Emerging, Promising And Best Practices On Infant Mortality: Fill & Download for Free

This question is a non-starter; the What-If history is precisely what did happen. Believe it or not, the first approach by India in foreign relations was towards no other than the USA."I thought India was pretty jammed with poor people and cows round streets, witch doctors and people sitting on hot coals and bathing in the Ganges... but I did not think anybody thought it was important" - Harry S Truman, 33rd President of the USA, around 1951.The above was stated when Chester Bowles requested a posting to India as Ambassador. The comment itself speaks volumes for the US attitudes towards India in those days - please remembiner that in 1951, we were not in the Russian cirde of influence. That started after 1960, and gained momentum only from 1971. The question is why did this come about? Why did the 2 democracies - India and the USA - not get together earlier? For this, we have to go back to where it all started: before independence.Then the Atlantic Charter - when Indian rights to freedom - were denied also played an important in the overall scheme of things. The backtracking by the USA stunned the Indian leaders, and drove a negative image of the USA into their minds. This was a brutal and massive setback of Indian aspirations, and one that cannot be understated.The end of the Second World War brought world to a point where forces were aligned in 2 - USA and Russia. And that is where the the real story starts to unfold. According to US archives, the first message Nehru sent as Acting Prime Minister was on 20 September 1946: "In view of the very serious food situation in India which is being aggravated by shipping strikes in America, would earnestly request you and throiugh you the labour leaders to permit and arrange for earlier dispatch of food ships to India". . At this juncture, (or few years afterwards), there was no approach to Russia. Indeed, the first Indian Ambassador to Russia was not even granted a meeting with Stalin, whereas there were diplomatic ties with US right from 1946. The first approach was made by India to the USA."The concern the British Military felt about future Soviet intentions emerges clearly from a top-secret report on The Security of India and the Indian Ocean, prepared by Post-Hostilities Planning Staff of the War Cabinet on Churchill's orders. This report states 'The USSR is the only major power that would be capable of seriously threatening our interests in India and the Indian Ocean by 1955-1960'. The report also points out 'It is of paramount importance that India should not secede from the Empire or remain neutral in War'. 'We must ensure that whatever constitutional changes occur, we retain the right to station Military Reserves in India... There might be political objections to stationing the strategic reserve in India proper after she has been granted Dominion Status... Central Headquarters India have suggested Baluchistan as an alternative to India proper, on the grounds that it may be relatively easy to exclude this territory from the Dominion of India". "In the event of Soviet Aggression, early support from the US is essential to the security of our interests"The above paragraph proves quite conclusively that the western affliction with Russia far predates our alliance with Russia. It stands to reason that the British, having alluded to US support against Russia, would have discussed this with them. The western preoccupation with Russia is what started pushing India towards the Russians, slowly but surely. As proof, Pakistan joined the alliance in 1955. The Russians, initially cool towards India, also naturally followed the developments, and took advantage. Then came the chance to provide technology to India: in the form of steel plants. This technology was refused - but was given by the Russians, who were quick to spot an opportunity. Further, knowing the pride aspect of Indians, they offered technology transfer as well. The first Military deal was signed in 1962 - with full technology transfer - something the USA is yet to do as of 2013. It also needs to be noted that Indian and Russian interests did not clash in any segment - a fact which holds true to this day.As regards the Russian angle, we were never part of the Russian block. We were just allies. Further, please note that Russia offered technology transfer right from the start; and actually helped us whenever we were in dire need - whereas the USA always denied help - right from the 1930s and 1940s. Documented fact. US denial of help to India right from the Atlantic Charter predated the Indo - Russian alliance. Atlantic Charter, Refusal to give steel technology for steel plants, Military help to Pakistan from 1955 etc etc all predate India's alliance with the Russians. I dont think the West has any right to object, given that they had refused us help consistently, right from 1947. An American president is even on record stating "I didnt think it (India) was important (as shown above)". This statement also predates India's so-called alliance with the Russians. If we went to Russia, it is the west which is responsible for it, with their refusal of help on innumerable occasions as well as building up Pakistan militarily. We had no option; we had to ally with Russia for self-defence. The West had better examine its own actions before preaching to India.And in conclusion, such absolutely wonderful remarks as given below did not help too much, either:John Foster Dulles: Neutrality between Good and Evil is Evil itself... on our policy of Non-Alignment and refusal to get caught up in taking sides. (Switzerland in World War 2 was evil, by those standards... but no one said it then. Why?)President Harry Truman: I thought India was pretty jammed with poor people, and cows around streets,witch doctors and people sitting on hot coals and bathing in the Ganges.... but I did not think anybody thought it as importantWith such awesome views being aired, what do you expect?The record shows we approached USA first - and were spurned on each and every occasion. The reason is that USA was not interested in altruism or friendship; they needed a means to control the middle east and Russia - and Pakistan met the requirement.So, your question is not alternative history; it is a historical fact. Sad, but true. We should have gone Non-Aligned from the very start; it would have been much, much betterReferences:1) The Shadow Of The Great Game - The Untold Story Of India's Partition by Narendra Singh Sarila2) Pax Indica by Shashi TharoorLATE EDITIt is true that Nehru was attracted by Russian ideals. But can we blame Nehru, who was a slave to a brutal exploitative regime? Would it not be only natural for a slave to be attracted towards a regime which promised equality for all - especially when that slave was reading signs like Indians and Dogs not allowed practically everyday? Nehru's affliction was only natural.It needs to be noted that despite this natural proclivity towards and attraction for socialism, Nehru et al chose a mixed economy, with emphasis on private enterprise, with the core sectors needed for development being led by Public Enterprises. This is a sign that no one notes - that shows that our leaders were thinking men who were moulding known systems, and trying to arrive at a best fit.Furthermore, the scale of the problem confronting them was massive; there was no infrastructure to speak of; no schools; no colleges; no proper roads; no electricity in the entire rural belt. The Raj had only developed those areas that were needed for exploitation; and little else. There were practically no industries; no land reform with rampant zamindari; economic growth had slowed to near zero; capital formation was at a virtual standstill. This was the overall scenario. The numbers on the Human Development Parameters were also abysmal, and bear no comparison to the other oft-quoted examples like Japan etc. We were decades behind Japan in all parameters like life expectancy, infant mortality etc. For example, the literacy rate in Japan in 1929 was 43.8%, with over 90% enrollments in schools. India was not even a fraction of that percentage.Not only that, the requirement was an equitable distribution of development; as well as spread of industries, The capital requirements were also massive; too massive to be within the pale of local capital - the question of foreign capital does not arise, given the immediate history. Furthermore, immediate capitalism would also have led to interior and less-developed areas being neglected.The overall response - which was not socialistic, but capitalistic, with a government controlled major industries segment - was the need of the times, The licence raj came in afterwards; after Panditji...cc: Joseph BoyleFrom my blog posts:1) India & Russia - and the US connection2) India: and the USA... A complicated relationship...Interestingly, 50 years later, the same USA is approaching the same India (remember: witch doctors, hot coals, etc etc?) and trying half-heartedly to push through its business interests; with a total lack of success! Poetic Justice?

I’ve been cynical, answering other, similar questions, I shall try and avoid that here. Let’s check some facts.Let it be said, that I am politically center left, liberal, but not neo liberal. I believe in a healthy regulation of businesses and industries that affect national and international welfare and citizen health (let’s face it, some ‘Giants’ are too big to care about the citizen) Just so you know where I stand.I believe (hope) what we all want, is affordable, accountable, transparently and efficiently managed and competent healthcare for all.I took these numbers from different sources, which I cross referenced. Depending on where you look, these are all within 10% variation. (neglectable)I left out extreme left or right sources for obvious reasons.Now some US citizens may not like this, some may be happy with their healthcare. These lines below reflect the general average, not best and worst.You may disagree with some of the accuracy of the numbers in some cases (don’t hesitate to show me), but in general, the message is clear anyway.In a nutshell: (sources below)Because the NHS is less expensive, (by far) more cost efficient (by far), easier accessible, less bureaucratic, quicker on site service, more humane (by far), Ok, longer waiting times for treatment, better regulated (less profits to pharma- and insurance industries, by far) etc.Not being cynical, the US system seems to be operating on pro trade and profit legislation, removing barriers to trade and profits. When you see that a business system is unfair or immoral, legislature needs to kick in and regulate it to protect the citizen. Americans are some of the most compassionate and helpful people I know, I don’t understand why the US HC System and pharmaceuticals industry remains under regulated and often ignorant to the patients needs.Now, The NHS has problems, funding needs will increase (though still much more cost effective than the US counterparts), and the management has to make changes to become more cost efficient overall. They are working on it.Cost:US:According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($9,403), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.1%), than any other nation in 2014.UK:The systems are 98.8% funded from general taxation and National Insurance contributions, plus small amounts from patient charges for some services. About 10% of GDP is spent on health and most is spent in the public sector. The money to pay for the NHS comes directly from taxation. The 2008/9 budget roughly equates to a contribution of £1,980 per person in the UK.Another source, same message:While the USA outspent the UK on healthcare (£6,311 and £2,777 per person/respectively) in 2014, average life expectancy at birth in the USA was 78.8, compared with 81.4 in the UK. Despite spending, by far, the largest amount onhealthcare, the USA was among the 10 OECD countries with the lowest life expectancy. Nov 1, 2016How does UK healthcare spending compare internationally?Everyone in the UK is covered, even refugees and tourists without insurance. (I think that should be looked at)Scheduling treatment can take time, much longer than US (depending on urgency) Emergency service is faster than in the US, at (depending on where I read) 3–5% less ‘quality’. (at a very high standard, it’s a bit less ‘shiny’)These facts show, the UK citizen is healthier and lives longer for far less money.Tragedies of refused cancer treatments are unimaginable. The NHS could easily increase cost by 25%, solve all its problems be a shining beacon at still a good, patient oriented cost/price.Here is some really good reading,What the NHS 'A&E crisis' looks like in comparison to America's private healthcareWe also need to consider that the United States ranks highest or near-highest in obesity, car accidents, infant mortality, drug use, degenerative brain disease, sexually transmitted infections, coronary heart disease, adolescent pregnancies, injuries, and homicides. On average. That costs money too, so maybe these problems need addressing as well. (it sounds bad, but I am not making this up, check yourself, or my sources below.)About the opioid crisis, and yes it is relevant, as it shows the intricate complexity of a cunningly constructed ‘business web. (overpriced, under regulated, over advertised pharmaceuticals market)Insurance claims related to opioid dependence have risen by 3200%, US study findsWiki, “Americans undergo cancer screenings at significantly higher rates than people in other developed countries, and access MRI and CT scans at the highest rate of any OECD nation.” While that is a good thing, it has gone rampant in the US (in Switzerland also by the way) as there is so much money in it for all involved.Why Your MRI or CT Scan Costs An Arm and a LegA 2012 study for the years 2002–2008 found that about 25% of all senior citizens in the US declared bankruptcy due to medical expenses, and 43% were forced to mortgage or sell their primary residence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3614143/“How you measure the NHS deficiencies against the agony of facing a bill for cancer care you cannot pay (or didn’t get), I just don’t know.” - Ex-Conservative health minister UK, Alistair Burt.Gallup recorded that the uninsured rate among U.S. adults was 11.9% for the first quarter of 2015, continuing the decline of the uninsured rate outset by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).Despite being among the top world economic powers, the US remains the sole industrialized nation in the world without universal health care coverageFuture fundingAccording to the WP, “The analysis, published in the journal Health Affairs, estimates that by 2026, national health spending will climb to $5.7 trillion, or nearly a fifth of the economy. Prescription drug spending is forecast to grow at 6.3 percent per year, on average, between 2017 to 2026.” 20% of GDP by 2026The Guardian says of the NHS, “The NHS budget will need to increase by £88bn over the next 50 years, meaning governments could have to raise taxes or cut spending in other areas to fund it, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has said.” 12% of GDP by 2060https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/14/u-s-spending-on-drugs-will-grow-faster-than-other-health-care-services-over-the-next-decade/?utm_term=.6eb6bfb95fc8Some US citizens may wish to look away, ignore or deny the facts without argumentatively refuting them or showing evidence to do so (for false patriotic reasons or others), you do so at your own cost and health risk, literally.More sources:NHS will need £88bn extra by 2067, says OBR forecastNational Health Service in UKHere are some of the NHS problems, real, but solvable, 10 charts that show why the NHS is in trouble (still a lot better than the US counterpart though, as the numbers and reports above show)Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care in the United KingdomThings you need to know about US pharmaceutical market and pharmacies.Understanding the hidden villain of Big Pharma: pharmacy benefit managersTrump promised to negotiate drug prices – then he made a big U-turn after meeting Big Pharma lobbyistsOk, This is a bit on the left side, but it has some meritWhy America’s Sick Health Care System Turns British Conservatives QueasyIf your insurance denies coverage9 things insurers don't want you to knowHow to Appeal a Health Insurance DenialWhat Is a Health Insurance Waiver and How Does It Work?Practices of US health insurance companies concerning MS therapies interfere with shared decision-making and harm patientsHealth Officials Warn The U.S. Still Faces An ‘Ongoing, Severe Epidemic’ Of STDsThank you and be wellIT BEGINS WITH YOU

We libertarians get quite a kick out of the “Somalia is a libertarian paradise” strawman.Somalia is in no sense of the word “libertarian”Somalia is a lesson in (the failures of) authoritarianismSomalia also demonstrates the failure of foreign interventionism.Applying minimal libertarian principles ameliorates Somalia’s troubles{If YouTube has censored both of videos below, you might find the humorous strawman by searching youtube for “PSA for Extremist Libertarians”. or “Somalia, the Libertarian Paradise}[Video: Humorous strawman attack on libertarians as wanting a “Somalian paradise” (1 min)].1. Is Somalia “Libertarian”?The first thing we would need to see if Somalia were a “libertarian paradise” would be … well … libertarians. And these libertarians would have to be trying to establish a libertarian society.Which libertarians are trying to create a libertarian society in Somalia?Islamists:Now, some Muslims are libertarian[1] , but it turns out to be pretty few, especially amongst the hard-core, AK-47 toting, “I’m going to chop off your head, you infidel” Muslims.The Somali Muslims, it turns out, want to set up what the Right calls an “Islamo-Fascist state”, with strict laws, violently enforced, on how people dress and what they eat and a whole bunch of things that libertarians would never do.Socialists:Few socialists become right-libertarians. (I did, but everyone ignores me!) While we’d love to have them, they’d have to put down the gun of the state, they’d have to stop stealing people’s property, and they’d have to stop killing people for disagreeing with them.These particular Somali socialists do not seem interested in adopting our Live and Let Live philosophy. They are trying to re-constitute their old, failed socialist country, perhaps because “That wasn’t real socialism.”?Tribal Identitarians:The five to seven different Somali tribes don’t particularly like each other, don’t want to live with each other, and especially don’t want to be subjugated by the other.But do you know what they all do want? To capture the legitimized government violence in order to plunder, subjugate, and kill the other tribes. (Again — not libertarian!)So, even at first blush, the anti-libertarian’s sophistry is revealed:Somalia not only has no libertarians, it is composed entirely of authoritarians, none of whom is trying to create a libertarian society.In fact, what we see in Somalia is what we expect to see when authoritarians fight to capture a government — murdering one another in order to subjugate.If one set of the authoritarians eventually wins and captures the centralized government, I can tell you what won’t be happening — they won’t be instituting Live and Let Live. Nope, there will only be the typical authoritarian plundering the losers and threatening them with death for living their lives differently than the winners.Not only are there no libertarians in Somalia, there’s no one there who has the ability to become a libertarian.Somalia has no history of freedom.Somalia embraces no philosophy of liberty.Somalia’s history is replete of violent authoritarian subjugation (socialists, Islamists, the tribes, and colonial powers).Somali intellectual elites have been murdered or emigrated.The current average IQ in Somalia hovers around 70 [5],[44] making the country intellectually incapable of generating on their own a philosophy of liberty, while plunder and brutality are easily understood.And the only thing they have learned from their [colonial and interventionist] Western masters has been subjugation, warfare, mass killing, brutality, and plunder.Somalia has lived all of its history under authoritarianism, with the only question being which thug will be ruthless enough to pull himself to the top.And with no libertarians in Somalia, with no libertarian philosophy in Somalia, with no prospect of libertarian philosophy in Somalia, and with only a history of authoritarianism in Somalia, Somalia obviously cannot be an “example of libertarianism”..2. Somalia is a Lesson in the Failures of AuthoritarianismFar from refuting libertarianism, Somalia illustrates the inevitable result of authoritarianism — when political plundering and violence have run its course and destroyed all the wealth and civil institutions of society. (See also Venezuela and Russia.)Anti-libertarians want us to assume that a peaceful, wise, socialist authoritarian government, which took great care of all its people, was undermined by a few evil libertarians trying to create their libertarian paradise.As is typical of anti-libertarians, the opposite is the truth.2.1 Authoritarian DemocideLibertarians worry about authoritarian democide, while authoritarians believe that their violence is justified to plunder and control their rivals.The Somali central government brutally put down clan rebellions in the late 1980s. It purged government offices, bombed towns, killed civilians, committed reprisal murders, poisoned town wells, strafed fleeing citizens, raped women, performed mass executions, and extorted refugees. [1]In particular, the Somali government entered a purposeful campaign of reprisal against members of the Isaaq tribe. A confidential report revealed the government’s intention to “liquidate” the “Isaaq problem” through violent tactics.” [1]The government’s democide of the Isaaq clan included round-ups, mass executions, laying land mines around their towns, destroying their water sources, killing or looting their livestock, burning their villages, and arbitrary beatings and detentions. Unarmed citizens were “purposefully murdered by the Somali Armed Forces between May 1988 and March 1989, in the absence of resistance and in contexts which presented no immediate danger to these forces.” [2] [1]“15,000-20,000 civilians were killed directly from the bombing of (the Somali cities of) Hargeisa and Burao.” [34]From the latter part of 1988 to the early part of 1989, the Somali government killed 50,000 Somalis. [35]This government murder rate is 20X higher than the rate of murder during the civil war after the fall of the central government, during which fewer than 5,000 Somalis were murdered each year for two years in 1994 and 1995. [36]“The Barre regime continued to launch targeted reprisals against civilian populations throughout 1990.President Barre’s presidential brigade, the Red Berets, executed civilians in and around Mogadishu. “In one incident, the Red Berets (marched) 100 civilians into a stadium and killed them.” [1]“In another incident in Buli Burti, the Red Berets killed fifty unarmed, noncombatant civilians (most were prominent locals such as elected officials, clan elders, and Islamic leaders) in retaliation for a USC attack on SAF troops.” [1]The government’s violent tactics displaced roughly 400,000-500,000 people in northwestern Somalia (which led to later famine). [1]Government troops executed prisoners and routinely fired on ambulances. [1][Pictured: Isaaq children murded by Somali government.] [37]2.2 The Psychopathy of GovernmentLibertarians warn that the power to violently plunder and compel is too attractive to psychopaths.In 1969, after only eight years of “independence” from their colonial rulers, Siad Barre, the General of the army, assassinated the president, suspended the constitution, the parliament, and the supreme court, and installed himself as a Soviet-Islamist leader. [38][Pictured above: I believe this to picture President Daar, with his assassin and later Somali socialist dictator, Said Barre, (in white) behind him …]I came to power with a gun; only the gun can make me go- Siad Barre [23]2.3 Socialism is AuthortiarianThe Somali government was always authoritarian:Barre violently instituted single party rule for 31 years.Barre designed his “Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party” to marry two authoritarian concepts together: “scientific socialism” and Islam. [39]Somalia became a client state of the USSR,[Pictured above: Siad Barre debating their plans for Horn of Africa military domination with fellow Soviet client, Fidel Castro.] [40]In our Revolution we believe that we have broken the chain of a consumer economy based on imports, and we are free to decide our destiny. And in order to realize the interests of the Somali people, their achievement of a better life, the full development of their potentialities and the fulfillment of their aspirations, we solemnly declare Somalia to be a Socialist State— Siad Barre (1970) [23]2.4 The Violence of the StateLibertarians warn that legitimize governments execute, torture, and murder. Authoritarians believe that UN-recognized governments have every right to rule “their” people.The Somali government formed a number of “paramilitaries, militias, and security agencies (e.g., National Security Service (Somalia) and the Victory Pioneers), which inflicted violence on political adversaries and other clans. sameIn 1978, President Barre executed 82 high level military officers. This led to a military coup attempt, which Barre then brutally put down. [1]“Beginning in 1982, the state imposed curfews in certain regions … as a pretense for the detainment and extortion of civilians…“Detainment and looting became a lucrative source of funding for state forces and paramilitaries…:The government employed Mobile Military Courts (MMCs), … followed almost immediately by executions. “ [1]We have chosen social justice instead of exploitation of man by man and this is how we can … direct him to [a] virtuous life. However, the reactionaries wanted to create a rift between socialism and Islam because socialism is not in their interest— Siad Barre [23]2.5 War!A libertarian rejects offensive military interventions into foreign countries. Somalia, being an authoritarian government, embraced wars of conquest, accelerating its demise.In the 1970s, the Somalian army was the largest army in Africa. [41]In 1977, Somalia attacked neighboring Ethiopia; Somalia was eventually driven out by Cubans backed by the USSR. This incursion killed tens of thousands directly, and hundreds of thousands in war-created famine. [41]2.6 CronyismAuthoritarianism grows by awarding plunder to political cronies.In the 1980s, the central government distributed political plunder to its own clan. The other clans, feeling ripped off, formed militias, which increasingly challenged the central military dictatorship.In particular, the Barre administration purged, repressed, and punished the Majeerteen clan at the end of the 1970s, and the Isaaq clan in the 1980s. The Isaaq clan lost all government posts, their businesses were confiscated, they were mass arrested and detained, and they endured government violence in the street.This directly led to the creation of the Issaq armed insurgency resistance force, the SMN. [1] [25]2.7 PlunderLibertarians view rulers as kleptocrats, plundering for themselves and for their cronies. The eventual outcome is what we saw in Somalia — the collapse of society as wealth is consumed, and as productive minds and capital flee.By 1990, the Barre government was hyper-inflating its currency, controlling foreign exchange, forbidding assembly, rationing, and controlling imports.[1]After Barre's regime collapsed, warlords, hoping to establish themselves as the head of the next national government, continued fighting, looting, and extorting in the same fashion as the failed central government. [7][Picture: Like all authoritarians eventually do, the Somali government plundered through inflation, bringing instability and collapse.].3. Somalia demonstrates the Failure of Foreign InterventionismSomalia’s destruction at the hands of authoritarians didn’t start with their own thugs.3.1 Founded in Colonial Authoritarian ImperialismSomalia suffered from the authoritarianism known as Western colonialism.The British and Italians subjugated Somalia for almost 75 years, exploiting the indiginous people to fight their colonial battles.In an interesting example of unintended consequences, in 1897 the British “gave” a large part of Somalia called Ogaden to Ethiopia for Ethiopia’s military support against the French. [28]This single, arrogant intervention would lead to a hundred years of guerrilla war, civil war, declared war, and terrorism. Its cost was the murders of tens of thousands and the starvation of hundreds of thousands. [15] [29] [30]The Dervish rebellion broke “Somalia” into smaller, more coherent state-regions, along tribal lines. [31][In 1915, the Dervish rebellion had ousted colonial rule and broken “Somalia” into more coherent tribal ‘countries’.]The colonial powers deployed their air forces after WWI to reconquer the land and force the entire region again under their colonial rule. [31][Italy and England forced disparate tribes under their sole authority.]3.2 One Central GovernmentWhen the colonial powers decolonized the region, they arrogantly forced the several diverse tribes — with quite different histories, interests, allegiances, and desires for governance — together into one country, which they labeled, “Somalia”.Over the next twenty years, the clans engaged in low-grade political warfare, fighting electorally, and sometimes openly in the streets, over which clan would capture the national government and could then plunder the others.The low-grade electoral war exploded into full-fledged civil warfare in the 1980s, and eventually drove out the Barre government from its tribal-based subjugation of the other tribes.After the central government fell, the civil war continued, as each clan continued to try to capture the central government.Somalia continues to suffer on-going battles over which tribe will control the others. [24] [26] [27]3.3 Foreign Interventionism: Fuels Civil WarWhenever the developed nations and the UN intervene in Somalia, the crisis increases.Without foreign intervention, fighting ebbs as clans realize that no one clan has the military power to seize the central government to wield its violent power over the other clans. The clans return to their own territories and relative peace returns.However, instead of recognizing the clan-based territories as autonomous governments, foreign governments have continued to try to impose one ruling authority over all the disparate clans.In 1992, “a State Department official said that the U.S. mission in Somalia was "basically re-creating a country."” [7]Each new foreign intervention to “stabilize the country” instigates another wave of civil war as the clans renew their battles over who will capture the big throne.[The locations of the various Somali tribes.]The fighting has been spurred by foreign countries’ promises of awarding recognition, aid, and weapons to the winner.The violence has been described as “clan cleansing as a tactic to capture the state.” [7]When relief agencies bring in food aid, the clans burn it to prevent it from falling into the hands of rival clans.“Some of the militias that were then competing for power saw UNOSOM's presence as a threat to their hegemony. Consequently, gun battles took place in Mogadishu between local gunmen and peacekeepers” (1992–1995) [11]In 2006 the UN imposed a Transitional Federal Government (TFG) upon Somalia.The parliament is self-selected by those who had the means or connections to participateMany legislators have few, if any, real ties to the local people whom they claim to represent.The president was then 'elected' by this non-representative institution.The government has failed to win the trust of most Somalis."It was seen "by most of the Mogadishu population as a puppet of Ethiopia,“Uncontrolled TFG security forces became the principal sources of insecurity for the local population, engaging in kidnapping, assaults, and worse.” [7] [11]A 2012 paper from the International Crisis Group concluded that the "international community made a mistake in recognizing the [Transitional Federal Government] as the national government, representative of all Somalia.” [7]3.4 Foreign Interventionism: Fuels AbusesThe foreign militaries have abused Somalis.The US-backed Ethiopian attack of Somalia in 2008 led directly to yet another famine that killed almost 5% of the population. [18]Investigations into the actions of various UNITAF/ UNOSOM forces revealed numerous peacekeeper abuses against civilians.“One investigation of Belgian forces revealed 58 cases of killing or injury to unarmed civilians, although the number of actual abusive killings may have been much larger than the inquiry suggests.”“Abuses committed by the Italian troops include the looting of displaced persons camps and rape.”“Malaysian peace keepers engaged in looting”“Pakistanis and Nigerians indiscriminately fired on protesting crowds.” [1]“The United States adopted a practice of excessive force intended to achieve military victories with minimal loss of U.S. military lives. This policy, coupled with U.S. military technology in the urban Mogadishu environment led to breaches of the Geneva conventions and hundreds of civilian fatalities“An attack on a hospital .. led to at least two civilian casualties,“An attack on a mainly civilian political meeting of Aideed supporters resulted in 54 deaths, according the Red Cross. ““On September 9, 1993, a U.S. helicopter fired on an unarmed crowd killing roughly 60 civilians.“Anywhere from 60 to 500 Somali deaths resulted from the October 3, 1993 “Black Hawk Down” incident.” [1]Foreign Interventionism: Fuels TerrorismShabab is a largely indigenous Islamo-fascist terrorist organization.“In late 2006 a U.S. proxy invasion by Ethiopians (long-time enemies of the Somalis) brought violent chaos back to huge parts of Somalia, resulting in a fresh wave of 10,000 civilian deaths, 1 million refugees, and 3 million in need of emergency food aid.”Shabab was born of a Somali response to fight the US-backed Ethiopian incursion, [7]Both Bush and Obama reintroduced troops into Somalia to fight Shabab. [18]“[Shabab] has never perpetrated a terrorist act in the United States.”“Shabab could not have been involved in the 9/11, “[18]In 2009, the US’s concern about Shabab led to a new US-backed invasion, by Kenyans this time. [7]“Washington is now more cynically using Somalia to wage a drone war and to run rendition and torture camps.” [7].4. Even Modest Libertarian Reforms HelpEven though Somalia is an example, not of libertarianism, but of authoritarianism (both Somali and the West’s), it is instructive to see how even modest libertarian reforms help people.4.1 Right of SecessionSomalia demonstrates how trying to force one government onto disparate tribes led to decades of fighting and to hundred of thousand of deaths. Libertarians believe that each person has the right to choose their own leader.One thing that we libertarians notice is that, when the clans separate back into their individual territories, hostilities diminish.In 1991, Somaliland declared independence. Although not recognized by international powers, it is fairly stable. [18]Puntland has also seceded. Also not recognized by the authoritarian governments, it too is more stable than the areas controlled by the UN’s abomination. [18]Other areas finding independence include Jubaland, Banadir and finally Galmudug. [22]At present, the anemic and wobbly “Somalian government” controls little more than the capital Mogadishu. Real power is splintered among clan-based war lords and Shabab. [18]“The decline of mass civilian deaths is also correlated with the rise of the independent statelets of Somaliland (with Hargeisa as its capital) and Puntland.” [1][Somalia self-divided into autonomous tribal lands, circa 2010]I did not come to power to divide Somali but to unite them, and I will never deviate from this path. I shall respect a Somali individual as long as he deserves respect, but if he turns away from the correct path, then that is not my business— Siad Barre (1978) [23]4.2 Reduction of Foreign InterventionLibertarians warn about unintended consequences of foreign interventionism, and we notice what happens when foreign powers stop interfering in Somalia.Each time foreign nations stopped trying to install a centralized government in Somalia, the clans pulled back to their clan territories and left one another alone in relative peace; there was no longer any reason to try to conquer one another. [7]“The exit of international actors and armed forces deprived many factions of their economic bases. No single militant group possessed the strength or capability to overcome others and to capture the state.“Peace was not sought by these groups because the condition of statelessness and violence was beneficial to the militias.“Rather than pursue the re-establishment of a peaceful centralized Somali state (sic), the militias pursued only enough stability as would allow them to conduct profitable business activities”. [1]The early 21st century brought a period of relative peace, disrupted by three separate attempts to create internationally supported "real" governments that in practice exacerbated conflict.“[While] much of the largely pastoral population just tried to live their lives, an alphabet soup of often Islamist militias rose and fell and rose and fell, fighting each other and the feckless would-be national governments.” [7]“According to Interpeace, after UNOSOM's departure in March 1995, military clashes between local factions became shorter, generally less intense, and more localized.” [11]4.3 Benefits of DecentralizationAs Somalia decentralized into several separate, tribal-based pseudo-countries, the people of Somalia enjoyed stronger economic growth compared to its prior growth and to its neighbors.[2008]: “[On] 18 development indicators for Somalia … 14 showed unambiguous improvement under anarchy.“Life expectancy is higher today than...in the last years of government's existence;“Infant mortality has improved 24 percent;“Maternal mortality has fallen over 30 percent;“Infants with low birth weight has fallen more than 15 percentage points;“Access to health facilities has increased more than 25 percentage points;“Access to sanitation has risen eight percentage points;“Extreme poverty has plummeted nearly 20 percentage points...and“The prevalence of TVs, radios, and telephones has jumped between 3 and 25 times." [7]“Somalia, in many respects, “more than held its own against its statist neighbors.””“On the majority of the indicators...Somalia improved more than its neighbors over the same period, suggesting that the collapse of government resulted in greater development improvements than would have occurred in its absence.”“In a number of cases, Somalia has been improving while its neighbors have been declining."” [7]“By almost every metric, the Somalis were better off with no government than with the [authoritarian] government they had had.“Yes, the conditions in Somalia were grim, like life in Siberia. But this does not mean more government necessarily makes it better.” [33]4.4 Anarchist Legal Achievements“[A]t worst, "anarchist" Somalia has … developed bottom-up systems of "protection and access to resources...through a combination of blood payment groups (diya), customary law (xeer), negotiation (shir), and the threat of force. [These mirror the] collective security, international regimes, diplomacy, and recourse to war, which are the principal tools of … modern states." “"These extensive and intensive mechanisms for both managing conflict and providing a modest level of security in a context of state collapse are virtually invisible to external observers, whose sole preoccupation is often with the one structure that actually provides the least amount of rule of law to Somalis — the central state." [7]“The Somali people have a [developed] decently functioning cultural and juridical practices that come surprisingly close to the private adjudication systems proposed by the anarcho-capitalist writers Murray Rothbard and David Friedman.“That "legal" system, known as xeer, generally outlaws only direct physical harm to other people or their personal property.“Xeer is built entirely around victim compensation, known as the diya, not punishment or imprisonment.“Kinship groups have an interestingly sophisticated system of group insurance, essentially committing to pitching in to help make good on costly misbehavior by their relatives.“(In a less Rothbardian touch, the largely nomadic pastoral Somalis don't recognize true individual ownership of landed property.)” [7]The ICU's legal system tended toward a non-uniform syncretist mix of Shariah and xeer, with the former applying most to family, marriage, inheritance, and strictly civil matters.Some instances of harsh Shariah-like physical punishment are known to have happened in Mogadishu when the ICU dominated the city."[T]he Islamic Courts were not able to establish a system under which sharia was systematically, or even exclusively, applied."Indeed, clan law "ensured that the legal force of Islamic law remained limited." [7]"Customary xeer is the most far-reaching of the Somali justice systems, particularly in rural areas that are commonly beyond the reach of formal judicial systems, and is the most effectively enforced."“Since these various justice systems have maintained "a modicum of peace and security in various parts of the country, to force one system across all areas would undermine those systems that function locally, and 'rule of law' assistance could in those circumstances create more conflict by undermining the structures that currently underpin local peace and security arrangements." [7]4.5 Somalia Piracy:I cannot end this topic without commenting about how Somali piracy, often included in the anti-libertarian’s smear, also exemplifies a failure of authoritarianism, not of libertarianism.Libertarians believe that we each have the right to self-defense. Authoritarians rob us of our self-defense, threatening us to rely only on their centralized defense “service”, which is too often slow, expensive, plodding, and ineffective.In the case of Somali piracy, authoritarianism exacerbated the piracy and disempowered hundred of sailors to be at the mercy of otherwise easily beaten murderers.Freighters were prohibited by governments to protect themselves,Large scale Navy interventions pitted gigantic, multi-million dollar ships, far from our shores, against a decentralized group of fast, small pirate skiffs.The centralized authority could not defeat the smaller, decentralized force.As soon as freighters started taking their own defense into their own hands, piracy was halted.Decentralized self-defense succeeded where the world’s most powerful authoritarian defense had failed.As we knew, decentralized libertarian self-defense succeeded where centralized authoritarianism could only fail.[Video: A freighters’ private defense guards repel Somali pirates (1:40 min)].SummaryThe anti-libertarians’ charge that Somalia represents a “libertarian utopia” is absurd.There is nothing “libertarian” about Somalia.To the contrary, Somalia offers a lesson of why authoritarianism fails.The West’s own authoritarian interventions exacerbated the problem — from colonial inception, through an imposed central government, to today’s continued military interventions.The hope lies not in yet another white-man imposed centralized authoritarian government, but in libertarian ideas such as decentralizing power and ending foreign interventions.Interesting Follow-up Questions in Comments Section:You’re missing the point. What would prevent a libertarian society from turning into Somalia?Why wouldn't any other place turn out like Somalia if we just abolish governments, which rule using violence? (Asked: Purujit Saha)If not Somalia, is there any past or present government that is libertarian?Isn’t it obvious that a libertarian Somalia would be taken over by other countriesIsn’t there significant debate over what Somali IQ would be?I define any society without a strong, centralized authoritarian government as “libertarian”.References:Somalia: Fall of Siad Barre and the civil warhttp://cja.org/downloads/Why%20Somalis%20Flee.pdfSiad Barre’s Fall Blamed for Somalia’s Collapse into Civil Warhttp://www.peterleeson.com/Better_off_Stateless.pdfhttps://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-countryU.S. Government to Blame for Somalia’s MiseryIs Somalia Libertarian? - the meme policemanSomalia: Fall of Siad Barre and the civil warSomalia: Counting the cost of anarchyU.S. Government to Blame for Somalia’s MiserySomali Civil War - WikipediaAnarchy in SomaliaSomalia - Forced Migration OnlineSomali diaspora - WikipediaOgaden War - WikipediaPirate-Fighters, Inc.: How Mercenaries Became Ships’ Best DefenseIt Is up to Somalia to Combat Al-ShababTrump follow Reagan, exit Somaliahttps://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/219122/271377/phd_unimi_R07997.pdfSomalia - Recipe of a Terrorist StateThe Suicidal State in Somalia: Book ReviewConsolidation of states within Somalia (1998-2006)Siad Barre - WikiquoteHISTORY OF SOMALIAThe Rebirth Of Somaliland (13): How The SNM Invaded The NorthSomalia ClansSomalia - From Great Hope to Failed State - Association for Diplomatic Studies and TrainingAnglo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1897 - WikipediaOgaden - WikipediaInsurgency in Ogaden - WikipediaDervish Resistance to Colonial OccupationU.S. War Crimes in SomaliaBetter Off Stateless: Somalia Before and after Government Collapse.Somaliland Genocide Raids 1988Somalia: State Failure and Self-Determination in the Shadow of the Global EconomySomalia: A Government At War With Its Own People: AFRICA WATCH COMMITTEE: 9780929692333: Amazon.com: BooksCountry Profile: SomaliaSupreme Revolutionary Council (Somalia) - Wikipediahttps://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/06/04/a-three-way-struggle-for-the-soul-of-somalias-revolution/f611a92a-3be6-43bb-83c0-ab074ea247f5/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ae9e3959bd3aFidel Castro Left Mark on Somalia, Horn of AfricaMilitary history of Somalia - WikipediaTransitional federal government, Republic of Somalia - WikipediaPiracy off the coast of Somalia - WikipediaShalom Dickson's answer to I heard that the average IQ of sub-saharan Africans is significantly lower than that of Western Europeans. Is this true? If so, is the cause environmental or genetic?See related:How would libertarians fix Venezuela's problems?Should we intervene in countries that lack basic liberties?What do libertarians think about the US military?Which political party is most aligned with the philosophy of "Live and Let Live"?What are libertarian ethics, starting from first principles?Footnotes[1] Islam and Libertarianism are a Good Fit