Sagepaper

Here's a troublesome topic. Should we impede natural human movement in times of stress? Before there were political States, people would migrate from a bad place to a better place. Now, with states and with NGO's, that is not an option.

It is considered best to encamp displaced people as close to their homes as possible. There are separate rules, by the way, for people who cross State boundaries, and for people who are internal refugees. Still, though, there is a desire that displaced people not integrate with host populations. That is understandable.

Are we really doing anyone any favors, though, by rounding-up the displaced and confining them to aid camps where they eat and die? What if the world did not feed them in camps? Many would die, but I am not sure how that mortality rate would compare with the mortality rate in camps. Maybe, when a region becomes drought prone, it would be wisest to allow the population to move to more fertile ground.

Of course, the owners of the more fertile ground might object. In the good old days when people were free to roam to new territory, there were wicked wars. But there are wicked civil wars over food, anyway. Perhaps if the international community offered aid to owners of fertile land, as a peace offering, we could break the famine cycle some.

Part of the problem is that people who huddle in camps are not working the fields to ensure next season's harvest. There are of course, reasons for this. The greatest is civil war. Still, people die in the camps, and there are fewer left to farm the land if they ever get back to it. Then, the land itself suffers from not being tended for agriculture.

I am not wise enough to know the solution to this problem. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to study a bit about food politics in African civil wars. Meanwhile, do any of you have any ideas?