[From the diaries by susanhbu. Our latest installment in the 10 most ignored stories. Sign up to contribute a story.]
Here is another contribution to Susan’s challenge to do something with the 10 most underreported stories in the world in 2005.
Today: Somalia: Steps on a path to fragile peace in a shattered country.
Somalia is different from many other troubled spots in the world inasmuch as it is more easily recognized by many Americans as the stage for the movie Black Hawk Down. This story is not about that incidence, though, but following the link will bring you to an excellent resource page from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
For others, the mention of Somalia will associate with the Horn of Africa and the perennial stories of war, civil war and famine.
Which is why we would expect Somalia to be placed towards the very bottom of UNDP’s annual ranking of the Human Development Index (HDI). In fact, Somalia (along with Iraq and North-Korea) does not even appear on the global ranking. However, the HDI for 2001 was estimated at 0.284, which would have put Somalia second to last (Sierra Leone in the last spot).
To learn more of Somalia’s ancient history, geography, resources and demographics please use either of the following links:
arab.net
encyclopedia – somalia
To avoid a too long entry, I would like to pick up the story in the late 19th century during the “Scramble for Africa”. Many of today’s problems can be traced back to the acts of the various colonial powers between 1880 and 1950 and the processes leading to independence for Somalia in 1960. It is tempting to split the recent history into four phases:
- 1880 – 1960 British, Italian and French colonialism
- 1960s Early independence, regional conflict (Somalia/Ethiopia/Kenya – 1964-67)
- 1970s -80s Somalia and Ethiopia as proxies in the cold war
- 1991 – today Overthrow of Siad Barre (since 1969), national disintegration
Link to Map (Cropped version displayed at end of diary)
Colonial times (encyclopedia-link above)
British, French, and Italian imperialism all played an active role in the region in the 19th cent. Great Britain’s concern with the area was largely to safeguard trade links with its Aden colony (founded 1839), which depended especially on mutton from Somalia. The British opportunity came when Egyptian forces, having occupied much of the region in the 1870s, withdrew in 1884 to fight the Mahdi in Sudan. British penetration led to a series of agreements (1884-86) with local tribal leaders and, in 1887, to the establishment of a protectorate. France first acquired a foothold in the area in the 1860s. An Anglo-French agreement of 1888 defined the boundary between the Somalian possessions of the two countries.
Italy first asserted its authority in the area in 1889 by creating a small protectorate in the central zone, to which other concessions were later added in the south (territory ceded by the sultan of Zanzibar) and north. In 1925, Jubaland, or the Trans-Juba (east of the Juba [now Jubba] River), was detached from Kenya to become the westernmost part of the Italian colony. In 1936, Italian Somaliland was combined with Somali-speaking districts of Ethiopia to form a province of the newly formed Italian East Africa. During World War II, Italian forces invaded British Somaliland; but the British, operating from Kenya, retook the region in 1941 and went on to conquer Italian Somaliland. Britain ruled the combined regions until 1950, when Italian Somaliland became a UN trust territory under Italian control.
Early independence
In accordance with UN decisions, Italian Somaliland, renamed Somalia, was granted internal autonomy in 1956 and independence in 1960. Britain proclaimed the end of its protectorate in June, 1960, and on July 1 the legislatures of the two new states created the United Republic of Somalia. In the early years of independence the government was faced with a severely underdeveloped economy and with a vocal movement that favored the creation of a “Greater Somalia” encompassing the Somali-dominated areas of Kenya, French Somaliland (now Djibouti), and Ethiopia. The nomadic existence of many Somali herders and the ill-defined frontiers worsened the problem. Hostilities between Somalia and Ethiopia erupted in 1964, and Kenya became involved in the conflict as well, which continued until peace was restored in 1967. The inhabitants of French Somaliland, meanwhile, voted to continue their association with France.
Proxy in the cold war
Major General Siad Barre came to power after a bloody coup in 1969. He abandoned the previously adapted parliamentarian system and aligned with the communist bloc. The country’s name was changed to the Somali Democratic Republic.
(arab.net-link)
In July 1976, the Front for the Liberation of Western Somalia (FLWS) initiated a military offensive in the Ogaden region supported by the Somali Government. The invasion was repelled by the Ethiopian army, supported by Cuban troops and backed by most African countries that opposed changes in colonial frontiers. The country broke off relations with Cuba and ended its military agreements with the Soviet Union.
(snip)
Problems with Ethiopia recurred infrequently because of the dispute over the Ogaden plains and the steady flow of Ethiopian refugees into Somalia. In December 1986 Siad Barre was re-elected by 99% of the vote. In February 1989, he sent Prime Minister Ali Samater to London and Washington, to announce the amnesty and commuting of sentences for 400 political prisoners. However, western credits and investments to Somalia were significantly reduced.The Somali opposition formed the “United Somali Congress” (USC) in January 1991 and ousted President Barre, who was replaced by the leader of the USC, Ali Mahdi Mohammed.
National disintegration
Link
The SIAD BARRE regime was ousted in January 1991; turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy have followed in the years since. In May of 1991, northern clans declared an independent Republic of Somaliland that now includes the administrative regions of Awdal, Woqooyi Galbeed, Togdheer, Sanaag, and Sool. Although not recognized by any government, this entity has maintained a stable existence, aided by the overwhelming dominance of a ruling clan and economic infrastructure left behind by British, Russian, and American military assistance programs. The regions of Bari and Nugaal and northern Mudug comprise a neighboring self-declared autonomous state of Puntland, which has been self-governing since 1998, but does not aim at independence; it has also made strides towards reconstructing a legitimate, representative government, but has suffered some civil strife. Puntland disputes its border with Somaliland as it also claims portions of eastern Sool and Sanaag. Beginning in 1993, a two-year UN humanitarian effort (primarily in the south) was able to alleviate famine conditions, but when the UN withdrew in 1995, having suffered significant casualties, order still had not been restored. The mandate of the Transitional National Government (TNG), created in August 2000 in Arta, Djibouti, expired in August 2003. New Somali President Abdullahi YUSUF Ahmed has formed a new Transitional Federal Government (TFG) consisting of a 275-member parliament. It was established in October 2004 to replace the TNG but has not yet moved to Mogadishu. Discussions regarding the establishment of a new government in Mogadishu are ongoing in Kenya. Numerous warlords and factions are still fighting for control of the capital city as well as for other southern regions. Suspicion of Somali links with global terrorism further complicates the picture.
Which brings us up to the current efforts to bring peace. The TFG issued the following press release only last Thursday:
PRESS RELEASE May 12, 2005
The President of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia called an extra ordinary Parliamentary Session that was held on May 11 2005, at Kenyatta International Conference Center, Nairobi Kenya. The First Deputy Speaker, Prof. Mohamed Omar Dalha, chaired the session attended by 152 members of Parliament.
After the opening speech at 3.30pm, Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi tabled before the Parliament the cabinet approval of previous bills namely:
- Cabinet resolution of May 9, 2005 approving the deployment of African Union and Leagues of Arab States peace support mission.
- Cabinet resolution of March 21, 2005 regarding the Government relocation.
The Parliament started debating Bill No.1 and thereafter, the Deputy Speaker requested that the raise of hands take a vote. The vote count registered 145 majorities in support for deployment of troops.
- The phase one deployment of troops will consist of Ugandan and Sudanese.
- The other remaining forces of IGAD states will provide logistics, equipments, emergency assistance and training of the Somali Police and Military.
- The second phase will consist of IGAD counters including those nations that not participated in phase one.
4 The Sudanese and Ugandan support forces will be deployed in Mogadishu first and spread later to other cities and regions in the country.
5. The Parliament also approved the deployment of League of Arab States and African Union peace support mission.The Parliament went into debating the second Bill of the relocation of the Government to Somalia. After the debate was over a vote of 141 majorities were registered in favor of relocation.
- The Parliament approved that the Government will relocate to Jowhar and Baydhabo until the situation in Mogadishu is pacified.
- It was also approved that a Government liaison office will be opened in Mogadishu.
Deputy Minister of Information
Hon. Salad Ali Jeele
This all seems to be a major step forward. Both Cabinet Resolutions were approved by the Parliament. Agreement for deploying peacekeepers from African Union and League of Arab States countries. Also to relocate government from Nairobi, Kenya to Jowhar and Baydhabo inside of Somalia “until the situation in Mogadishu is pacified.” Hmm. That seems a bit more ominous.
Note that less than two thirds of the Parliament membership was present. Most of those absent belong to another clan based in the capital Mogadishu. They remain there and are fiercly against the deployment of foreign troops.
FOTO: KAREL PRINSLOO/AP
As reported by Somali Net today:
One of Mogadishu faction leaders, Mr. Mohamed Farah Qanyare said they will fight Ugandan and Sudan troops if they come to Somalia to protect the interest of the new government. That message and his unhappiness with the prime minister and the president were the central theme of his speech when he addressed a large audience in Mogadishu soccer stadium today.
Mr. Afrah and other Mogadishu armed faction leaders brought their weapons and militias to the stadium today, flexing their muscles and promising to secure the capital. He and other Mogadishu warlords hold senior positions in the new government they publicly oppose.
Also today, Mogadishu based religious leader, Mr. Hassan Dahir Aweys asked all Somalis to fight foreign troops if they set feet on Somali soil saying their ultimate mission is to subdue Somalia and its people for Ethiopia’s domination.
The same Mr. Aweys believes that democracy is contrary to Islam and that the current transitional government is anti-islam.
Given this backdrop, I am not optimistic with regards to prospects for peace. While united through language and religion, the Somalis do not have a tradition as a nation. The ‘unified’ Somalia of 1960-independence had no historical basis, it was the result of the acts of the colonial powers. Somali tradition relied at the clan for support and safety. Until the clans agree to fully relinquish power to a federal system, there is not going to be peace. Wide international support to intervene is unlikely, given the experiences of UN peacekeepers and US Marines in the early ’90s. There are currently no plans for a UN peacekeeping mission – the TFG is relying on regional support.
For bringing initial attention to the 10 stories here and follow up diary here.
There is a link missing in the last paragraph with regards to the clans.
(Richer comments later…)
Thanks a lot!
Heading out myself for a late lunch with my kids. Back around 5.
Wow, you did a great job, ask. I especially love all the background, then leading up to the present. It helps those of us who are not familiar with the history understand various events that seem incomprehensible when viewed by themeselves.
And the map greatly helps those who are geographically challenged! Not meaning me, of course. :cough:
being the traditional power structure, why superimpose a variant of “western european” government? Are historical and modern mutually exclusive?
Until the clans agree to fully relinquish power to a federal system, there is not going to be peace.
Nothing like arrogant disregard of centuries of culture.
The sentence you quote is simply my own humble opinion on this issue. The fractious political structure, distrust displayed and willingness to commit violent acts as demonstrated over the last decade and half all suggest that the road ahead is long and difficult.
I agree with your humble opinion, and understand the time it will take to bring peace – or a least the absence of war – to the region. Trying to catch up fast. From what sirocco wrote below, and reading yours other sources, the culture existing prior to colonization is already gone. Cleaning up a 600-year-old colonial mess.
Not quoted in the diary, but found in the link to clans above:
As seen in Sirocco’s link, the allegiances of clans were in any case ephemeral – now – in addition – the social fabric has been broken down.
Rating that rather snide remark a 4 proves you’re a saint, ask.
As to the substance: there are certain deficiences inherent in Somali clan organization that renders it shaky in the extreme as the basis of a peaceful social order, let alone one with respect for individual human rights.
(snip)
Two features of lineage segmentation require further comment. First, the system lacks a concept of individual culpability. When a man commits a homicide, for example, the guilt does not remain with him solely as an individual murderer as in most Western societies; the crime is attributed to all of the murderer’s kin, who become guilty in the eyes of the aggrieved party by reason of their blood connection with the perpetrator. Members of the aggrieved group then seek revenge, not just on the perpetrator, but on any member of his lineage they might chance upon. In the Somali lineage system, one literally may get away with murder because the actual killer may escape while an innocent kinsman of his may be killed. Second, the system is vulnerable to external manipulation by, for example, a head of state such as Siad Barre, who used the resources of the state to reward and punish entire clans collectively. This was the fate of the Isaaq and Majeerteen clans, which suffered grievous persecutions under Siad Barre’s regime.
Lineage Segmentation and Civil War
Add to this the vast amounts of modern weaponry left behind by the USSR – weaponry without equivalent in pre-colonial Somalia, and which multiplies the havoc that can be wrought by warring factions. Without at least approximate monopoly of violence by a federal government, that’s a recipe for continuation of the civil strife they have had since 1977. It also means that the federal government will have to be a weak one, perhaps akin to the Swiss canton model. Something like this:
SOMALIA: Who Needs a Unitary Central Government?
The innocence of traditional pre-state society is gone; there is no turning back. Not that stateless society was necessarily Eden either, but that’s another matter.
Thanks for the links, Sirocco!
I read the linked article on segmentation – also followed the link to the main page at he bottom – a treasure trove of information. Though it seems that all the articles are from ca. 1992, they contain ‘eternal’ truth in the local context:
With regards to the second article, the author leaves me somewhat confused; he argues for a “weak federal government”
It appears to me that controlling national defense and being arbiter of the rule of law would require centralization of power beyond a weak federation.
Well, as I understand it, by ‘weak federal state’ he means that legislation will mostly be left to the regions – again, as in the Swiss case. But agreed, he is a little vague on the details
rather snide remark
Not meant to be snide. Colonials of all stripes showed little respect for indigenous people’s cultures and/or systems of governance for centuries. In a “nation” of clans the solution is to super-impose an essentially “western” notion of federal governance? Just suggesting that a clan tracing it’s lineage back over a millenia may have a different view.
I don’t believe in “innocent” pre-state societies. They were human after all. None of the ancients lived in paradise.
Apologies if my comment was offensive.
It was ambiguous, but I took no offense.
I wonder if a confederation system would be more effective. Something on the lines of the Iriquoi
Confederation model?