Somalia: the Need for Conscentious UN Intervention

[NASSIR]

Somalia: the Need for Conscentious UN Intervention

 

Ghanian Chronicle (Accra)

OPINION

March 31, 2005

Posted to the web March 31, 2005

Oliver Kinsey Smith

The phrase 'foreign intervention' provokes many, different reactions in this day and age. In the wake of the war in Iraq and also Afghanistan, it is often seen as being synonymous with neo-conservatism or more strongly still, imperialism.

I myself am a staunch critic of President Bush; not so much of his uncompromising foreign policy with regards to recent wars, but of his wholly inexcusable double standards in failing to apply these policies across the world, notably in Africa.

The entire premise of the Iraq war was to rob Saddam Hussein of his ability to wage war with weapons of mass destruction, however as it became apparent that such weapons did not exist, 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' evolved from secondary objectives to convenient excuses.

Shocking though Saddam's human rights abuses and unprovoked acts of aggression were, it would be false to say they are unparalleled across the world.

Take Robert Mugabe; a man not dissimilar from Saddam in ruling through tyranny, thriving in a climate of fear and repression and shouldering the blame for the deaths of thousands of his fellow countrymen. With the constant intimidation of the opposition party, the blatant rigging of elections, the shameless incitement of racial hatred and the intermittent famines that blight the nation as a result of his misguided policies, Mugabe is frequently cited as a despot by the international community and rightly so.

TRADE SANCTIONS

Yet negotiations achieve little against such an uncompromising tyrant, and the obvious peaceful solution - the implementation of trade sanctions - exacerbates the situation for ordinary Zimbabweans who have already borne the brunt of a diminishing economy, with as many as 70% of the population unemployed in some regions. Zimbabwe looks set to slip deeper into the quagmire of economic misfortune; a country that once fed Southern Africa with its food surplus has degenerated into a ruthless land of misery and fear, thanks to the Zanu PF party.

The world looks on aghast as an estimated 750, 000 are in imminent danger of starvation.

The only option left to the world is to employ 'forcible' means - yet would the ends justify these means?

The use of force to depose leaders has had varying results in recent times; the Iraq war has had mixed success in ridding the world of an evil dictator, yet claiming the lives of so many in the ensuing chaos of the political transition. The war in Kosovo, on the other hand, was lauded as being effective and justifiable. Going further back in time, the Vietnam War was another, deeper scar on America's conscience.

Yet on the one continent continuously ravaged by civil wars and unrest, the UN and particularly America are reluctant to commit themselves.

Zimbabwe is an obvious example of this; however let us consider the incident in Somalia in the early nineteen-nineties. In 1992, the UN sought to address the unrest in Somalia, following the deposition of President Siad Barre in 1991. A group of warlords ousted the president, yet the country slipped into civil war, based largely on tribal lines as the new 'leaders' of Somalia fell out over power sharing. Famine ensued, with as many as a million people dying as a consequence.

The UN moved peacekeepers and aid workers into the south of the country, seeking to feed some of the more acutely affected members of the population before engaging in the ambitious plan of 'nation building' as the then US Secretary of State, Madeline Albright termed it.

Yet before anything could be done, the security situation needed stabilising. The warlords were making the situation difficult; impeding the flow of aid parcels, whilst charging aid organisations extortionate rent for the use of land. One in particular, Mohammed Farrah Aidid, represented a massive hindrance to 'nation building', acting aggressively towards peacekeepers and being linked to the murder of Pakistani blue berets in July 1993.

On the 3rd of October, 1992, 140 US Delta force and Rangers soldiers moved to arrest him and a number of his aides, ambushing them in the Bakara Market in Central Mogadishu.

United by a common enemy, the various Somali factions turned on the Americans and in the ensuing chaos, the American military lost two Black Hawk Helicopters and 18 troops.

Incensed by the picture of a dead American solider being paraded around the streets of Mogadishu, the mission came to be regarded as a catastrophic failure, with Clinton pulling the task force out of the country a few weeks later.

Yet what about Somalia? One year later, the last of the UN famine relief left, with the focus of the international community shifting to problems in Yugoslavia, even though tens to hundreds of thousands of Somalis still faced severe malnutrition and starvation.

Indeed, after last year's drought and unrest in the southern regions, one could assert that the country is in a worse situation than it was 10 years ago.

SOMALIA

Somalia remains to this day an anarchic state; with no official government, the most rudimentary of transport network and no public hospitals. Somaliland and Puntland separatists govern the north, whilst the south is arranged in a series of fiefdoms. There are an estimated 60 000 people working in militias in Somalia who earn their living, intimidating passers by into giving them money, whilst the government in exile in Kenya commands much less power than a rogue brandishing AK47 on the streets of Mogadishu.

Efforts to move the government to Mogadishu have proven nearly impossible, whilst calls by interim president Abdulahi Yusuf for 20 000 UN peacekeepers to guard the government were met with extreme disapproval by his largely warlord-consisting cabinet last month.

So why has nothing been done? The obvious answer is fear; fear that more Western and UN soldiers would be lost to an 'irrelevant cause' in a far off country.

Indeed, the capture of two of Mohammed Farrah Aidid's aides was met with some satisfaction by many Somalis, yet the US withdrawal compounded a feeling that no-one was willing to see 'nation building' through at the cost of American lives.

The United States, as the last great superpower, has an obligation to police the world, yet it must do this conscientiously, respectfully and consistently, with United Nations support, if it is to succeed.

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Thus the issue is not so much if the international community should intervene, but how. A trigger happy 'shoot-first-ask-questions later' policy prevalent in the US military is not the way to foster local support, nor is the cultural ignorance shown in Iraq; for example, the depiction of Saddam Hussein in a bikini, the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and the failed alteration of the Iraqi flag.

The United Nations needs to actively engage itself in the rebuilding of Somalia - not simply by throwing money at the government to be squandered, but by respecting Somali culture, keeping peacekeepers on the ground, not being afraid to marginalise the warlords and allowing neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia to assist in the development of a peaceful country. Somalia cannot be left to degenerate into the abyss of anarchy and poverty, so the UN must ensure that the fourteenth national government is to be an enduring and just one.