A series of question come to mind in the face of the damage to a large town in a volcanic eruption.
Principle question is suggested by the irony of Goethe's aphorism. Does "city air make men free" in the case of Goma? Why is Goma where it is? What was its function in the days of Belgian colonialism? Under Mobutu? In 1994? Now? Is it a life boat for people in a sea of economic and security threats, or is it a death trap?
Another question concerns "disaster diplomacy" in the broad sense. This is a very unstable region where there are several armed groups dating from the terrible events in Rwanda in 1994 and also the civil war within Mobutu's Zaire and, after his downfall, within the new Democratic Republic of Congo. The latter war became internationalized as a number of African countries became involved on one side or the other. There is presently a cease fire supervised by the United Nations. Will armed groups take advantage of this situation to do more than loot, possibly beginning hostilities again? Will people displaced by the volcano be in danger from armed gangs?
To what extent has this long history of war and instability undermined the capacity of local government, at municipal level, such as in the sizeable town (small city) of Goma (pop. 500,000)? Would more municipal capacity have provided clearer, more timely, and credible warnings and instructions?
A third cluster of questions surround this issue of risk communication. Why have the population movements sea-sawed back and forth between Rwanda and Congo? Why don't displaced persons want to stay in the camps that have been established for them farther from the volcano, deeper in Rwanda (an additional 20 km)? What efforts at risk communication have been undertaken?
RECOVERY
What was the status quo ante? Is that to be the goal of recovery? What was municipal capacity before? What was scientific capacity? If one agrees with Oxfam UK director, Barbara Stocking, that the prior situation was, in itself, a human development disaster, then what should the goal of recovery be?
In the future there will be an on-going volcano treat. (With the next heavy rain will there be mass movements of cement-like ash called lahar?) Are there more and less exposed sites in greater Goma? Have they been mapped? Will people be resettled there? How?
Many cities "live with volcanoes". There are dozens of examples in the Caribbean, Central America, the Andes, Philippines, Indonesia, and Japan. Seattle sits within view of Mt. Rainer, and Quito just below Pinchicha. Think of Hilo, Hawaii; San Salvador, El Salvador; Puebla, Mexico; or Kagoshima, Japan. What can they teach Goma? What are the preconditions for Goma's being able to institutionalize such lessons?
In this context an interesting comparison presents itself. As one looks back a few years hence at the recovery process on the Caribbean island of Montserrat, where the principle city was destroyed, and the recovery of Goma, how will the two compare?
On a more philosophical note, a few questions about urbanism and urbanization suggest themselves. Throughout history cities have served regions of towns, villages, homesteads. They have had links with other cities of the same size and larger ones. They have been part of networks.
Cities have economic, administrative, military, and social functions.
Presumably Goma has been such a city? Has it slowly ceased to be a city in any of those senses since 1994? If so, can it be such a city again?
Does one perhaps need a new name for a new kind of city: isolated by disintegration of the national state administrative and economic network? Maintained by the economic activity of foreign relief agencies, militias, and peace keepers? At risk to a wide variety of natural and technological hazards because of the deterioration of managerial capacity, economic viability, and deterioration of infrastructure?
Sarajevo? Kandahar? Mogadishu? Now: Goma?
Tagged under Governance