[NjuriNcheke]

Originally Posted by Mishky

Njurincheke pliz answer the question.

You would have to give me further details on those Narck evections you are talking about. But yeah if people were evicted from land which they had title deeds for, then i don't see why they should not be compensated.

As to those who are opposed to the return of IDPS to their land, fack off even if it means pouring the whole army down in rift valley then let it be so. The citizens constitutional rights must be protected by all means.

[unity07]

If the IDPs are to be resettled, and the violence stopped, there needs to be accountability for it. But responsibility for the violence reaches to the top of the political class in the Rift Valley - and for its spirit outside it as well.

Since there is wide approval in the Rift Valley - tacit and overt, high and low - for the violence, the political costs of accountability are high.

As we saw, civil society is also willing to offer cover for the violence, by mis-describing, minimising, or justifying it. At any rate, there will be no pressure on the Rift Valley political class from that quarter.

The PNU wing of the coalition appears to be the sole agent with a motive for applying pressure but since the Kibaki administration has proved anything but bold in the past, the chances of serious accountability following on their efforts are low.

Consequently, we should expect the violence to recur should IDPs be resetted there.

This suggests compensation outside the Rift Valley is an alternative we must look into. But financial compensation for a productive asset when awarded to peasants does not promise the best outcomes.

When the Samburu were paid their compensation for losses and damage caused by dumped munitions by the UK's ministry of defence, many blew it and were destitute within the year.

It seems prudent therefore, to ensure that the compensation paid to IDPs is paid in two halves, one for private consumption, the other as a contribution to the cost of productive goods.

The second would be eased by having the bulk of them re-settled in one place. Resettling them in the Rift Valley entails their dispersion.

In any case, if we should expect the violence to recur and knowing that the State's capacity to protect them or to dissuade the aggressors would be limited, it seems unwise and even unjust to send the IDPs back in.

The solution, then, is to resettle them in a single area, and to give them enough in cash and other resources to resume productive activities. Ideally, the area would be ethnically mixed, to minimise tensions. Nominee location? Nairobi.

One final advantage of this is that non-Kalenjins in the Rift Valley would no longer be hostages.

The costs of holding that province's political class accountable would be substantially lowered, and the land problem, such as it has been forced to be, would be permanently solved.

[Ni_Diambo]

Assuming the IDPs are to be compensated and re-settled, back where they came from or elsewhere, who will foot the bill? The British government compensated the Samburu because they were responsible. Despite the difficulty of these IDPs, is the Kenyan taxpayer to assume this responsibility? And why shouldn’t the regular jobless and landless Kenyan also benefit from the scheme?

Just wondering.

[NJAMBA YA RUMUNDIKO]

its going to be a problem to resettle the idp,considering you are dealing with highly uncivilised and ilitrate kalenjins , you saw them earlier on the photo one of the members posted,but seriously unajua ingine nikujifanya kondoo,yani slow learners ,..huwezi kubishana na katiba

[wanjik]

Originally Posted by unity07

If the IDPs are to be resettled, and the violence stopped, there needs to be accountability for it. But responsibility for the violence reaches to the top of the political class in the Rift Valley - and for its spirit outside it as well.

Since there is wide approval in the Rift Valley - tacit and overt, high and low - for the violence, the political costs of accountability are high.

As we saw, civil society is also willing to offer cover for the violence, by mis-describing, minimising, or justifying it. At any rate, there will be no pressure on the Rift Valley political class from that quarter.

The PNU wing of the coalition appears to be the sole agent with a motive for applying pressure but since the Kibaki administration has proved anything but bold in the past, the chances of serious accountability following on their efforts are low.

Consequently, we should expect the violence to recur should IDPs be resetted there.

This suggests compensation outside the Rift Valley is an alternative we must look into. But financial compensation for a productive asset when awarded to peasants does not promise the best outcomes.

When the Samburu were paid their compensation for losses and damage caused by dumped munitions by the UK's ministry of defence, many blew it and were destitute within the year.

It seems prudent therefore, to ensure that the compensation paid to IDPs is paid in two halves, one for private consumption, the other as a contribution to the cost of productive goods.

The second would be eased by having the bulk of them re-settled in one place. Resettling them in the Rift Valley entails their dispersion.

In any case, if we should expect the violence to recur and knowing that the State's capacity to protect them or to dissuade the aggressors would be limited, it seems unwise and even unjust to send the IDPs back in.

The solution, then, is to resettle them in a single area, and to give them enough in cash and other resources to resume productive activities. Ideally, the area would be ethnically mixed, to minimise tensions. Nominee location? Nairobi.

One final advantage of this is that non-Kalenjins in the Rift Valley would no longer be hostages.

The costs of holding that province's political class accountable would be substantially lowered, and the land problem, such as it has been forced to be, would be permanently solved.

'NUFF SAID!

[wanjik]

Although I have to add, kalez are forever looking for someone to blame for their laziness. If all the kyuks in RV moved and settled elsewhere, they would turn their attention to the kisiis, then to the kaoz, then to the jangoz. Just look at the '92 molo clashes. Kyuks and jangoz alike were targeted for expulsion. No tribe is immune to the stupidity and backwardness of these people!

[Smartass]

We should not suspend the constitution to please one section of the population, The IDPs should be settled immediately.
The issue of compensation should not be handled by the govt alone, the communities involved should be made to pay restituition both communally and individually that way the cycle of violence will be broken.
Imagine if the Kales in Eldoret had to auction there cattle and land to compensate the burnt forest victims, they would think twice when the politicians ask them to take up arms against their neighbours

However given the animosty in the region it would be foolhardy to resettle the victims without instituting a strong defence shield either in the form of heavily armed home guards or a civilian defence force the israeli way. the govt should also consider trading off settlements so that kikuyus are settled closer together in the nakuru and molo areas instead of being dispersed in hostile territory.

Let me remind all those people claiming Uasin ngishu as kalenjin ancestral land that Kalenjins are settlers in Uasin Ngishu just as kikuyus are The only difference between the two is that kikuyus came from further afield, if the kiuks have to leave that region so do the kale and it should be handed back to the masai.
The only legitimate claimants to Uasin ngishu are the masai.

[Kabunja wa Gathuita]

Originally Posted by Ni_Diambo

Assuming the IDPs are to be compensated and re-settled, back where they came from or elsewhere, who will foot the bill? The British government compensated the Samburu because they were responsible. Despite the difficulty of these IDPs, is the Kenyan taxpayer to assume this responsibility? And why shouldn’t the regular jobless and landless Kenyan also benefit from the scheme?

Just wondering.

There are other IDPs - those affected by previous ethnic displacements such as the '92 and '97 evictions. Though the recent group of IDPS need be resettked - the other lot should as well be compensated or resettled. As for the bill, thought the so called donors had pledged to foot part or the whole of it.

[E M K]

Have to agree with you there . if anything how about those IDPs displaced from ELD town did buy land from wazungus or isnt it fro the same kales who torched there homes. These animals are just lazy and straight cowards. Kama ni war si waseme.

[Ni_Diambo]

Originally Posted by Kabunja wa Gathuita

There are other IDPs - those affected by previous ethnic displacements such as the '92 and '97 evictions. Though the recent group of IDPS need be resettked - the other lot should as well be compensated or resettled. As for the bill, thought the so called donors had pledged to foot part or the whole of it.

I guess my question goes beyond the IDPs, as urgent as their case is. If the taxpayer is footing the bill, even in part, why shouldn’t a jobless and landless chap in Taveta or Runyenjes expect to benefit from the ‘free’ scheme? Remember these were private land deals, so you wonder how government becomes the underwriter. Nor was it a natural disaster like Katrina. Although most of us are peasants, I think we should seriously start thinking about insurance.

If ‘donors’ are footing the bill, that’s great. But I hope these two ‘principals’ remembered to put it on paper when they were having tea with Annan.