[Article] 1,000 dead in Somalia clashes

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.