Foreign Policy in Focus - A Think Tank Without Walls
Foreign Policy In Focus

FPIF Commentary

Memo to the Somali Government

Michael Shank and Khadija Ali | April 19, 2007

Editor: John Feffer, IRC

Email this page to a friend

Comment on this article

Foreign Policy In Focus

Imagine a reconciliation process in Iraq that fails to include militias or Sunni and Shia hardliners? How about a reconciliation process in Afghanistan that sidelines violent Pashtos in the south? The chances of either process succeeding would be slim. In both cases, the excluded parties comprise a powerful majority and thus must be included for reconciliation to produce a lasting peace. Keep anyone out and they are bound to want in.

That type of exclusion is exactly what is being proposed in Somalia. The country remains in turmoil following the U.S.-backed Ethiopian invasion in December that toppled the Islamic Courts Union. Ethiopian troops continue to fight resistance in the capital Mogadishu and elsewhere in the country. Yet, amid this violence, Somali leaders in the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) refuse to include the former Islamic leadership, along with other sectors of society, in forthcoming talks. This grave mistake is bound to instigate further violence, much like Mogadishu has witnessed in the last months as hundreds have died in clashes in the city. As long as the current Somali government continues to exclude parties that are more popular than the TFG, Ethiopia, and the United States combined, reconciliation will be a mere façade.

Thankfully, the TFG postponed the proposed reconciliation conference, originally scheduled for April 16. This buys time. How can the TFG wise up and prepare for a successful reconciliation? Here’s our memo to the current Somali leadership.

First, send Ethiopia packing. As long as Ethiopia—Mogadishu’s bitter, historical rival—occupies Somalia, the resistance movement will forever derive strength from the presence of outsiders. Lessons from Syria’s occupation of Lebanon should offer insight here. Neighboring rivals generally have a vested interest. Ethiopia is no different.

Second, embolden the African Union (AU) peacekeeping forces. As long as Ethiopia remains in control, Ugandan troops at the behest of the AU will only appear complicit in the occupation. Furthermore, during recent violence, Ugandan troops stood silently by. The credibility of the AU force, and peacekeeping generally, risk being undermined.

Third, respond to the European Union’s call concerning war crimes. Dismissing the war crimes accusation will only further rally the international community in opposition. Ethiopian and Somali forces killed hundreds of innocent people in Mogadishu in the worst violence in fifteen years. Be ready to account for that. Working with human rights organizations to investigate violations by all parties involved would be a good first step.

Fourth, encourage a softer American approach. During Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer’s surprise visit to Baidoa earlier this month, she pledged to provide U.S. security assistance to the Somali government. If help looks anything like the U.S. air raids earlier this year in southern Somalia, decline the offer because military strikes will only empower the resistance movement. Suggest that Frazer fund economic development instead. That is how one gains favor with an impoverished population.

Finally, allow a third party to organize Somalia’s reconciliation process. The TFG, struggling to free itself from accusations of warlordism and exacerbating the present conflict, is not a credible, impartial broker. Instead, let the United Nations do it. Experienced in negotiating divergent interests, the UN can engage all parties, including the Islamic leadership and other civil society actors. UN involvement saves TFG face, provides a more neutral platform, and ensures vitally needed international support for Somalia.

All of these tasks are critically important to ensure successful reconciliation. Once Ethiopia departs, once AU peacekeepers perform impartially, once war crimes are recognized, once America shifts from military to economic support, and once UN facilitation is guaranteed, then and only then can Somalia come together.

Michael Shank is a PhD student at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Khadija O. Ali, former member of the Somali Transitional National Parliament and a minister of state at the Transitional National Government from 2000 to 2002, is also a Ph.D. student at the Institute. Both are contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org)

 

Subscribe to
World Beat

FPIF's weekly ezine


Support FPIF


Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies.

Recommended citation:
Michael Shank and Khadija Ali, "Memo to the Somali Government," (Silver City, NM and Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, April 19, 2007).

Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/4156

Production Information:
Author(s): Michael Shank and Khadija Ali
Editor(s): John Feffer, IRC
Production: John Feffer, IRC

Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: FPIF.org editors read and approve each comment. Comments are checked for content only; spelling and grammar errors are not corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are rejected.
 
Name Mike Fleshman Date: Apr 24, 2007
Re: Michael Shank and Khadija Ali's good advice in their Memo to the Somali Government, a question, a comment and a lament.

My question is, what should the Ugandans have done if not stand silently by? Should they have boldly turned their guns on the opposition clans? The hated Ethiopian occupiers and their compromised transitional government clients? Gotten between the warring parties and been shot to pieces? I'd be curious to know what your guidance to them would be. Given that AU intervention came in support of the Ethiopian invasion I am not certain what else they could have done.

My comment is related. It seems to me that there are major questions about the legitimacy of the transitional government, given its origins, its composition, its strange history as an external entity and its dependence on the Ethiopians and Americans. I think the piece would have been strengthened if you had included an analysis of the artifical nature of that formation, as it gets to the government's moral authority to exclude OIC members from future talks.

And finally a lament. It is too easy to imagine a reconciliation process in Iraq that excludes Sunni and Shia hardliners, or Pashtun militants in Afghanistan, because that has been US policy. One might have hoped that the Somali transitional government would not follow in their patrons' failed and bloodstained footsteps.

Name Mohamed Said Date: Jun 30, 2007
I think The somali government is safeguarding the somali constitution which clearly states that the somali government should not recognize any party or organisation which has military wings like the islamic courts; Also islamic courts are not from vaccuum they are part of their clans, why can't they contribute through their clans since this reconciliation is on social level but not on political level. The political reconciliation was completed in kenya and the product was this constitution and the somali federal government.

The Islamic courts missed a golden opportunity when the somali governement opened discussions with them in kenya...afterwards they declared war on the government and even on neighbouring countries.

The somali reconcilaitaion conference is of social level between somali clans and if former islamic mullahs have any ideas to contribute they should work through their clans for the betterment of somalia.

The somali reconciliation conference is driven and engineered by somalis and should not be exported to foreign country as we can not afford to transport our clan elders, social groups out of the country.

Name Dibaba Regassa Date: Jul 25, 2007
The UIC was led by hard line and extremist individuals. Its leader, Aweys, was day and night swearing to grab a land from Ethiopia (before Ethiopia's self defence action), he declared Jihad on Ethiopia, he brought Eritrean soldiers to Mogadishu, He gave a safe haven to ONLF and OLF armed groups who terrorized Ethiopians. Therefore, the pundits and Journalists should be brave to condemn the UIC, not Ethiopia. Ethiopia is not fighting Bush's war. Not at all. The UIC was a threat to Ethiopia and the region. However, i agree that moderate UIC elements should participate in the ongoing reconciliation conference. Therefore, Ethiopia bashing must stop. Regards
Discussion for this article has been closed.
 
Contact FPIF's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies.
 

Support FPIF

You Might Also Like:

 

Related Africa Coverage

Haidar's Struggle
Oct 7, 2008

Malaria and the Limits of Good Intentions
Sep 17, 2008

Breaking Taboos: Mixing Sports and Politics with Team Darfur
Aug 1, 2008