[Article] 1,000 dead in Somalia clashes

Victor

While not enthusiastic about the Islamic Courts, at least they were able to put order on the streets (things like pavement cafes have actually been opening over the last few months) by banishing the warlords and their fickle power.

This has the potential of ending up as a 5-way war between the government (backed by Ethiopia), the Islamic Courts (backed by Eritrea and most countries in the Middle East), the warlords (backed by the Americans) and Ethiopia and Eritrea (backed by Israel).

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1226/somalia.html

1,000 dead in Somalia clashes

26 December 2006 22:11

At least 1,000 people have been killed in fighting between Ethiopian troops backing the Somali government and Islamist forces in Somalia.

At a press conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi confirmed that his country's military intervention in the neighbouring nation of Somalia had left a further 3,000 wounded.

In June, the Islamic Court Union seized the capital Mogadishu and then extended its control over south and central Somalia.
Advertisement

The weak transitional Somali government currently holds only one major town, Baidoa, in the southern central region.

Somali government forces only began to advance on the powerful Islamist movement after Ethiopian warplanes bombed Mogadishu airport in order to cut supply lines.

Ethiopia has justified its intervention on the grounds that the Islamists represent a direct threat to its own security and sovereignty.

Boston

Are the various parties actually backed by who you claim? I find it hard to believe the warlords are backed by the Americans after what happened to the americans in the 90's

Manic Moran

Don't know about the Warlords, but the US is certainly supporting the Ethiopians and Baidoan Somalis.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/12/26/us.somalia.ap/index.html

NTM

Victor

LiouVille wrote:

Are the various parties actually backed by who you claim?

Sorry, I probably overstated when I said "backed by". The American objective has been to avoid a new Afghanistan under the Taliban-like (non-)state equivocal about hosting militants and importantly in the straits - pirates. My enemy's enemy is my [strike]friend[/strike] useful tool.

LiouVille wrote:

I find it hard to believe the warlords are backed by the Americans after what happened to the americans in the 90's

I suspect there are different people at the top now.

Another story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6210695.stm

DadaKopf

The US sees Somalia as a strategic theatre in the 'War on Terror'. Its porous borders and proximity to Saudi Arabia makes is a particularly important asset. Last I knew, the US was slowly removing its military presence in Saudi Arabia and building a base in Eritrea. This may not have happened, but the US is scouting around for a Horn of Africa base. It's therefore wise to maintain good relations with Ethiopia. Added to this, the US is establishing itself in the region as a counter-power to China, whose embassy in Nairobi is the largest in Africa. Chinese state-owned companies and migrant workers are spreading throughout the continent, particularly Sudan, but also Zambia, Tanzania, Uganda, Togo etc. In-between Sudan and Somalia is Chad, among other countries, whose borders are so porous, and territories so huge, that known Islamist terrorist groups hide out and train there. It's believed that the group responsible for the Madrid bombings, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, resided in Chad prior to the attack. So, theoretically, Saharan region will become one huge dustbowl of war in the next few years.

The conflict in Somalia has been brewing for months now, but it's only been publicly admitted now. Who knows whether it has the chance of turning into an ethnic cleansing/genocide situation. Let's hope not. Either way, local power struggles are, as it was during the Cold War, fusing with struggles between the emerging superpowers.

Sad, sad situation.

Manic Moran

The US hasn't had a base in Saudi since 2003.

NTM

Judt

It's the old proxy war doctrine, except with Islamic types (we can't pin them down to a nation, but for the top 5 sponsors you can take an educated guess) replacing the Soviet Union. Unfortunately there's no real stable governments in Africa, and one has to remember that it has a large Muslim population - almost all of North Africa is an Islamic majority area, something which is more important today than it was before.

Unfortunately it will be hobbled nations having a go at one another - the not so amusing South Park analogy of a "cripple fight", and the people who lose out will be the Africans fighting and dying in the war and wars to come.

jank

Manic Moran wrote:

The US hasn't had a base in Saudi since 2003.

NTM

No troups in SA for the last 3 years!?

i find that hard to believe

Victor

jank wrote:

No troups in SA for the last 3 years!? i find that hard to believe

They made it quite public in 2003 that they no longer needed bases in Saudi Arabia, because Iraq no longer posed a threat (in reality Iraq ceased to pose any threat around 1994).

They do have bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Yemen(?) and Kenya. They have use of French bases in Dijibouti and no doubt the British ones in Oman, on top of Israeli, Egyptian and Turkish bases.

mike65

About 6 months back so anti-US type was prattling on about how Somalia was not slipping into the clutches of the Islamic Courts doctrine and that the US was creating fuss over nothing by suggesting it. I wish I could remember who said it (it was a Fisk-type).

Some blogging background

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002804.html

Mike.

Victor

I think the distinction was being made between an emerging civic society that happened to be based on the Islamic Courts (sponsored by of all people, mobile phone companies sick of the extortion from the warlords - there is no landline system left in Somalia) and immediately saying that "just like that" it would turn into Afghanistan circa 2001 - the implication was Islamic civic society equated September 11. While there are strong parallel between the two, the cultures are quite different.

mike65

I dunno if the IC has ambitions for Afganistan 2 but Somalia is known as a bolt-hole for Al-Qaeda types, one may help the other or indeed one may get taken over by the other. Either way its going to be busy in the Horn of Africa
for the foreseeable future.

Mike.

fly_agaric

Victor wrote:

I think the distinction was being made between an emerging civic society that happened to be based on the Islamic Courts (sponsored by of all people, mobile phone companies sick of the extortion from the warlords - there is no landline system left in Somalia) and immediately saying that "just like that" it would turn into Afghanistan circa 2001 - the implication was Islamic civic society equated September 11. While there are strong parallel between the two, the cultures are quite different.

But why would Ethiopia act as it is if that is the case?
Why does the prospect of these Islamic Courts People running Somalia scare them so badly that they've done what they have done (earlier, sent in troops to protect the "government" and stop the Islamic Courts' crowd from taking over the whole country - now going on the attack)?
I'd very much doubt Ethiopia are just following the directions of the US in this tbh.

mike65

Maybe Ethiopia is acting to protect itself against the threat of radical Islam as about one third of its population is muslim.

Mike.

Victor

A large proportion of the population of Somalia are ethnic Ethiopians. Darned imperialist Europeans drawing lines that didn't coincide with tribal boundaries.

The Corinthian

Victor wrote:

A large proportion of the population of Somalia are ethnic Ethiopians. Darned imperialist Europeans drawing lines that didn't coincide with tribal boundaries.

Actually it's more the other way around - many in the eastern region of Ethiopia are ethnic Somalis. As for borders, Ethiopia's borders were largely self-derived due to her ability to historically remain largely independent, apart from a very, very brief colonial period.

InFront

I think this is an instance where the UN are going to get off their ass and start manipulating some people. Somalia, like Afghanistan, has for way too long been the political football - turned hot potato that everybody was reluctant to deal with. Given the ongoing, and worsening, situation there, and what ee know about international political mistakes of indecision concerning these regions in the past, Somalia desperately needs decisive UN intervention now.

Barre's fall, at which point the UN didn't failed utterly in a decent strategy for peackeeping in the region, has left blood on the hands of the International Community. When Somalia came to the UN for assistance, what did they get? Those self-congratulatory 1992 UN Resolutions with a failure to back up peacekeeping measures with a security force. Attempting to force political reconciliation without credible security measures was always destined to fail. Furthermore, the UN blocked the prospect of any strong political leadership force (in a smiliar manner to how the USA acted in Afghanistan with spreading their support too widely) between either the local militia or the "civilian" institutions, neither of whom could come to prominence.
However, if there is anyone more culpable as the UN in this it is America and Bush the elder (Tweedledum). They gladly took on Somalia to their agenda, yet would not take on a disarming mandate, and didn't want the UN disarming Somalia with a peacekeeping force with UNITAF until it had become too late. And anyway even when the US Peacekeepers came it was "to help the starving to be fed" or words to that effect - they had zero political direction in Somalia whatever.

The irony here is that the reason why the first Bush Administration failed to put any strong peackeeping incentive in Somalia (or its twin, Afghanistan) is that it feared a lethal and expensive peacekeeping operation. Whatever about Somalia, the real irony of that is borne out by that way of thinking on Afghanistan and the current ramifications for Iraq!
It is simply an erronous judgement to make, to abandon the responsibility of the international community on grounds of the complexity or the local nature of the conflict or the potential expense of such a peacekeeping mission. And it is one which the international community and Bush the Junior (Tweedledee) must be careful to avoid again.

Boston

Your rant made little, to no, sense

Manic Moran

InFront wrote:

They gladly took on Somalia to their agenda, yet would not take on a disarming mandate, and didn't want the UN disarming Somalia with a peacekeeping force with UNITAF until it had become too late.

The US never attempted a disarming. It took the sensible position that it was a practical impossibility to disarm the nation and shed no tears that the UNITAF mandade didn't require it.

NTM

InFront

"Your rant made little, to no, sense"

monosyllabic:
Bush the son now sees the same scrape as his Dad faced more than ten years from now. He should not screw it up like his Dad, and the U N would do well to learn from past lack of balls in terms of their task to bring peace to the state; they failed to do this in all the years that have gone by since the coup.

There you go.

InFront

Manic Moran wrote:

The US never attempted a disarming. It took the sensible position that it was a practical impossibility to disarm the nation and shed no tears that the UNITAF mandade didn't require it.

NTM

But where did I say they had disarmed Somalia or attempted to? The point is simply that their unwillingness to effectively engage in peacekeeping there, and their indecision on enforcing peace, has led to the escalation of the conflict in Somalia. They left the place in a mess and then just walked away from it all.

Sand

But where did I say they had disarmed Somalia or attempted to? The point is simply that their unwillingness to effectively engage in peacekeeping there, and their indecision on enforcing peace, has led to the escalation of the conflict in Somalia. They left the place in a mess and then just walked away from it all.

As I understand it the US position was consistent in refusing UN requests to make attempts to disarm militias, and advising against the UN attempting to disarm them itself [which came after the US handed over to the UN, having protected the aid convoys and broadly stabilised the region].

The UN did attempt to disarm the militias and it played out pretty much as expected. Violence escalated, culminiating in the deaths of 24 Pakistani peacekeepers [another 44 wounded] in fighting with the clans they were attempting to disarm, particularly Aideeds.

In support of the UN, the US [Clinton] then sent in a seperate force to deal with Aideed and attempt to win the war the UN had begun with the clans. A half dozen raids later [which included an embarrassing episode where they attacked the UN and took UN representitives prisoner], Black Hawk Down occured and the US withdrew for a second and final time.

The UN by this time was in well over its head with casualties mounting, and with the US gone and the "international community" leaving with them it too was forced to withdraw having failed to win the war it started when it attempted to disarm the clans.

A lot of mistakes were made in Somalia [the Canadians helped community relations by beating to death a kid who stole into their camp, the Italians were nominally part of the UN mission but clearly were in on their own agenda and basically ceased co-operation with other parts of the force, a US soldier shot some guy who stole his sunglasses and tried to claim self defence, etc, etc], but the US refusing to attempt to disarm militias wasnt one of them as near as I can make out. The aim of disarming Somalia was simply far too ambitious.

Boston

Your post makes no sense, not because you used "big words", but rather because you can't actually structure you thoughts in to sentences.

Bush the son now sees the same scrape as his Dad faced more than ten years from now.

I mean look at that, no punctuation, and the ideas are all muddled. Like how has his dad faced something that will happen ten years from now. What the hell are you on about.

Maybe you should put a little more thought into your posts.

fly_agaric

InFront, the UN's effectiveness depends on the will of the nations that comprise it. You admitted trying to fix Somalia looked to be a pretty bloody and expensive job back then. To that I would add thankless. What's different now? Who do you think is going to do it? Ireland...LOL:D

I'm being very cynical here, but for peacekeeping or enforcing to work well, most of the people concerned will actually have to want peace, won't they?

InFront

LiouVille wrote:

I mean look at that, no punctuation, and the ideas are all muddled. Like how has his dad faced something that will happen ten years from now. What the hell are you on about.

Maybe you should put a little more thought into your posts.

LiouVille, ten years from now does not automatically refer to ten years from now into the future.
Given that most people know GWB's father was also a President, I assumed you should understand that "over ten years from now" meant over ten years "ago". And if you want to debate the issue go ahead, but all you've done so far is dismissively questioned other people's contributions without adding anything yourself.

Originally posted by fly_agaric
InFront, the UN's effectiveness depends on the will of the nations that comprise it. You admitted trying to fix Somalia looked to be a pretty bloody and expensive job back then. To that I would add thankless. What's different now? Who do you think is going to do it? Ireland...

I agree with you of course, but back in 1992 the Americans were in a particularly strong position (within the UN) to enforce peacekeeping in Somalia, and despite the leanings of the security council at that time, they decided not to take on this role save for the humanitarian (dinner serving) objective.
You are right, Somalia is bloody, expensive and thankless work. But the Americans especially are implicated in that situation. During the cold war era, Somalia had strategic importance to America and the US/ Soviet rivalry caused turmoil in that country. They propped up the Barre regime in battles against the local militia with their Etheopian (Soviet) ammo. The miltary aid and financial backup exacerbated domestic conflicts there.
However, when the Cold War ended and Americans realised that whether Barre or the miliatia won the conflict, Somalia would still be mates with the USA, poor Somalia became just another part of boring old Africa, the American Congress walked away and left it to Hell. And look what happened: aid to the region fell and civil war escalated. Not even a professional warmongerer could intentionally create such a disaster.

Now, the son of the president who failed in his responsibilities towards that country has to re-examine the situation and decide what he is going to do to clear up the mess that they created and abandoned in the first place. It isn;t a matter of receiving thanks, it is about saying sorry and fixing their mess. They need to face up to what they got Somalia into, and the UN needs to wake up as well.

Boston

InFront wrote:

LiouVille, ten years from now does not automatically refer to ten years from now into the future.
Given that most people know GWB's father was also a President, I assumed you should understand that "over ten years from now" meant over ten years "ago". And if you want to debate the issue go ahead, but all you've done so far is dismissively questioned other people's contributions without adding anything yourself.

Time is linear, moving forward not backwards. From now is commonly and pretty much exclusively used, with repect to time, to indicate a point in the future. Also most people know that GWB's father was not president ten years ago(Notice how I specify a point in the past). Clinton was. I'm still waiting for you to explain your orginal post. How can I rebuff your post when it's complete fiction?

InFront

It actually says "more than ten years", not "ten years", read it correctly. In another post I used the words "over ten years".

I've contributed my opinion and backed it up. Liouville, I dont know who you are, or why you have a problem with my opinion, but I think Ive put it forward in a pretty straightforward manner. If you want an argument there are always people in the thunderdome for that, personally I'm here for the political stuff. Take it or leave it.

Edit: ps: just noticed something you said... actually: time is not linear, it is curved...

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

Not even a professional warmongerer could intentionally create such a disaster.

I think I disagree with that a bit. Anyway, the Somalis themselves do bear some of the blame for what has happened to their country. It is not all the fault of warring superpowers.

InFront wrote:

Now, the son of the president who failed in his responsibilities towards that country has to re-examine the situation and decide what he is going to do to clear up the mess that they created and abandoned in the first place. It isn;t a matter of receiving thanks, it is about saying sorry and fixing their mess. They need to face up to what they got Somalia into, and the UN needs to wake up as well.

But...what good can the US do here really. Their army is quite busy at the moment. Anyway, any US force, maybe even one just associated with them or "the West", would be another fresh carcass for Jihadi-types from around the world to batten on. Or it might provoke an insurgency in Somalia - a new "Iraq" in Africa. I wonder, is the US military very popular with your average Somali? Given the incompetence with which Iraq was handled, I don't think I'd have much confidence in a US or US-led/Western force repairing Somalia and winning over what could be a very hostile population - even if they are there at the behest of the UN rather than waging preemptive war and setting themselves up as occupiers. Good intentions paving a road to hell and all that...
Perhaps the US could provide alot of money and equipment to the UN but who would, or could, provide troops for this? The answer is noone.

Try for a moment to imagine the reaction here if some of our politicians decided they wanted to answer Mr Moon's (er... that probably should be Mr Ban LOL!) hypothetical call for troops for a mercy mission to save the Somalis/Ethiopians!

InFront

But...what good can the US do here really. Their army is quite busy at the moment.

Anyway, any US force, maybe even one just associated with them or "the West", would be another fresh carcass for Jihadi-types from around the world to batten on.

True, the US is quite busy at the moment, but there is no reason why innocent Somalis should have to just accept that and suffer the brutality that goes on there.

It is not the case that all of their available defense commitments are in Iraq (though a considerable portion of their defense budget is). I'm not particularly expecting it to happen per se, but I think that it ought to: The US ought to be doing something by providing financial and humanitarian and peacekeeping aid to Somalia and furthermore to the United Nations. The New York Times reported during the Civil War in the early 1990s that "Somalia burns and the world looks on". The answer is not to repeat our "do nothing" stance on this issue. If this were in Europe what would we do?
How can the international community (or we as members of it) allow this international apathy to continue right to the present day?

The reason why the United Nations themselves, in my opinion, are not acting appropriately is simply because this is happening in Africa.

We have not yet seen the fruits of terrorist activities (that even as far back as 3 years ago the UN were telling us about) of Al Qaeda in Somalia, and various other terrorist groups, but we surely will. Even the bombing of the Nairobi embassy a few years ago was linked to Somalian terrorist networks... are the Americans learning nothing?

But the most frustrating thing about the Somali conflict, something that is applicable here more so than most anywhere, except maybe Afghanistan, is the utter unnecessary nature of the whole thing. The way the US armed the nation, and, as victors of the Cold war, failed to address the ongoing ramifications of their huff with the Soviet puppetry in Africa is inexcusable.

Even the most basic of initiatives, such as the Ancient sea trading routes across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen, which provides the backbone of Somalia's illegal arms trade has not been given any international presence. And it's not as if there is even a ("real") government in place that they would be offending, the Somali's are literally "home alone". The rule of law disappeared with the government. If this were Ireland, we would be up in arms (no pun intended) over failure of the UN to intervene on rival, warring, unauthorised militant factions here.

How can the UN, understanding its portion of the blame for the current situation (and given its power on the security council and further broadly within the UN, and its culpability in Somalia, the USA) sit back and do nothing? The mind boggles...

Somalia has been left to fester in this mess. And maybe one day they will be blamed, like the Taliban in Afghanistan was, for fostering terrorists. Not only have the USA/ UN learned nothing whatever from their failures towards Somalia in the past, the USA has learned nothing from Afghanistan also. If they had, and they with the UN, acted now, perhaps the many innocent Afghan lives at the hands of that army might not have been so much in vain. Currently the only US action is to undermine the fledgling "government" (though what they govern is nothing) by forging relationships with warlords to gather intelligence and pursue suspects inside Somalia, and are letting the Ethiopians away with their illegal warmongering.

I wonder, is the US military very popular with your average Somali?

I'm talking about a diplomacy efforts and a UN presence there being supported, and being pushed on by the US. Maybe that means sending some American soldiers there, maybe it doesn't. It certainly means contributing financially and diplomatically to securing a resolution. I mean only 0.5% of the UN Peacekeeping population are American anyway. If the UN can go into Golan heights and Lebanon, as they do, why not Somalia? They are shirking responsibility, as are the USA.

Perhaps the US could provide alot of money and equipment to the UN but who would, or could, provide troops for this? The answer is noone.

I disagree, in 1992 the USA were the ones on the security council who were pushing against sending peacekeepers into the Somalia, I see no reason to think why that position has changed. If the UN Peacekeepers were somehow inapporopriate because of the nature of the conflict, perhaps the NRF maybe? I dont know if I entirely agree with that myself, but I don't think the answer is simply to let them at each other, that's what got us into this mess in the first place. I mean peacekeepers are currently in Ethiopia right next door as it stands, isn't there something very wrong that they, or the international community, are not in Somalia?

Try for a moment to imagine the reaction here if some of our politicians decided they wanted to answer Mr Moon's hypothetical call for troops for a mercy mission to save the Somalis/Ethiopians!

It wouldn't be the first time Irish peacekeepers have had to clean up the mess caused by bigger nations. I really think the Somalians (culpable as its militants are) are not going to be able to resolve this situation alone. The country can hardly feed itself let alone protect its most vulnerable citizens.

DadaKopf

1,000 dead in Somalia, 4 million dead in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a genocide in Sudan.

I wonder about people's interests sometimes. With the speed that this thread has grown, I wonder whether this is not so much about people's concern for lives in Africa as it is because the war is ticking all the sexy boxes: (A) Rise of Islamism/Al Qaeda/'Green Peril' fear(mongering) and (B) the US 'War on Terror/how much we all hate GWB/America-bashing national passtime.

I haven't seen nearly as much concern about DRC, a little more on Sudan (though this is mostly UN-bashing), but mostly these Africa discussions are narcissistic, self-serving bull****. Are people concerned about the people of Africa, or more interested in using people's suffering simply as a way to reconfirm their prejudices? What I mean is: why not the same level of discussion about Africa's World War (Congo)?

And to the person who said "Africa has no stable democracies": what about Tanzania, Zambia, South Africa, Ghana, Lesotho, Kenya, Ethiopia, Botswana, Namibia, Mozambique? What are your criteria for stable government?

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

And to the person who said "Africa has no stable democracies": what about Tanzania, Zambia, South Africa, Ghana, Lesotho, Kenya, Ethiopia, Botswana, Namibia, Mozambique? What are your criteria for stable government?

Ethiopia is a stable democracy? What on Earth are you smoking?

DadaKopf

OK, FINE, but, really, regionally speaking, it's not as crazy as others. 'Crazy'? I mean, unstable. This is borne out by the country's economic track record. The country is far from dysfunctional - i.e. far from a 'failed state' as is the fashion.

InFront

Dadakopf, this is an ongoing situation which has been crippling Somalians for fourteen years and was responsible for our own former President M. Robinson speaking out on the situation and specifically visiting wartorn Somalia. The UN were for about 3 years before they pulled out and the country has been left to tear itself apart. Many thousands of people have been killed in a civil war that has been dragged on since the beginning of the last decade. Do you not think this is worthy of what, about 30 posts?

If you think we should be talking about Sudan, or anywhere else, why don't you start a thread about it and I'm sure you'll get a similar response. You can't blame people for caring about this issue.

Originally posted by Sand
As I understand it the US position was consistent in refusing UN requests to make attempts to disarm militias, and advising against the UN attempting to disarm them itself [which came after the US handed over to the UN, having protected the aid convoys and broadly stabilised the region].

Hi Sand, I think you may have misread what I said on that issue: I wasn't saying that the UN didnt want to disarm the militia, I said the USA had no interest in disarming the militia. I think everyone can agree on that.
In my opinion that wasn't based on the American vision that at attempt at disarmament was futile or anything, it was based on their view that the process would be expensive, bloody and would be a complex, drawn-out process. They were also highly reluctant to get involved in any sort of political reconstruction in Somalia at that time (1992).

In my opinion, the obstruction the USA put up against the intervention of a UN peacekeeping force cause an insurmountable delay and burden for the disarmament process, which could not then be successful. Anyway, that is quite a minor point in the larger Somali picture.

Anyway, from this morning's Irish Times:

Somali troops take capital as Islamists abandon positions

Somali government forces rolled into the capital Mogadishu last night after a whirlwind advance that sent the country's feared Islamic militias fleeing for safety, writes Rob Crilly in Nairobi

They arrived in the outskirts of the pockmarked city hours after the Islamic Courts Union announced they were abandoning their stronghold in the face of an assault by Ethiopian forces who were sent to bolster government troops. A jubilant prime minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi, confirmed his troops had entered the city. "Our soldiers are already in Mogadishu, and tomorrow the government will enter Mogadishu," he said from Afgoye, 21km (13 miles) from the capital.

The Union of Islamic Courts had taken control of a swathe of central and southern Somalia after seizing Mogadishu in June. They were credited with restoring law and order and providing services such as schools and clinics.

Their rapid rise sidelined a weak transitional government which was set up two years ago in an attempt to restore peace to a country wracked by 15 years of anarchy.

Ethiopia sent forces to protect the government stronghold of Baidoa, which Addis Ababa viewed as the last bulwark against the rise of radical Islam in the Horn of Africa. Washington had also accused the Islamists of sheltering terrorists and feared the courts would turn Somalia into a haven for al-Qaeda.

Ethiopian warplanes launched a series of bombing raids on Sunday in an offensive that brought them close to the capital by Wednesday night. The Islamist assortment of poorly trained young fighters - often forced to swap their schoolbooks for AK47s - could not match Ethiopia's military might.

Somali government battlewagons rolled into Mogadishu yesterday. Some residents waved flowers and cheered, while others denounced the presence of Ethiopian forces nearby.

Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi said his forces would leave Somalia within days or weeks. Observers have warned that Somalia risks sliding back into anarchy, fuelled by clan rivalries, if the government fails to assert its authority over the whole country.

Goal, meanwhile, has called on the Government to use its influence with the Ethiopian regime to persuade it to withdraw its forces from Somalia.

"Let us use that clout to save lives," said CEO John O'Shea.

© 2006 The Irish Times

DadaKopf

InFront wrote:

Dadakopf, this is an ongoing situation which has been crippling Somalians for fourteen years and was responsible for our own former President M. Robinson speaking out on the situation and specifically visiting wartorn Somalia. The UN were for about 3 years before they pulled out and the country has been left to tear itself apart. Many thousands of people have been killed in a civil war that has been dragged on since the beginning of the last decade. Do you not think this is worthy of what, about 30 posts?

I'm not questioning the urgency or seriousness of the situation, and I'm well aware of history of the conflict, thanks.

What I *am* questioning is why people here, and the mass media in particular, are so animated by the Ethiopian invasion, and not the continuing war in Congo among others.

I'm not downgrading the invasion of Somalia and the worsening human security situation. I'm commenting on what I perceive to be a bias in the media and, be extention, media customers (& boards.ie posters).

Sand

Hi Sand, I think you may have misread what I said on that issue: I wasn't saying that the UN didnt want to disarm the militia, I said the USA had no interest in disarming the militia. I think everyone can agree on that.

Agreed, but I didnt claim the UN didnt want to disarm the militias.

In my opinion that wasn't based on the American vision that at attempt at disarmament was futile or anything, it was based on their view that the process would be expensive, bloody and would be a complex, drawn-out process. They were also highly reluctant to get involved in any sort of political reconstruction in Somalia at that time (1992).

6 of one and half a dozen of the other. A definition of futile might well be an expensive, bloody, complex and drawn out process with little or no chance of success. The point where violence drastically escalated was where the UN began attempting to disarm various factions. In hindsight that was a mistake, and it seems strange to blame the US for not making that mistake sooner.

From the article:

Goal, meanwhile, has called on the Government to use its influence with the Ethiopian regime to persuade it to withdraw its forces from Somalia.

"Let us use that clout to save lives," said CEO John O'Shea.

I dont know if the withdrawal of Ethiopia is to be hoped for.

The Ethiopians and the "government" have defeated the IC and broken their hold on power, but it isnt a given that power will fall into the lap of the government. If the Ethiopians withdraw, the Somali "government" will fall apart into warring factions and the Islamic Courts crowd will be re-emboldened to continue the fight. More chaos and suffering.

The government cant stand alone, it needs support in re-asserting its authority and establishing the basics of a civic society - not that its likely the present crowd of clowns can do so or are even interested in doing so. But if they can be carrot and sticked into fufilling their leadership roles, military backing either from Ethiopia or the African Union - The UN wouldnt be appropriate - is vital in preventing another bout of anarchy in Mogadishu. There needs to be a winner in the conflict, someone with the power to impose even the basics of law and order whilst avoiding flogging musicians.

Any force from the AU would be preferable [somewhat less likely to fall victim to the "foreign occupation" line of reasoning, but only slightly] but it would also take a fair bit of time to organise, so its Ethiopia for now. Unless they decide to quit wasting time in Darfur and simply move the troops there over to Mogadishu.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

What I *am* questioning is why people here, and the mass media in particular, are so animated by the Ethiopian invasion, and not the continuing war in Congo among others.

Because it's seen as more newsworthy - a brand new war between two 'states' (with an Islamic angle for added interest) is far more interesting than an ongoing difficult-to-define conflict that few really cared about in the first place.

InFront

DadaKopf wrote:

I'm not questioning the urgency or seriousness of the situation, and I'm well aware of history of the conflict, thanks.

What I *am* questioning is why people here, and the mass media in particular, are so animated by the Ethiopian invasion, and not the continuing war in Congo among others.

I'm not downgrading the invasion of Somalia and the worsening human security situation. I'm commenting on what I perceive to be a bias in the media and, be extention, media customers (& boards.ie posters).

Because the current fighting in Somalia has relics of East vs West about it, and because of its parallells with Afghanistan prior to 9/11, the media see it as politically significant.

Events in the Sudan and Congo are woeful as well, but unless they have any global, newsworthy, poltical significance to the West, we won't be seeing very much live coverage, or 24 hour updates "live from Darfur". That's just how the media works. The global media is not a humanitarian charity, the primary role it sees for itself is political. I don't know why you think this is surprising. It isn't fair but it isn't surprising.

As to why we're talking about it on boards, well why not. It is a significant political and humanitarian disaster. Just because there isn't a Sudan thread active (at the moment) doesn't mean nobody cares. It is also "special" because there is no international intervention going into Somalia, unlike Sudan and the Congo.

The Somali civil war will outlive this thread too, wait and see.

DadaKopf

Just because the media operates as it does doesn't make it acceptable, or right.

I also think that it's actually gravely innacurate to see the war in Somalia as a mini version of Iraq, or a 'proxy war' a la the Cold War.

Things simply aren't the same. It's about time people - the media - woke up to the enormous paradigm shift that's happened in geopolitics that goes far beyond mere reconfigurations of power.

InFront

But Somalia is not a mini version of Iraq. And denying the Cold War as a direct cause of the conflict there is... weird.

DadaKopf

It would be stupid to deny the legacy of the Cold War on many African states, I agree. But how exactly does this conflict relate to the Cold War period? Or are we really dealing with a post-Cold War conflict, which implies a transformed environment in which over-emphasising the role of the Cold War misrepresents the complexities of the current situation, which, of course, has been building over the past years.

Apart from a generalised Cold War legacy in Africa, how does it relate specifically to this situation?

Victor

DadaKopf wrote:

1,000 dead in Somalia, 4 million dead in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a genocide in Sudan. I wonder about people's interests sometimes.

Perhaps last week I signed the naturalisation application of a Somalian neighbour?

And theres a lot more than 1,000 dead in Somalia. It was 1,000 in one weekend.

Pro-Somali govt troops enter Mogadishu

150 presumed dead after Somalian capsizing

Frederico

Victor wrote:

Perhaps last week I signed the naturalisation application of a Somalian neighbour?

And theres a lot more than 1,000 dead in Somalia. It was 1,000 in one weekend.

Pro-Somali govt troops enter Mogadishu

150 presumed dead after Somalian capsizing

Doesn't anyone find it a little more than strange than the Yemeni's have just killed alot of refugees? I think a better headline would be : "Iran opens fire on Somali refugees, 150 missing".. that would get some attention.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

I'm talking about a diplomacy efforts and a UN presence there being supported, and being pushed on by the US. Maybe that means sending some American soldiers there, maybe it doesn't. It certainly means contributing financially and diplomatically to securing a resolution. I mean only 0.5% of the UN Peacekeeping population are American anyway. If the UN can go into Golan heights and Lebanon, as they do, why not Somalia? They are shirking responsibility, as are the USA.

Okay, that sounds more reasonable to me. But as I said, I think even having the US or possibly other "western" countries as drivers for this means it will probably end in a disaster of some sort. Look at Darfur and they way the Sudanese (and others) have been able to exploit the whole "Muslims" vs "the Imperialist meddlers" angle to make threats anytime the US or any other "Western" country critisises the govt. in Sudan for their brutality towards their own people.
Interested parties both inside and outside Somalia will play the same propaganda games with any UN force sent there.

I suppose I just have two questions. You say that Somalia has festered and the US and UN have a duty to do something (presumably a UN resolution and a peace enforcing force with a mandate to, well enforce the peace in Somalia and being very optimistic maybe stabilise the country enough for some kind of democracy to be established later). Why are you so confident that an outside force like this can "fix" Somalia - that doing something is the right decision? I mean it may be the moral thing and the US/UN may bear some responsibility for what has happened to Somalia but doing something could very well turn out worse than doing next to nothing IMO.

DadaKopf wrote:

1,000 dead in Somalia, 4 million dead in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a genocide in Sudan.
I wonder about people's interests sometimes. With the speed that this thread has grown, I wonder whether this is not so much about people's concern for lives in Africa as it is because the war is ticking all the sexy boxes: (A) Rise of Islamism/Al Qaeda/'Green Peril' fear(mongering) and (B) the US 'War on Terror/how much we all hate GWB/America-bashing national passtime.

...mostly these Africa discussions are narcissistic, self-serving bull****.

You are probably right about the reasons for interest in this particular episode of violence and chaos in Africa.

However, impotent people (making assumptions here!) a long way from the levers of power or their fulcrums typing messages into the ether about Big Global Politics and War is kind of self-serving bs whether the topic is Africa or not.
FFS - I can't get Dublin Bus to consider putting a bus stop a bit closer to where I live let alone affect the policies of US presidents, UN sec generals, African warlords etc!

Dirk Gently

fly_agaric wrote:

However, impotent people (making assumptions here!) a long way from the levers of power or their fulcrums typing messages into the ether about Big Global Politics and War is kind of self-serving bs whether the topic is Africa or not.
!

In that case we should all just stop posting on the politics board. except those users taking viagra who will be less likely to be impotent when it matters and who will be more likely to rise to the occassion and get the job done.

sorry, couldn't resist.