.025% of UK government spending.