Somalia: Time to Pay Attention

While the world looks elsewhere, Somalia is in flames. The nation just topped a list of the world's most unstable countries by Foreign Policy magazine, and the United Nations has declared the humanitarian situation there "worse than Darfur."

In the next three months the number of people requiring immediate food aid will reach 3.5 million. Over one million refugees have fled their homes. Due to a raging insurgency against the current transitional government -- which has support from both the West and Ethiopia -- Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, has earned the nickname, "Baghdad on the sea."

In Somalia, there are no diplomatic superstars like Condoleezza Rice or Kofi Annan, who rushed to Kenya to settle its election crisis; there are no celebrities like Mia Farrow or Jim Carrey to urge international action and awareness as they did in Sudan and Burma.

Instead, Somalia's crisis has elicited a collective yawn of indifference. Just mentioning the country's name is enough to cause even the most dedicated diplomat or aid worker to throw up their hands in desperation.

Ironically, unlike the above conflicts, the current crisis in Somalia has developed in part due to America's "war on terror" and failure to grasp some of the nuances of Islam.

The Muslim world is not a monolith; there is an ongoing struggle among Muslims with differing interpretations of the religion. Somalia is a traditionally Sufi country -- the mystic, open form of Islam distinct from more conservative interpretations as those seen in places like Saudi Arabia.

But in Somalia, a more conservative movement developed under the secular dictatorship of President Siad Barre and during the anarchy that followed his ouster in 1991. The resulting Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) implemented Shari'a law, and although its stricter tenants were opposed by many Somalis, the grassroots movement gained strength because people sought order and justice in a country marred by starvation, warlord violence, and tribal conflict.

Despite internal differences in the interpretation of Islam, the UIC created a state of relative stability that led to the return of Somali businesses, united conflicting tribes and ended piracy off Somalia's perilous shores.

But the ascension of the UIC worried the United States, which believed the group was sheltering Al-Qaeda members seeking a safe haven in Somalia. The United States intervened by backing secular warlords -- reportedly some of the same individuals it had fought during 1993's "Black Hawk Down" incident -- against the UIC, strengthening, rather than isolating, extremism in Somalia. Despite their ample firepower, the warlords were defeated by the UIC in mid-2006.

In December 2006, UIC extremists threatened Somalia's traditional archrival Ethiopia, which they accused of intervening in Somali affairs. Already concerned the UIC would support a domestic ethnic Somali insurgency, Ethiopia invaded. The United States backed Ethiopia's invasion and its ensuing occupation with intelligence, air strikes, Special Forces, and rendition of terror suspects to Guantanamo Bay.

An Iraq-style insurgency soon began inside Somalia, mainly drawn from UIC elements but also members of the Hawiye clan, the tribal base of the UIC. These tribesmen believe the United States and Ethiopians are attacking them by supporting the Somali transitional government, run largely by tribal rivals the Daarood. Because they are Muslim, they believe Islam is under attack and seek to defend it.

Somalia faces many profound challenges, but a recent ceasefire -- which calls for an end to the insurgency ahead of an eventual Ethiopian troop withdrawal in favor of U.N. troops -- has brought some hope.

The recent momentum in Somalia for a shift to religious conservatism -- and sometimes militant extremism -- mirrors similar shifts around the Muslim world. However, with quick and responsible action, the United States can still help shift it back.

The United States should first pressure Ethiopia to withdraw and bring all Somali factions to the negotiating table.

It can also work within traditional tribal structures to reach out to Somalia's people, effect political change and distribute aid. By reaching out to Somali moderates who would be happy to challenge the extremists themselves, and funding development programs that show a renewed respect for local customs and religion, the United States can help swing the pendulum away from extremists who preach that Islam is under attack from the West.

To do this, the United States must immediately change a failed policy. Instead of effectively fighting those individuals who wish America harm, it has taken on the Somali people. The United States should learn from its disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that using force to myopically crush "terrorists" at the expense of entire populations only strengthens extremists.

These days any attention given to Somalia is encouraging. But to create a stable society that would alleviate the suffering of Somalis and address Western security concerns, something more is required: a true understanding of what has gone wrong and the will to effect positive change.

This article first appeared in Washington Post/Newsweek's Post Global and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

"The United States should first pressure Ethiopia to withdraw and bring all Somali factions to the negotiating table."
U.S. has little to no leverage on Somalia. I say Leave Somalia to Africans.
If they don't want to deal with the problem, it's their problem.

[Sarahjan]

Somalia represents the clearest example of why the United States has failed in almost all the military interventions in Iraq and why, most certainly it will fail in Afghanistan. 1991, I was for the US intervention of Somalia. In 1991, the US was the major Cold Power military and political player in Somalia. When the US Marines landed in beaches of Mogadishu, on the full glare of world media, that was an act of a carefully staged returning to the scene of the crime and not a new US intervention in Somalia. The US had built the most expensive embassy in Mogadishu before the new US Embassy in Baghdad. But rather than disarming the warlords and their militias terrorizing the civilians, the US used the margins as an experiment, a test case for the new world order of liberal interventionism. I was against the 2006 US intervention in Somalia, because in 2006, peace was coming and now there is close to 4M Somalia diaspora around the world willing to work with and soften the Islamists. But hell no, they were Al Qaida, according to the US. The status quo must be restored. Now, we have a mass famine.

[Sneaky]

So... no sources? I see a lot of rhetoric, but not a lot of anything to back it up. If you want, I can provide you an email to send it to if you'd rather not do it here. I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what your side of the argument is, because if you're lashing out against US interventionism you're preaching to the choir.

[Sarahjan]

Sneaky

the first US intervention of Somalia went bad because the US military was led badly; they approached the situation like a movies, as though it is another "Indians and Cowboys’. The 2006 US intervention of Somalia was uncalled for; it was based on revenge. But it now looks more like petty, mean spirited and very sad. Now, we have famine as the result of the 2006 US intervention of Somalia.

[Sneaky]

Then make like Missouri and "show me". Information is scarce on the 2006-present conflicts in Somalia, and the only thing I've seen on the incident is that America backs the forces and has sent minimal military help. My personal opinion is that it's some misguided and half-hearted token resistance to the Islamic Court Union. I'd love to see what you know that I don't.

Show me.

[steamboat]

Sneaky, good comment.

Yep, we been there before. And as soon as we lose an Amereican folks like Sarahjan will be screaming 'we have no business there'. Am I right? ............isn't much of whats going on now more or less a battle between the Ethiopeans and Somali war lords? You'd know better then me.

[Sarahjan]

Sneaky

did the US not attack Somalia in Dec.28, 2006 from land , air and sea?

[Sneaky]

Uh... no?

They backed the Ethiopian Army and supported the transitional federal government in Somalia, and there was rumored to be some US Special Forces who assisted, but if you know more on that by all means share. I know the US did not support Ethiopian withdrawal, citing a 'power vacuum' would exist, despite Ethiopia wanting to withdraw. But you're talking about something larger-scale, aren't you?

[Sneaky]

Didn't we play the Somalia game before? How'd that one end?

BeeOplentee has the right idea. That's not our fight, not even close. Not legally, not morally, not at all. The US is suffering because of its own problems, and has already felt the backlash multiple times in history for involvement in foreign affairs. We have plenty of our own problems, many of which direct results from trying to solve other peoples'.

If you want to set up a private do-gooder organization to help out, fine. More power to you. NGOs have put more money into Africa and done more good for Africa than any government or government organization, including (and especially) those of the UN. This American would like to fix his country before it blindly crusades into others.

Africa is not our fight.

[CornellRedneck]

Well said, Sneaky!

[kingshmoopy]

"Africa is not our fight." Really?

Moral and ethical issue aside it is absolutely in our national interest to be involved with African nations. The Muslim African nations that have a history of practicing a type of Islam that is far more tolerant, far less fundamental, and, in fact, have a history of being anti-fundamentalist (countries like Guinea, for example) are exactly the places where we need to be. Not only for the good that we do there but for the allies that we will make, for the good governance programs that we can start, for the fostering of democracy that we can help provide.

There are many, many girls in the capitol of Guinea (Conakry) who have gotten the chance to got to school because the US Ambassador there set up a scholorship program. There are many women and children who have learned about hygeine and self-sufficiency because of various Peace Corps programs that have been set up there. Since USAID became involved in Guinea the literacy rate has gone through the roof. Guinea is about 95% Islamic and absolutely pro-America (they actually like us there).

We need allies in the Muslim world and the best place to really foster those relationships, by doing good works and fostering good governance and democracy, is Africa.

[Sneaky]

Let me repeat myself. NOT. OUR. FIGHT.

Ambassadors are fine. Diplomats are fine. Government assistance agreed upon by We The People and codified by Congress and REQUESTED by the nations is fine.

Military interventionism is not.

We as a country have absolutely no legal or moral obligations in Africa. I fully support (and have, financially) the efforts of non-government groups providing assorted aid in Africa. I agree that they're doing a good thing and hope they continue doing it. But to claim that because they're Muslim makes them worth of fostering a friendship alienates the other non-Muslim nations who also need help, and to claim we need to as a nation provide aid ignores the more pressing problems we have in our own country (take your pick, we have several).

[Sarahjan]

Robert59

it was the first Bush has misused the US Marines and did not do what was needed in 1991, disarming the warlords. The second Bush brought back the same warlords! Now was have another mass famine.

[steamboat]

Don't forget Clinton not having back-up for some of our soldiers who got trapped.

[woodsywizz]

Steamboat,

It was President George Herbert Walker Bush who did not arm the US Forces in Somalia (Operation RESTORE HOPE) with armored vehicles.

RESTORE HOPE was planned by the same people who planned DESERT STORM.

And you are blaming Clinton? He's the President who SENT armored vehicles into Somalia!

[Sarahjan]

BeeOplentee

The US was able to manage H Katrina, do you think Somalis need to the US?

[Robert59]

There's only one way to fix Somalia. During the next humanitarian crisis bring in enough troops and mandate total disarmament. Anyone packing gets killed. Take no sides. It's what we should have done in '91.

The tribes and their militias are nothing but criminal gangs. Since they distrust each other but lack the firepower to defeat other tribes the only rational solution is total disarmament.

[Sneaky]

Disarmament worked wonders in every other part of the world it was tried. Right?

[Robert59]

If the UN went into Somalia with enough firepower and the will to use it, they could change Somalia for the better. Unfortunately they lack both. So famine will come and Somalis will die.

[Sarahjan]

Politicky

Do you really want I give a list of of not nice things the United States is known for?
Stop your racism and speak the facts.

[politicky]

Somalia has a history of famines
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/126902.stm

[Sarahjan]

Thank you Martin.

Perhaps stupid is too strong but it is shocking how little Americans know that crisis in Somalia was made in the Bush White House and that the US media deal with words cast of Characters: Meles Zinawi and group of vile criminal warlords. There is no story more sad than the Bush’s regime change in Somalia. It is sadistic and sickening and not advance the US war on terror or political image. It was crude revenge for Black Hawk down incident, now 4 million Somalis will face certain starvation. Jendayi E. Frazer is responsible the Genocide in Somalia. She is an agent of Meles Zinawi and has not served the interests of the united States.

[esquire07]

There is no oil in Somalia. If there was, you can bet BushCo. would claim they had WMDs and were a threat to the US. The US would be in Somalia in a heartbeat. Since there is no money to be made in Somalia by the Oil companies, don't expect any action by the US.

The US will stand by and watch counteless thousands starve to death, while it continues it illegal occupation of Iraq.

Oil profits and Arms profit, . money for Dick Cheney and his buddies at Halliburton. In the end, that is all that matters.

Humanitarianism is not in the US Military Industrial equation.

[BeeOplentee]

Rather than get embroiled in another unstable multi-ethnic country, why don't we let them slug it out amongst themselves, arm merchant ships with sufficient weaponry to defend themselves (like we did in WWII), and sit back and watch for a change!