The sudden defeat of the Islamic Courts
Union (ICU) by the Ethiopian army and their U.S. backers proved
easier then expected. A reported 15,000 Ethiopian troops and U.S.
aerial bombardment succeeded in installing the Transitional Federal
Government, two years after its formation in neighboring Kenya. Despite the ICU’s military defeat, the war is far from
over. Three issues are very important to examine as the crisis
in Somalia continues to unfold. First, can the transitional government
survive without the presence of the Ethiopian or American troops?
Second, how much does the foreign troops’ presence help or
hurt the government’s legitimacy in the eyes of its people?
Third, how willing is the United States to support a government
that has no popular support base?
Experts in the region believe that the United
States has directly or indirectly supported this operation because
of the Islamists’ alleged
al-Qaida associations and the assumed provision of safe haven for
al-Qaida operatives. The recent military air raids in southern
Somalia confirm U.S. involvement and suggest, unfortunately, that
the Bush Administration has chosen, yet again, force over diplomacy.
Military Approach Increases Animosity
While the Bush Administration and the Ethiopian
regime may have legitimate concerns vis-à-vis the ICU,
invading a sovereign nation and killing innocent civilians does
not justify this agenda.
The military approach will only increase animosity between Americans
and the Muslim world. In Somalia, this military aggression escalates
tensions with neighboring Ethiopia and re-ignites anti-American
sentiments throughout the country. It has the potential to prolong
the Somali conflict, increase the humanitarian crisis and increase
the likelihood of insurgency.
It is true that the ICU, unlike the transitional
government, enjoyed popular support, though they were far from
perfect. The
ICU’s “hard” negotiation style dragged the reconciliation
process and disappointed many of their early supporters. Their
military expansion to areas controlled by the transitional government
and their decision to engage the powerful U.S.-backed Ethiopian
army were suicidal and politically immature. The ICU lost a golden
opportunity to bring a lasting peace to Somalia.
Unfortunately, the transitional government
seems to be following suit by imposing martial law, ceding all
power to the president.
Parliament’s unanimous approval of this law was unsurprising
to Somalis since the parliament generally acquiesces to presidential
mandates. Moreover, those who followed the Intergovernmental Authority
on Development (IGAD)-sanctioned Embagathi reconciliation process
that produced the transitional government know full well that most
of the members of the parliament and the government have been handpicked
by Ethiopia. Not only is the emergency law counterproductive, it
indicates the transitional government’s unwillingness to
reconcile with all parties in this conflict, which is the only
way they can regain their legitimacy to govern. The transitional
government can only win the hearts and minds of the Somali people
and the international community through its deeds, and not through
force.
Viable Alternative: Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the only option. It is still
possible to prevent the rise of an insurgency in Somalia. Consequently,
the United
States and the transitional government’s performance over
the next few weeks will have a substantial impact on the direction
of the Somalia crisis.
The United States and the international community have a moral
obligation to play a positive role in helping Somalis help themselves.
The U.S. should refrain from all military operations and encourage
the transitional government and its Ethiopian counterparts to stop
hostile actions. Furthermore, the United States should press the
Ethiopian government to withdraw its troops from Somalia. This
will provide the transitional government with an opportunity to
win the confidence of its people--an understandably difficult task,
under the present circumstances. To assist in this effort, an African
Union peacekeeping force must be deployed as soon as possible.
The Bush Administration must also understand that with the complex
political structure in Somalia, clan-based loyalties determine
support for either the ICU or the transitional government. The
present crisis has the potential to ignite long dormant clan conflicts.
While the U.S. officials may view the ICU as religious extremists,
members of their clans view them as their fellow clansmen. Aggregating
them together under the umbrella of extremism, therefore, clearly
alienates many clansmen who are not extremists.
Constructive Dialogue
The U.S. should encourage constructive dialogue between the transitional
government and all parties involved in the Somalia conflict. The
U.S. should support a democratic process for building the institutions
necessary for a sustainable peace. This will reverse a tradition
of warlord leadership and hierarchical top-down tyranny.
In order to dispel the notion that the transitional government
is a puppet government for the Ethiopian and American regimes,
it is imperative that an inclusive and broad-based government be
fashioned. In its present form, the government is viewed as externally
imposed, with little popular support and legitimacy. Lasting peace
and security can only be achieved if this government transforms
itself into an entity genuinely committed to national unity and
reconciliation.
Ethiopia should revisit its policy on Somalia since it is merely fueling the
historic animosity between the two countries. It is in the interest of the
Ethiopian government to have a strong united Somali government that is accountable
to its people.
The U.S. government must remain positively engaged in Somalia.
But only through diplomatic means can the U.S. fulfill its obligation
to end the suffering of the Somalia people and reduce the violence
spreading within and beyond the Horn of Africa.
Khadija O. Ali, a former member of the Somali Transitional
National Parliament and a Minister of State from 2000 to 2002,
She is a doctoral student at the Institute for Conflict Analysis
and Resolution at George Mason University. This article was originally
published on Foreign
Policy In Focus. |