''Somalia Reverts to Political Fragmentation''

If you're a serious Somalia watcher, I strongly recommend you read PINR's in-depth examination of the post-intervention tragedy now unfolding in that country. Here are its introductory paragraphs (to jump to the complete article, click here or on the title line above):

During the first three weeks of February, Somalia continued its slide into political fragmentation as violent attacks against occupying Ethiopian forces and militias loyal to the Transitional Federal Government (T.F.G.) persisted on a nearly daily basis, inter-clan fighting continued to break out, and the level of crime increased.

Although the T.F.G. claimed to be in control of security in the official capital Mogadishu, local media reported that its forces were failing to patrol the streets and that the Ethiopians were remaining in their bases, which came under attack, leading to exchanges of artillery fire that resulted in scores of deaths and injuries, mainly suffered by civilians. With approval of and pressure from the T.F.G., neighborhoods and businesses recruited their own security forces, restoring the situation that existed before the Islamic Courts Council (I.C.C.) had made its unsuccessful bid to unify Somalia in an Islamic state during the last half of 2006.

As the T.F.G. proved unable to establish itself as a legitimate and effective governing authority, external actors -- international and regional organizations, Western donor powers, and regional states -- continued to urge the T.F.G. to initiate reconciliation talks that would include conciliatory elements of the formally disbanded I.C.C. and would be geared to the formation of a national unity government, and to press for the deployment of an African Union (A.U.) "stabilization mission" (AMISOM) that would protect the T.F.G. and train its security forces. Although halting progress was made toward both goals, neither had as yet been realized, due to the reluctance of the T.F.G. to share power and of African states to contribute troops to the mission and donor powers to fund it adequately.

Ethiopia, whose invasion of Somalia in December 2006 had defeated the I.C.C. and whose troops and armor had been propping up the T.F.G. since then, had declared that it would pull out of the country in mid-February, but kept its forces there under Western pressure when AMISOM did not materialize as quickly as hoped. Some Ethiopian withdrawals were reported in local media, but they were only of marginal significance.

The T.F.G. failed to make progress on its top priority of disarming independent clan-based militias, which the United Nations reported were once again falling under the control of warlords who had divided Somalia into fiefdoms before the rise of the I.C.C., and suppressing criminal groups and the militant elements of the I.C.C.

The judgment of PINR's February 2 report on Somalia that the country had entered a devolutionary cycle has been confirmed during the past three weeks. Addis Ababa is satisfied with a fragmented Somalia, Western powers and international organizations have not made stabilizing the country a high priority, African states are either unwilling to contribute troops to a conflict zone or will only sign on to a restricted mission, and the T.F.G. is resistant to "inclusive" reconciliation.

Read more!

"Relative success" in Somalia

I sent the following letter to the editor of the New York Times this morning, in response to its front-page article "U.S. Used Bases in Ethiopia to Hunt Al Qaeda in Africa":

To the Editor:

If some U.S. officials regard our wrecking-ball intervention in Somalia to have been a "relative success," their notion of success is a baffling one. Like our search for WMD in Iraq, our dragnet for Al Qaeda operatives in the Somali desert has turned up nothing useful whatever in our war on terror. Instead, by contracting the services of the hated warlords and then relying on the less-than-impartial Ethiopians for intelligence, we "succeeded" only in killing and maiming scores of Somali nomads while snuffing out the only gleam of hope for national recovery that Somalia has seen in sixteen years. Along the way, of course, we managed to derail chances for an accommodation among feuding clans that might have allowed the fragile transitional government to assume effective power; we plunged the country's heartland back into the nightmare of violence it had begun to escape; and we shredded whatever admiration and gratitude toward the U.S. remained among a people that desperately wished to be our friends. What a strange measure of success . . . but then we're also "succeeding" in Iraq, aren't we?

Frank Crigler
Durham, North Carolina
Read more!

"Fighting fire with fire" is not the answer

Fighting in Mogadishu grew much more intense over the past weekend, as transitional government forces using heavy artillery sought to neutralize the rocket and mortar attacks of its opponents. At least sixteen noncombattants were reported killed early today (Tuesday), and hospital personnel said that at least 40 more were wounded. Many Mogadishu residents were reported streaming out of town to escape the violence.

Transitional government officials, counting the days before an African Union peacekeeping force begins arriving, have meanwhile organized a "twenty-four hour paramilitary force" to chase down and capture dissidents.

I am personally very skeptical that either government backed paramilitaries or foreign peacekeeping troops will succeed in curbing the violence. So long as the transitional government and its foreign allies insist that the solution lies in suppressing dissent by force, I predict their efforts will fail. What is needed instead right now is some courageous mediation effort on the part of Somalia's real friends, aimed at a ceasefire and a resumption of political dialogue. The United States, instead of fanning the flames, should be seeking to organize such an effort. Otherwise, the ranks of angry Islamists are almost certain to swell.

I'm not sure my good friend Bashir agrees. "So this is the kind of 'freedom' the US government was trying to secure for Somalis!" he writes. " And where are all those (UN, AU, Human Rights Organizations etc.) who claimed to be 'struggling' for human rights, women's rights .....? They are all silent or hypocritically calling for peace talks with the 'moderates' of the Islamic courts."

REUTERS
Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Mortar blasts rock Mogadishu

By Guled Mohamed and Sahal Abdulle, 2 hours, 44 minutes ago

A wave of pre-dawn mortar attacks pounded Mogadishu and killed at least 16 people on Tuesday in one of the most brutal bombardments since an Islamist movement was forced out of the Somali capital last month.

The hilltop presidential palace, Villa Somalia, and the coastal city's defense headquarters were among the targets hit in attacks that struck many quarters of Mogadishu and sent hundreds of residents fleeing to outlying towns.

"They showered us with rockets and a mortar also hit the compound. Luckily no one was hurt," said a government soldier who was in Villa Somalia during the attack but declined to be named for fear of reprisal.

"Our troops and those from our ally Ethiopia were forced to fire heavy artillery," he told Reuters. "We had to retaliate. These elements are being paid to cause all this destruction."

A spate of near-daily attacks have challenged the government's effort to impose security on the city recaptured in December by government forces and their Ethiopian allies from Islamists who controlled it for six months.

The death toll climbed throughout the day on Tuesday as more reports came in from across the chaotic capital, with witnesses and officials putting the total at 16 -- all of them civilians.

"A pregnant woman died in a house made of iron sheets after a mortar hit where she was sleeping. ... There was blood everywhere," witness Ibrahim Maalim, who said he saw six bodies in the central Wardigley district, told Reuters.

At one Mogadishu hospital alone officials said there were more than 40 wounded and those with lesser injuries were sent home. Relatives gathered around patients wrapped in bandages lying on the steamy, crowded hospital's floors.

The city's taxis, buses and trucks were packed with residents heading out of town.

"May God help us. These people played mortar games with us caught in between," said Salavo Elmi, an 80-year-old great-grandmother, as she left Mogadishu by taxi.

CASH FOR ATTACKS

Deputy Defense Minister Salad Ali Jelle accused Islamist remnants of paying the gunmen in the impoverished city where jobs are scarce and being a hired gun has long been one of the steadiest sources of employment for young men.

"The insurgents are paying $100 a day to whoever fires rockets and mortars at the government and people," he said.

But Jelle said a 24-hour paramilitary unit introduced on Monday would soon demonstrate its effectiveness: "The plan is to expand our control in the city so the extremists are no longer safe anywhere."

President Abdullahi Yusuf's government says it is doing its best to police one of the world's most dangerous cities with little help. And there are plenty of people with military weapons and anti-government grudges to make the task harder.

Ugandan soldiers are due to deploy in Mogadishu soon as the vanguard of an 8,000-strong African Union peacekeeping force to replace the Ethiopians.

The Nigerian army said 850 of its troops had completed training for induction into the AU mission and were expected to arrive in Somalia by mid-April at the latest.

Also on Tuesday, one of three private media groups summoned by intelligence chiefs a day earlier said it was "shocked and dismayed" after being told to stop reporting unrest in the city.

Shabelle TV and radio said the deputy head of national security "threatened the directors that (under) martial law... government soldiers can shoot and kill everyone they want."

Shabelle Chairman Abdi Maalik Yusuf Mohamuud called on the international community to pressure the government to respect press freedom. Read more!

Sadia to Zakaria: "Somalia Back to Square One"

Sadia Ali Aden, president of the Somalia Diaspora Network, tried her best last week to explain to Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria why U.S. intervention on the warlords' side had not been helpful to Somalia—but he just didn't get it.

In a television interview on Zakaria's program "Foreign Exchange" February 8, Sadia said the U.S. had mistakenly relied upon Ethiopian intelligence when it judged that the Union of Islamic Courts harbored al Qaida terrorists and thus concluded the Courts were a threat to its interests in the region. So when the Courts gained control of Mogadishu and expelled the warlords, Somalia became a new front in its worldwide "war on terror," the C.I.A. channeled funding to the warlords through the CIA, and the U.S. endorsed Ethiopia's military intervention to halt the Courts' advances. The result, Sadia said, was a renewal of ethnic conflict that had brought Somalia "back to square one."

Zakaria pressed Sadia to clarify what the U.S. should be doing in Somalia. "It should NOT have supported the warlords," she answered. "It should stop the bombing, encourage the Ethiopians to withdraw, and deploy human rights monitors who could provide an accurate picture of what was happening in Somalia." But Zakaria wasn't satisfied. "You say the U.S. should support the Somali government [although Sadia had not said that exactly]. But wasn't it the Somali government that approved of the bombing and invited the Ethiopians to intervene?"

Sadia attempted to explain that the U.S. had in effect sided with one faction within the transitional government when it should have supported reconciliation among its factions, but Zakaria's eyes glazed over. They agreed finally that it was a "very complex situation."

Click here to see and hear the full interview on Zakaria's website.

Read more!

Museveni Dismisses Somali Islamists' Threats to Peacekeepers

President Museveni of Uganda told IRIN reporters earlier this week that "death threats" by Somali Islamist leaders would not deter Uganda from sending troops to Somalia, as promised. "If you bring Jihad, we'll bring back Black Jihad to you," he is quoted as saying.

Museveni also insisted that the Ugandan troops in Somalia would not be a "peace-keeping" force but rather a "peace-building" force, intended to empower those Somalis who truly wish to rebuild their country. Uganda, he said, had sent similar forces into Rwanda, [DRC]Congo, and Sudan with the same goal in mind. By contrast, "Peace-keeping is a Western concept. [It] is UN-ism . . . which is simply loitering around the globe with no solutions, adding to the problems. We are not part of the UN confusion."

Portions of the interview concerning Somalia follow; you can read the full interview by clicking here.

Q (IRIN): In terms of the domestic issues you have to deal with, is it wise to get involved in Somalia?

A (Museveni): The Somalia issue is not that difficult in my opinion. It is the collapse of the state of Somalia. Now that the Somalis have consensus, they should be helped to rebuild their state. Our going to Somalia will not be to do work for Somalis, but to enable them to do their work - rebuild their state, rebuild their army in particular, train the new army. And that is all. This can be done, we've done it before; it is not such a big problem.

Q: What exactly have you offered the African Union?

A: Soldiers - to provide insurance against any attempt to overthrow the government. And number two, to train the Somalis. It is a catalyst force, not the one to do the work. The problem with western countries is they try to act on behalf of the people, that is where their programmes get into problems. But if you come to empower the people to do their own thing, it is easier - that's what we did with the Tanzanians in 1978-1979 against Idi Amin. The Tanzanians empowered us, and then they left. Thereafter we did our own thing.

Q: After the Ethiopian invasion and the US bombardment, there is a power vacuum and no peace to keep. Is it a problem sending in peace-keeping troops when there no peace to keep?

A: That concept of peace-keeping is a western concept. It is just a part of the UN [United Nations]-ism. There is a problem called UN-ism, which is simply loitering around the globe with no solutions, adding to the problems. The issue there is peace-building. We are not going to keep the peace, because we are not supposed to be bringing the peace. That's opportunistic - how can you say, I will not come in until there is peace, and I will come to keep the peace! Who will get the peace? It should be part of peace-building. That is what we did in many of the situations - in Uganda with Idi Amin; in Rwanda with the genocidaires, we empowered the RPF [Rwanda Patriotic Front], then they were able to stop the genocide. In our fight with Sudan - we empowered those who wanted peace in Sudan, and a solution. So in Somalia it's the same thing - it is not 'peace-keeping', it is peace-building. And peace-building is helping the Somalis to empower themselves, on the one hand, and on the other to be as inclusive as possible. After a little while, maybe two, three years - I don't know what they've agreed - go for elections, give back sovereignty to the people. So it is peace-building, not peace-keeping. That is UN-ism; we are not part of the UN confusion.

Q: The African Union is aiming to recruit 8,000 troops - if they are not able to raise that number, would you still send in the Ugandan unit?

A: Yes, because what the Somalis need is someone to train them, that is all.

Q: But there have been death threats against the peacekeepers .

A: That is no problem - we are used to those so-called Jihadis . because we had [Hassan al] Turabi [a prominent Sudanese Islamist politician] here on our border, he was using that language - 'Jihad'. We are black people, this is a black continent - our continent. You cannot bring that Middle Eastern nonsense here. We are not going to accept it. If you bring Jihad, we'll bring back Black Jihad to you. These are Somali people. They are all Muslims. So Jihad to do what now? [Somalis] have a temporary government now. Restore a normal life; then go for elections, after a little while. So, Jihad against whom? Read more!

It Must Be True: VOA reports "unconfirmed" deal aimed at freeing U.S. troops captured in Somalia

Although hushed up in Washington, there was apparently some foundation in fact to the report posted here on February 6 that about a dozen U.S. troops had been captured by Islamist forces during fighting last month in Somalia. In a dispatch from its East Africa Bureau in Nairobi just this morning, VOA Correspondent Alisha Ryu quoted an "unconfirmed" Yemini newspaper report claiming that "a top Islamist leader, who surrendered to U.S. and Kenyan authorities last month, has traveled from Kenya to Yemen, allegedly under a deal aimed at securing the freedom of more than a dozen U.S. troops captured by Islamist forces in early January."

The report, which appeared in an Arabic-language newspaper, said "the United States agreed to allow Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed to go to Yemen in exchange for the release of the U.S. servicemen." VOA Correspondent Ryu notes that the captured troops were "allegedly seized around the Islamist stronghold of Ras Kamboni, near Somalia's border with Kenya, while the United States carried out air strikes in the area."

The reporter adds that "the Pentagon has repeatedly said that no U.S. ground troops were deployed in Somalia."

In the same VOA dispatch, Ms. Ryu also reports a third straight day of intensive attacks in Mogadishu by an Islamist group calling itself the "People's Resistance Movement in the Land of the Two Migrations." The group has claimed responsibility for much of the recent violence aimed at the Presidential palace and police stations. It has called for war against Ethiopian troops in Somalia and has threatened to kill any peacekeeper who steps foot on Somali soil.

(The full text of the report on these two subjects is available at the VOA website.)

My friend Bashir, who drew my attention to the VOA report, comments as follows:

The report by the VOA reporter Alisha Ryu is interesting, in that 3 weeks [after it first circulated] this 'rumour' is given credence just by the VOA's mentioning it and even more importantly by the last phrase--a blatantly false denial.

Read more!

Is This True? " Eleven US soldiers reported seized in Somalia fighting last month

I find the following news report astonishing but intriguing nonetheless:

According to Al-Khaleej news agency based in the Emirates quoting DPA news agency, Somalia’s routed Islamist leader Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed and the US ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneberger, are said to be bargaining over the release of 11 US servicemen reportedly captured by the defeated Islamists in southern Somalia.

The news agency asserts that "reliable diplomatic sources" indicate that the two men have held four rounds of talks over the American soldiers in the captivity of Islamists in southern jungles of the war-torn country, Somalia.

The remainder of the report may be read on the Shabelle Net News page by clicking here. I'm personally unaware of any Western media report that any such number of U.S. soldiers were taken prisoner during the brief US-supported invasion of Somalia by Ethiopian forces last month. Can anyone shed light from other sources on these claims? If so, kindly comment below.

Read more!

Experts warn US air raids in Somalia may be inefficient, harmful

PARIS (AFP), by Michel Moutot Sun Jan 28.

US air raids in Somalia to flush out suspect Al-Qaeda operatives may be ineffective in fighting terrorism and risk making the country's Muslim population more radical, regional experts warn.

US military forces have carried out several attacks on Islamist targets or suspected members of Al-Qaeda since the start of the month, but Washington has admitted it is "doubtful" that "any of the big guys", sought for attacks against US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, were hit. . . .

"Somalia's tribal system is very strict," warned French Africa expert Roland Marchal from the Paris-based Center for International Studies and Research. "If anyone gets hurt in your tribe, either you accept the price for the bloodshed or you kill the assailant.". . . .

Karin von Hippel, a former UN mission member in Somalia, sees sketchy intelligence as one of the key problems in the air raids. "I'm very concerned about these air strikes," said Hippel who works for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I don't think the intelligence they're acting on is very good.". . . .

Hippel, who is regularly consulted by US authorities, said she was told during these meetings, "We have to build as many schools as we kill terrorists," but added, "They don't do that."

"You talk to CIA people, they tell you that of course they perfectly understand that, and then they just go on killing people, so... I don't understand why the rhetoric is not matched by reality."

"These air raids can only make the Islamic Tribunals (militia) more palatable for the people," regretted Francois Grignon, Africa programme director of the International Crisis Group (ICG). "Collateral damage provokes hatred and fury among people who suffer from it, all the more so as the Americans have so far not given any proof of their victory: no terrorist leader has apparently been wiped out.". . . .

"The aim seems to be to score at home: to show that they do not hesitate to use a big stick," Grignon added.

To read the complete AFP story by Michel Moutot, click here. Read more!

Somali Islamists threaten AU peacekeepers

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - A Somali Islamist group threatened on Tuesday to fight any peacekeeping troops sent to their country as African leaders struggled to put together an international force for the anarchic Horn of Africa nation.

The European Union released 15 million euros ($19 million) to finance peacekeeping operations, but leaders at an African Union summit were still seeking the 4,000 troops they need to bring the projected force up to strength.

A total of 8,000 troops are seen as necessary to fill a power vacuum when Ethiopian troops pull out after having backed the government in a brief war that defeated the Islamists who had run much of the country for the previous six months.

"If African troops are not in place quickly, then there will be chaos," African Union commission chief Alpha Oumar Konare told the summit.

Delegates to the summit in Addis Ababa said Ghana, Algeria, Tanzania and Zambia were considering whether to provide troops but final pledges might not be made at the talks. So far Uganda, Nigeria and Malawi have promised soldiers.

As the African leaders deliberated, a Somali Islamist Web site posted a message apparently from a new insurgent group which spelled out the dangers awaiting any peacekeeping force.

"Somalia is not a place where you can come to earn a salary -- it is a place where you can die," said the self-styled Popular Resistance Movement.

"The salary you are coming to look for here would be used to transport your coffin back home.". . . .

To read the full story, click here. Read more!

Ambassador promises U.S. will stay the course in Somalia

My good friend Bashir has drawn my attention to an extraordinarily straightforward interview with the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneburger, carried recently by ShabelleNet from Mogadishu. According to the ambassador, U.S. policy toward Somalia consists of just three goals:

1. Help the Somali people establish security;
2. Help them establish stability, law, and order with peace; and,
3. Help them get the humanitarian assistance they need.

Asked whether the U.S. will be involved militarily in Somalia (to take up the slack after the after the Ethiopians leave), our ambassador solemnly promised that "the United States is going to be involved for [a] very long time. This is not something where we are going in very quickly and will then leave. We are coming in to stay."

Was the U.S. was encouraging dialogue between the transitional government and the Islamic Courts? Amb. Ranneburger pointed out that, "of course the Islamic Courts no longer exists as an institution, but . . . any Somali who renounces violence and extremism and terrorism should have a role to play in the future of their country, and this will include individual members of the Islamic Courts if they are moderate people who as I say renounces violence, extremism and terrorism."

Does the U.S. have evidence that terrorists involved in the Nairobi embassy bombings were present in Somalia? The ambassador is emphatic:

There is no question about it. The evidence is clear and it is absolutely certain. At least three of the individuals responsible for the bombing of the US embassies in Nairobi and Daressalam in 1998 were taking refuge within Somalia. Those three people were Fazul, Napal, and al-Sudani. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. There is also no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic Courts knew they were there and this is something that the Somali people need to know. These three people are individuals are associated with al-Qaeda.

But more importantly, there were a large number of foreign fighters and foreign jihadists and other people associated with al-Qaeda, who were there active in support of the Islamic Courts. I can tell you with great certainty that the influence of al-Qaeda people was growing within the Islamic Courts and posed a major threat to the people of Somalia.

You can read a transcript of most of the interview at the ShabelleNet website.
Better yet, listen to the audio of the entire interview here.

Bashir's own comments:

Please note that the ambassador mentions terrorism, terrorists etc. but since the fall of the Islamic Courts it is rather obvious the previous UN/US reports of presence of Eritrean troops 2000 strong, several hundred foreign fighters, Al qaeda etc. have turned out to be false. In fact the few "foreigners" so far arrested in Somalia were Canadian-Somalis and some Tabliq (Islamic version of Jehovah Witness or Mormon in their traveling preaching style) . . . .

Also the ambassador is asking the classic question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" of Sheikh Sharif, the Islamic courts, and specifically the Ayr subclan in demanding that they first renounce violence, terrorism etc. before they can be allowed to participate in the politics of the country i.e. they have to first announce that they have engaged in unacceptable violence and terrorism and that they will now stop that. If defending one's country from the invasion of a foreign foe is considered radical and extremism I wonder how many founding fathers and heroic Presidents will join the ranks of extremists? Read more!

"You break it, you own it!"

Bashir drew my attention this evening to an excellent piece of analysis published in today's Guardian by one of this country's few scholarly experts on Somalia, Dr. Ken Menkhaus of Davidson College in North Carolina. Bashir commented that Prof. Menkhaus "raises the issue of the US getting rid of the courts and the stability they brought and leaving the chaos to the Ethiopians and the TFG."

As always, Menkhaus makes some solid points:

Thanks to the Ethiopian intervention, the jihadist wing of the UIC is at least temporarily on the run. But Mogadishu is again ungoverned and growing more lawless by the day.

Somalia's Transitional Federal Government (TFG) is now expected to assume administrative control of Mogadishu, a city of one million hostile, fearful, and well-armed people. But the TFG is weak and intensely disliked by most Mogadishu constituencies. It is in no position to govern absent a partnership forged with the Mogadishu leadership, and will not even be able to remain in the capital without the continued presence of Ethiopian forces.

However, Bashir wonders whether Prof. Menkhaus hasn't let the U.S. off the hook, given this country's evident complicity in breaking the Somali pottery. "I have not heard [U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Africa] Jendayi [Frazer] talking about Somalia lately because for her it is mission accomplished. Jendayi is in the proverbial Somali situation of a man having just convinced a passerby (in this case Meles) to hold the lion (somalia) for him by the ears while he secures his macawiis or sarong and then departs from the scene. Meles is frantically looking for the AU troops but his American friends have gone AWOL on him."

Bashir makes a valid point himself! Read more!

Oxfam reports 70 nomads killed in Somalia bombings

According to the international relief agency Oxfam, based in Nairobi, its partner organizations in Somalia report that recent bombing raids have claimed the lives of at least 70 people. Reports indicate that bombs have hit vital water sources as well as large groups of nomads and their animals who had gathered around large fires at night to ward off mosquitoes.

PLEASE COMMENT! Do you have information about casualties or collateral damage resulting from last week's military action in southern Somalia? If so, please share your information or link by clicking here. Read more!

Conflict expert warns of intervention's broader impact

Nii Akuetteh is Executive Director of Africa Action and founder of the Democracy and Conflict Research Institute, based in Accra, Ghana. At a press panel January 9 organized by the Somali Diaspora Network at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., Dr. Akuetteh warned of the destabilizing effect the US-backed Ethiopian intervention in Somalia could have throughout the region. Citing the growing human tragedy in Darfur, he said "we have bigger fish to fry" in Africa than taking sides in another country's internal quarrels.

Akuetteh expressed similar concerns in a December 28 radio discussion hosted by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! Radio, where Prof. Said Sheikh Samatar of Rutgers University was also a panelist. Here are excerpts from Dr. Akuetteh's earlier remarks:

. . . [As] you know, a few weeks ago, the US pushed for a resolution in the Security Council that called for a peacekeeping troops in Somalia. And it was stipulated that none of the major regional powers that share borders with Somalia, should have troops in there. And we are talking especially about Kenya and Ethiopia.

Now, if Ethiopia had stepped in against those wishes, one has to imagine what the other powers in the region will be thinking. I do think that it is a major mistake for the United States to be encouraging Ethiopia to step in, in such a heavy-handed way. It is not a sustainable solution because as Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said, they have a mission, when they're done with their mission they’ll withdraw.

Let’s say they’ll withdraw in several weeks, what happens then to the transitional government? So this is not a sustainable solution either by the Ethiopians or by the Untied States. And I might say that this is just the latest in our view of a long series of blunders by American policy in the region, going all the way back to the support of Siad Barre during the Ogaden wars in the 1970's.

You can read the full transcript of the earlier discussion, including the dissenting views of Professor Samatar, at the Democracy Now! website (click here). Read more!

A Somali Jihadist: "We're Not Al-Qaeda"

The following lead (courtesy of Bashir) introduces a most interesting interview with a Somali militia member, published yesterday on the website of TIME Magazine:

Said Ali, 21, is a volunteer fighter for the Shabab militia, the feared enforcers of the Islamic Courts Union. The U.S. brands the organization as an ally of al-Qaeda; in reality, it is also a nationalist anti-warlord movement that contains many Muslim moderates and has no international ambitions. He was 11 when he left his village in southern Somalia and traveled to Mogadishu to look for an education. But all public education had collapsed with the last functioning government in 1991, leaving private school the only option. And Said Ali, like most of his generation, was unable to afford the fees. Instead, he found a job as a porter, and then graduated to selling shirts and kikoi wraps by the side of the road. In time, he was given a job inside a clothes store in Bakara Market, where he earned about 10,000 Somali shillings (80 cents) a day. But often he would be forced to hand over his earnings to armed militias blocking the roads on his way home. He came out of hiding in central Mogadishu to meet TIME's Alex Perry. . . .*

Read the full interview on TIME's website (click here).

*Photo above, by Abukar Albadri (EPA), shows fighters loyal to the Islamic Courts Union loading up on trucks to head to the front in December 2006.

NOTE: Be sure to read Joseph Peter's probing comment on this posting. (CLICK HERE)

Read more!

Somali physician calls on leaders in Diaspora to return home and work for reconciliation

On the Hiiraan Online website, Dr. Abdishakur Jowhar, a Somali physician living in Toronto, predicts that Ethiopia's intervention in Somalia will result in a war of insurgency that will only please al Qaeda while making "sacrificial lambs" of both Ethiopian and Somali youths. Somalis should not wait on anyone else to head off this tragedy, he argues. Rather, Somali leaders in the diaspora must seize the opportunity to return home and work for national reconciliation.

Some quotes (but please take the trouble to read the whole article):

"Somalia’s Diaspora leadership has a rare opportunity to make a difference. They have gone out far and wide to over to 15 different foreign countries in artificially baked dead-end Somali reconciliation conferences. Now they need to go to the one place where they have a reasonable chance at long last of making a real difference for Somalis- Somalia. These reconciliation professionals need to go to Mogadishu. They need go to Baidoba. And they need to do so now.

"The situation is ripe for Somalis to reconcile by themselves, in their own country with the help of their own people. No more Yemenis. No more Sudanese. No more Kenyans, Libyans, Egyptians. No more IGAD nonsense. No more holding Somali “unity” conferences in posh hotels. Few brave good Somalis are needed now to provide a face saving formula for both Zenawi and Aweys and to provide some space for rational dialogue for Somalis every where."

Read more!

Kenya to expel Somali leaders

Drawing my attention to a report from Nairobi in today's "Sunday Standard," a Somali friend suggests that the U.S. may be pressing the Kenyan government to turn the screws on Somali opponents of transitional president Abdullahi Yusuf. My own reading of the report deepens my concern, since the report coincides with a meeting in Nairobi of the so-called Contact Group on Somalia and suggests that the U.S. member of that group, Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer (shown above), is winning closer cooperation from the Kenyans in support of U.S. policy toward Somalia. Kenyan authorities are screening refugee flows from Somalia, detaining those who may have been supporters of the Islamist movement, and cautioning others who might use Kenyan asylum as a platform for criticizing Somalia's fragile transitional government. What will become of those detained in Kenya is anyone's guess; but it's clear they will not be allowed, in the Foreign Minister's words, to "subvert peace efforts" in Somalia.
Read more!

State Department spin on Somalia news

The previous posting referred to difficulties at least one Italian journalist has had getting a balanced perspective on Somalia published in Italy. The New York Times ran a piece on December 26 reporting on our own government's efforts to slant news about Ethiopia's offensive in Somalia against Somali Islamists and in favor of the invaders. "The Department's internal guidance to staff members," said the Times, "instructed officials to play down the invasion in public statements." Some quotes from the Department's guidance:

"The press must not be allowed to make this about Ethiopia, or Ethiopia violating the territorial integrity of Somalia. . . .

"Emphasize that this is a distraction from the issue of dialogue between the [transitional federal government] and the Islamic courts and shift the focus back to the need for dialogue."

Be sure to read this enlightening article in its entirety (click here or on the title of the posting, above).

Read more!

Journalistic balance on Somalia situation suffers setback in Italy

Please take a look at the comment left by an Italian journalist who dared to offer her readers a balanced view of Ethiopia's intervention in Somalia (click here -- you'll find it at the end of my posting "Questions from a close friend"). A bit disheartening, to say the least. Read more!

Background on the U.S. "war" on terrorism in Somalia

A Somali-American friend has just brought the following article to my attention. Published six months ago in the Washington Post, it sheds light on how the U.S. got itself in the ludicrous position of backing Somalia's tyrant warlords against the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC).

Black Eye in Somalia

By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 2, 2006; A22
MOGADISHU, Somalia -- The land was little more than a patch of scrub outside the city. But this being Somalia -- lawless, fractured and armed to the teeth -- it was a patch of scrub that two of the country's most powerful families were prepared to fight over.
The fighting, which began Jan. 13, quickly took on wider significance because of the presence, at an airstrip just three miles away, of a small team of U.S. intelligence officials, according to Somalis knowledgeable about the events of that day.
The Americans were in Somalia because of concerns about terrorism, not land. But when the gunfire rang out, the sources said, the U.S. officials wrongly concluded that they were under attack by Islamic terrorists and abruptly fled. It was a provocation, U.S. officials later told Somalis, that demanded a muscular response.
In the weeks that followed this little-known incident, which U.S. officials have refused to confirm or deny, the United States expanded its role in Somalia to levels not seen since it abandoned the country in 1994. The Americans helped organize a group of secular warlords into an "anti-terror coalition" and provided them with a large, steady diet of cash.
The warlords, feared and hated by many Somalis, bragged about the money as they armed themselves as never before.
The infusion of cash upset a fragile balance between the two sides -- but not in the direction the Americans had hoped.
By March, the warlords were under siege. By June 6, they had fled. And by June 24, Hassan Dahir Aweys, a militant Islamic leader hostile to Western democracy and reputed to have ties to al-Qaeda, had taken control of Mogadishu. Late last week, Osama bin Laden boasted of successes there in an audiotape that singled out Somalia as a front in his war against Americans.
"Simply, they made a mistake," Ali Iman Sharmarke, a prominent Mogadishu businessman and radio journalist, said of the Americans in an interview in Nairobi. "If their intent was to capture terrorists, they needed a wider approach . . . to help the people of Somalia."
American analysts, though not knowledgeable about the incident at the airstrip, said that by giving cash to the warlords the United States triggered events that quickly moved beyond its control, producing a setback likely to hurt not only Somalis but also the U.S. war on terrorism.
"U.S. support for the warlords hit Mogadishu like a stick in the hornet's nest," said John Prendergast, an Africa analyst with the International Crisis Group, a research organization, speaking recently from Chad, where he was traveling. "It was totally the law of unintended consequences in the extreme."
The accounts in this article are based on interviews with Somali business leaders, politicians, civil society activists and members of one of the families involved in the January fight.
The protagonists in the initial dispute were political and military rivals, both fromMogadishu's elite Abgal sub-clan.
Abukar Omar Adan was a devoutly Islamic and heavily armed clan elder with ties to the strict neighborhood religious courts that had brought a semblance of order to a city without a government.
His rival, Bashir Raghe, was a brash, younger man who had been a waste contractor with the U.S. military forces in Mogadishu before the United States pulled out.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Raghe became one of America's foremost allies in Somalia, receiving payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars for capturing and turning over terrorism suspects to U.S. officials, Somalis say.
Raghe strode through Mogadishu wearing Ray-Ban sunglasses on his head and a pistol strapped to each hip. And in the months leading up to the fighting in Mogadishu, he was seen using crisp, new $100 bills to buy machine guns and heavily armed pickup trucks.
In addition to his alliance with the Americans, Raghe had other strategic assets: He controlled Esaly Airport, a seaside strip of packed sand north of Mogadishu, and, at least nominally, the road leading there from the city.
The trouble began late last year when Adan paid $30,000 for land that straddled the airport road, intending to build a development including homes and warehouses.
Fearing the loss of control over lucrative airport traffic, Raghe objected, according to Adan's brother and son. After several verbal confrontations, the two sides began fighting in the open Jan. 13, moments after the U.S. intelligence officials -- most accounts put the number at four -- had landed at Esaly.
A few miles away, fleets of trucks mounted with machine guns exchanged fire. By the end of a battle lasting nearly six hours, Raghe's forces had killed seven of Adan's men and captured the land and four of his gun trucks -- a source of enduring frustration to Adan in a city where clout was measured mainly in terms of firepower.
Adan's son, Abdulkadir Abukar, 30, a key adviser to his father, said by phone that his family had no idea that Americans were nearby during the battle. But through the Abgal sub-clan's system of rapidly shared information, it soon became known.
Fearing a reaction by the Americans, Abukar and his uncle traveled to Nairobi, the region's business and diplomatic hub, to reassure U.S. officials that the gunfight was only about land. Abukar and his uncle also requested that their four captured gun trucks be returned.
But over the next several weeks, in numerous discussions in person and on the phone, U.S.officials accused Abukar and his family of being terrorists, he said. "They said, 'You were ready to kill us.' . . . They said, 'Your file will be put in Washington, and you will be recorded as a terrorist group.' "
Two other Somalis with direct knowledge of the meetings gave similar accounts. A third Somali, speaking on condition of anonymity, recounted a separate but similar conversation with a U.S. intelligence official who said of the officers at the airstrip on Jan. 13: "They were ambushed. This was a terrorist who was trying to kill American officers."
Back in Mogadishu, the fight was seen differently -- as a sign of growing belligerence by the United States and the warlords it backed.
In the months leading up to the battle, Somalis say, officials of the Islamic courts had grown increasingly nervous as they watched Raghe and other suddenly flush warlords add men, guns and trucks to their arsenal. Surging demand caused the price of AK-47 assault rifles at Mogadishu's main market to more than quadruple, from $120 to $580. The price of gunmen went from $70 a month to $300, Somalis say.
"All of a sudden they were buying weapons," said Khadija O. Ali, founder of a Mogadishuwomen's group and a graduate student at George Mason University, speaking in Nairobi. "All of the sudden there were planes coming and the Americans were meeting only with" the warlords.
Anti-Americanism, stoked by the war in Iraq, intensified as supporters of the Islamic courts spread word that the United States was backing the warlords, whom many residents of Mogadishu say operated with impunity as their gunmen terrorized the lawless city, raping, robbing and killing as they pleased.
Public opinion gradually coalesced in favor of the Islamic courts and their militias, Somalis say. Prominent businessmen contributed men, trucks and guns to the cause of driving out the warlords. And so on Feb. 18, when Raghe and several other warlords announced the formation of an "anti-terrorism coalition" -- featuring the backing of even more American money -- the reaction was swift. Battles broke out the same day in a struggle now seen as being between homegrown Islamic militias and a hated U.S. proxy force.
A month later, on the morning of March 22, Adan's forces -- backed now by the Islamic militias -- attacked Raghe's position at the disputed land. This time, despite the enhanced support of the U.S. government for the warlords, Raghe was routed in fighting that left dozens of his men dead.
The battles between Adan and Raghe were viewed in Mogadishu as the crucial first fights between Islamic militias and secular, U.S.-backed warlords.
By the time the fighting ended in early June, more than 300 Somalis had been killed. Aweys, long a target of U.S. counterterrorism efforts, now heads the Islamic militias that rule Mogadishu.
The U.S. effort failed, Somalis said, because it focused only on seizing terrorism suspects, not attempting to improve living conditions in one of the world's poorest countries.
"It will radicalize the people," said Ali, a naturalized U.S. citizen. "Unless I am also safe, you are not going to be safe. That's the message the Americans must learn. They cannot fight this alone."
Staff writer Karen DeYoung in Washington contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Read more!

Questions from a close friend

Following message from a distinguished diplomat and close friend reached me yesterday (my reply follows):

I confess that I have great difficulty understanding what is happening in Somalia. It is not self evident to me that restoration of the so-called official or recognized government is necessarily undesirable, although the downsides are clear enough: continuing long-term insurgency, a refugee mess in Kenya, uncertainty to say the least about the motivation and intentions of Meles Zenawi, further international opprobrium for the Bush Administration. But "victory" for the Islamists would result in miserable continuing problems for poor Somalia as well, would it not, and perhaps for the US also? Are the Islamists in fact patriots with any realistic hope of unifying the country?

What, practically, could diplomacy accomplish in these circumstances beyond a temporary pause in the bloodshed? USG encouragement of warlords and Ethiopian invaders is distasteful, but I am not sufficiently informed to evaluate the options.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dear ______,

. . . . None of us has a whole lot of trustworthy information about what's happened in the last few weeks. Still, the broad outlines are pretty clear and need to be aired and discussed among people who really care about the country and its future. The outcome just might be an improvement in understanding all around, not least of all among members of the press and policy makers in government. . . .

A few points in response to your questions:

-- There will be no "restoration of the so-called official or recognized government," whether desirable or undesirable, because it was never ousted or overthrown. Actually, it has been an extremely frail flower from the start, unable -- until now, at least -- even to agree on where to base itself, much less on how to govern the country. That's because it's a hodge-podge of contending, quarreling faction leaders, old-line politicians and warlords, deeply split among themselves over how and whether to relate to the Ethiopians, Kenyans, Saudis, etc. From their standpoint, the Islamist movement has served as a "common enemy" helping them overcome their differences, at least temporarily, but it remains to be seen how long they'll hang together if that enemy disappears.

-- It's worth noting that although the media are calling the TFG "internationally recognized" -- presumably because it's been allowed to occupy Somalia's seat at the U.N. -- no major state that I know of has in fact extended it formal recognition. Certainly the USG has not -- and probably won't as long as the issue of Somaliland's jealously held independence remains unresolved. (Ironic, isn't it, that we've been promoting and sponsoring a government we don't recognize while ignoring another Somali government that's pretty much put its house in order?)

-- A "long-term insurgency" by the Islamists seems unlikely to me right now, in part because so few Somalis are really religious zealots (I simply don't buy the notion that the Islamic Courts movement was captured or even very strongly influenced by the handful of radicals with alleged ties to al-Qaida who came to the fore after the mainline clerics gained power in Mogadishu). But a great deal depends on what happens next. A return to the feudal anarchy of nine months ago and a failure of the TFG to get its act together and impose order could very well result in rekindling the Islamist movement -- probably more radical than ever -- as an alternative to secularist bumbling. Somalis really want an end to anarchy.

-- Are the Islamists really "patriots with any realistic hope of unifying the country?" If the operative word is "realistic," probably not. But in the minds of many Somalis , they seemed to represent a significant step above and beyond eternal clan feuding, especially when they showed they could bring order and a semblance of tranquility to Mogadishu after fifteen years of bloody anarchy. Clan rivalries and enmities run deep, however, as we'll soon see when the TFG itself attempts to "unify" the country. I predict the road to unity will be a long one.

-- What can diplomacy do? Well, diplomacy literally created the TFG during more than a year of mediation and arm-twisting in Nairobi (with grudging support and encouragement from Washington, by the way). With a little more backing from the international community, the TFG might actually have got on its feet, had not the Islamic Courts lost patience with the politicians and taken matters into their own hands. Diplomacy will now have another chance, thanks (?) to the Ethiopian army, and Somalia's real friends should press hard now for amnesty, reconciliation, a withdrawal of foreign troops, full enforcement of the arms embargo, an increased physical U.N. presence, both political and humanitarian -- and, above all, an end to the fruitless search for al Qaida in the sands of Somalia.

-- The very worst thing the U.S. could do is take sides in the disputes that inevitably lie ahead, as Somalis try to sort things out. Funding and encouraging the despised villain warlords out of fear that Somalia could become a breeding ground for Muslim extremists was incredibly stupid and engendered enormous resentment toward the U.S. Any pressure on the TFG to round up the rebels or crack down on "insurgents" would be foolish and counterproductive. At a minimum, the U.S. should avoid meddling in Somalia's byzantine politics and clan feuds, resist giving advice on how to build democracy, keep its Special Forces troops off Somali soil, and give the Somalis themselves a chance -- two or three decades, at least -- to figure out how to put their country back together again.

All the best,
--frank



Read more!