Whose+crisis+in+Somalia,+Omar+de+Kock,+The+Star

The Star, Johannesburg, January 23, 2007 //Edition 1//
=Whose crisis is the Somali one?=

//Union of Islamic Courts embodies the frustration of the Somali people and is not - as the US suspects - a terrorist entity//


 * Omar de Kock**

The classic problem with African issues is that nobody cares until it is too late - this is once again happening in Somalia.

In the course of 2006 the ineffective transitional government of Somalia caught headlines, not because of its own doing, but because of the rapid development and increasing power of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC).

The latest news of a fullscale Ethiopian military operation in Somalia is the culmination of a regional conflict that has been simmering for the greatest part of 2006.

In order to understand the current status of the conflict, the powers involved, and its regional implications, it is necessary to take stock of developments in Somalia during 2006.

Politically the most significant development in Somalia is the sudden rise of the UIC. Several events paved the way for its development, and the sea change in Somali politics it ushered in.

In the first quarter of last year the United States backed and funded a loose alliance of warlords in the "Alliance for the restoration of peace and counter-terrorism" (ARPC).

In reaction to the US backing of the ARPC, the Union of Islamic Courts moved to counter the ARPC, and ultimately wrestled control of Mogadishu from ARPC-allied warlords in June. Subsequently the UIC extended its military operations to gain control over much of Southern Somalia.

The ascendant power of the UIC forced the Ethiopian government to take a more active role in providing military support for the transitional government based in Baidoa. The current Ethiopian military offensive in Somalia is indicative of a major change in that it is not only concerned with the protection of the transitional government, but to engage in a full military offensive to destroy the UIC.

Evidence of this is the latest news from Somalia indicating that Ethiopia, together with forces of the transitional government is planning to besiege Mogadishu.

This strategy should be seen in the context of the Ethiopian president's oft restated opinion that he will under no circumstances allow an Islamic government to take power in Somalia.

The US position on this is that Ethiopia has "genuine security concerns" with regards to developments in Somalia. This is of course informed by the questionable US security assumption that any movement that operates under an Islamic banner is suspicious.

Ethiopia is - aside from Djibouti - the key US ally in the Horn of Africa, implying that the current conflict in Somalia may be yet one more proxy war the US is quietly fomenting in the larger and somewhat amorphous global war on terrorism. The main regional implications of the war come to the fore with the fact that Eritrea, which has its own history of conflict with Ethiopia, has been providing aid to the UIC.

The irony of the assault on the UIC is the fact that in the short period that the UIC has been controlling Mogadishu and other parts of the country, it has achieved much more than the transitional government.

This comes in the form of ridding Mogadishu of warring factions, opening the sea harbour as well as the Mogadishu airport, providing safety for people to trade without fear, and bringing rudimentary social services back on track in Mogadishu.

The current Ethiopian assault on the UIC, in the name of providing backing to the transitional government, is therefore paving the way for more suffering on the part of ordinary Somalis.

The question that has to be asked in this context is whether the generally accepted (and US policy-inspired) suspicion of so-called "Islamist" movements should come in the way of a movement (the UIC), and a new political dynamic in Somalia that is paving the way for stability. Several analysts have indicated that the UIC is a stabilising force in the Somali political landscape.

It is important to note that the UIC has not perpetuated any of the violent and divisive tactics employed by war lords, and it has in fact achieved something no other foreign power (the US included), or Somali government has been able to achieve in the past decade. The stability brought about by the UIC has by and large contributed to the popular support it gets from ordinary Somalis.

Two factors contribute to the shaping of the UIC as a significant force in current Somali politics: the first of which is its ability to establish and maintain public order in areas it controls, as a result of which it allows for the free movement of people and goods. This is important in a country that has had a capital city divided into more than 15 zones controlled by different warlords for more than a decade.

The second factor refers to the fact that the UIC is giving voice to a new Somali nationalism. This is often misread in analyses and commentaries on the UIC. The spark which led to the initial rise of the UIC, being the US backing of the ARPC, and the subsequent incursion of Ethiopian soldiers into Somali territory, marks the advent of a new Somali-nationalist discourse. The UIC is therefore much more than only an Islamic movement, it embodies the frustration of a populace divided and exposed to the brutality of years of internal conflict and unwanted outside military interference.

The question the international community is confronted with is whether it will allow Ethiopia to engage in such a blatant military campaign in Somalia. The danger in this context revolves around the potential this conflict has to involve not only other African nations, but also Middle Eastern groups and Western nations.

On a geopolitical level it is also necessary to ask whether the situation in Somalia is indicative of rising tensions in the Middle East, and the potential it has to spill over into volatile regions such as the Horn of Africa. Simplistic security strategies and policies informed by the war on terrorism, and an anti-Islamic political atmosphere will - given the current state of affairs - not help in the search for a solution to the predicament Somalia finds itself in.

Important steps to take include the need to demand an immediate withdrawal of Ethiopia from Somalia, and for the UIC to cease hostilities against the transitional government. This should be done with the recognition that the Union of Islamic Courts is a crucial voice in a new Somali political landscape.

The failure to recognise the legitimate claims of the UIC in its desire to unify Somalia and to establish a functional government (which the transitional government failed to achieve) will lead to an ideological stand-off where it is not necessary.

Current conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine have shown time and time again that ideological posturing on all sides leads to instability and loss of innocent lives. It will be unfortunate if the UIC continues to be branded as mere Islamists and a potential terrorist threat as Ethiopia claims.

The UIC's political agenda is Islamic in nature, but is in addition to this also informed by the humanitarian needs and nationalist goals of a people tired of war and instability. It remains to be seen whether such nuances will be taken into consideration when this matter is discussed at the UN Security Council.

A heavy-handed US war-on-terror approach will put wind in the military sails of Ethiopia, and stir resentment on the side of the UIC. This will leave the transitional government completely out in the cold as it were, seeing that it is completely reliant on Ethiopian support, with next to no military capacity of its own or large, popular support in Somalia. It is obvious that international action should be taken, but the main question is what kind of action and what will the purpose of it be.


 * Dr Omar de Kock is an independent political analyst.


 * From: http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3640430**

1337 words