01 Jun 2006: ISS Today: US Moves Diplomat Critical of Somali Warlord Aid

01 June 2006: US Moves Diplomat Critical of Somali Warlord Aid
C Bryson Hull, Reuters AlertNet

 

A top US official [Michael Zorick] handling Somalia has been transferred from his job [as Somali Political Affairs Office, Kenya] after criticising payments to warlords that are said to be fuelling some of Mogadishu`s worst-ever fighting. The move exposes a rift inside the US government on how to handle Somalia -- whether efforts to build peace should come before counter-terrorism -- and the effect Washington`s perceived role has had in inflaming fighting there.

 

Commentary

 

The revelation that a top US diplomat has been transferred from his post in Nairobi after writing cables criticising US policy in Somalia (1) has come at a time when Mogadishu is being engulfed in deadly fighting. Since 19 February fighting between two rival militias - the Islamic courts and the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (ARPCT) - in the Somali capital, Mogadishu  has claimed more than 300 lives. Hundreds more have been injured and thousands displaced. The battle – fuelled by both commercial and political motives – is viewed by many Somalis as a proxy war between Islamists and Washington.

 

The latest round of fighting, which started on 7 May is the deadliest fighting seen in Mogadishu since 1996. The ARPCT was set up in February to curb the growing influence of the Islamists, backed by sharia courts, and to ostensibly track down extremists, including Al-Qaeda members and sympathisers. In retaliation the increasingly powerful courts have declared a holy war against the alliance – which they say is financed by the “enemy of Islam”– the US.  Washington, which views Somalia as a haven for terrorists, has refused to confirm or deny its support for the ARPCT, but has said it will work with anyone it considers to be an ally in its fight against terrorism (2). The nature of the divisions presented raises some key questions: if nearly all people are Sunni-Muslim, why should the conflict now be seen in religious terms, as one between secularists and Islamists? The vague US statement that it “will work with responsible individuals to fight terror”, and that it is really concerned that “terror is taking root in the Horn of Africa” and does not “want to see another safe haven for terrorists created,” underscores its belief that the Islamists have links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It is such a position that lends credence to the belief that the alliance the US has forged with the warlords’ is simply part of its policy in the Horn of Africa that is directed by its security interests.

 

The question of ‘evidence’ that the Islamists are harbouring international terrorists is a crucial one for the credibility of the US and the transitional government. Proof is also vital for restoring and sustaining regional confidence in the US - while Sudan suspects the US of regime change tendencies, Eritrea has accused the US of compromising implementation of the April 2002 decision by the Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Commission in order to court Ethiopia’s support for “the war on terror.”

 

How effective and trustworthy can US policy and actions in the Horn region be when it contextualises African regional peace and security predominantly within the framework of “the war on terror?” Furthermore, since 1993, the US and other key states within the international community have disengaged from Somalia, abdicated from direct participation in UN peacekeeping within the continent, and left the clan-based warlords to their own devices - commercial, territorial and political. How now then, does the US respond to the transitional government’s renewed calls for foreign peacekeepers, and if it is to play a leadership role in peacekeeping, has it not already compromised its position? Given the delicate nature of relations among the states of the Horn of Africa, the recent request by Somali’s cabinet to endorse the deployment of troops from Sudan and Uganda as part of a new National Security Plan (3), raises more questions than answers, notably over whether the projected peacekeeping mechanism is likely to yield durable peace and security unless its mandate is handed over to the UN.

 

The resolution of Somalia’s conflict requires a much more concerted effort by national, regional and international community stakeholders. In recognition of its global power reach, the US should therefore adopt a more proactive approach to the resolution of the conflict, rather than the narrow, selective and opportunistic alliance with clan-based warlords in the context of “the war on terror.” In the absence of verifiable evidence about linkages between certain protagonists and terrorist organisations, the US should allow the Islamic Courts and Somali elders to resolve the conflict, which continues to be exploited by both warlords for commercial and other gains.

 

1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13008291/site/newsweek/page/2/print/1/displaymode/1098

2. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29707720.htm

3. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22415119.htm