Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

June 15th, 2006

Tags

,

Comments

20 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Islamist Control of Somalia Spreading

(For background see these posts.)

Islamic militants captured Mogadishu last week and they’re already asserting control over more of the country. Yesterday, they moved into Jowhar, 90 miles north of the capital and the last reported “stronghold” of the militants, who fled into the desert without a real fight. The Islamic forces now have full control of the major cities in the southern part of the country.

Meanwhile, President Abdullahi Yusuf’s exiled “elected government” based in nearby Baidoa, and whose military consists of little more than the president’s personal militia, is trying to assert a third alternative to the warlords and the Islamists with the assistance of the UN. The interim parliament there has voted to call for an African peacekeeping force. Amusingly enough, the proposal calls for the first wave of peacekeeping forces to come from Uganda and Sudan—not exactly model peacekeepers.

On top of all this chaos is the peaceful Somaliland, an unrecognized state in the north that has been independent in fact since the collapse of the country in 1991. Despite being recognized by only neighboring Ethiopia, it is a stable region with multiparty local and national elections. (International observers monitoring the elections in September 2005 found them generally peaceful, free, and fair.) Elections have boosted Somaliland’s chance at international recognition as a sovereign state, and if Islamic militias turn southern Somalia from a chaotic mess into the next Afghanistan, we can only expect this will boost its status.

Additionally, I always like to look at the connection between the former colonial ruler and current civil politics. Interestingly enough, Somaliland was formerly a British colony, and southern Somalia an Italian colony.

Comments to this entry

Catholicgauze
June 15, 2006
7:24 pm
A stable democracy in the Mid East general area and we don't recognize it. Figures.
MilBlogs
June 15, 2006
7:56 pm
The Stable, Multi-Party Democracy Of Somaliland

[Curzon @ Coming Anarchy makes the case for Somaliland, while offering a good brief on Somalia's chaos........]
Faisal
June 16, 2006
4:14 am
Firstly Somaliland is not in the Middle East as Catholicgauze pointed out. Somaliland is only in Africa. In fact we dont like to be associated with the Arabs as they hate us and we hate them. In fact to upset them even further, there has been a leak a couple of years ago from the governement that said that it will establish good relations with Israel when the country is accepted by the International community. The other reason for this is that when we got independance from the British, Israel was one of the first countries (top 5) to recognise us before we merged with Italian Somaliland to form the now defunct and non existent, United republic of Somalia which late became the Somali Democratic Republic.

The issue is people still think that we are secessionists. This is not the case. There are gov'ts in the world which are unknowledgable about our history , the fact that Somaliland was an independant state for 4 days. This is what President Riyaale's aim is for now. To go on a tour of the world and spread the word Somaliland and its peace , tolerance, secularity and democracy. I hope more people like you get the word out for Somaliland. I have no doubt that it will be a recognised state in the near future as people see no chance of a recovery in Somalia. So why hold us hostage?
Curzon
June 16, 2006
4:46 am
Faisal: Thanks for the great comment. In CG's defense, he did say in the "Middle East general area," and Somaliland is just a short distance from Yemen, a major hot spot. Is Somaliland a viable alternative government for all of Somalia? It seems far more legitimate than the quasi-elected interim government in Baidoa.
Faisal
June 16, 2006
5:29 am
The people in Puntland (an autonomous state within Somalia) and in the rest of Somalia would not like to see our government be an alternative government to theirs and vice versa. On our part it would mean joning the rest of Somalia which 97% of the people in a referendum carried out in 1997 refuse to do. The issue is Somalia is very complex and the same is for Somaliland. That is one of the reasons why we never got along. Some dictators were playing the 'clan game'. What the Somalilanders are saying is to use our model for reconciling the different clans together and to see eye to eye, which they have not done. Here is a paper that shows how they acheived that.

Instead of following that unique model ( which some say to be a model for the rest of Africa) there is a lot of bickering going around which caused the Islamists to fill that vacuum and seize the opportunity to give people what they really wanted - peace.

The so called government in Baidoa i think has a very limited future. There are deep divisions between ' ministers' and the warlords who ironically are those 'ministers'. In my view unless they get some sort of support they will be eaten up by the Islamists. I hope that support doesn't come in the form of weapons. Apparently the EU wants put an ease on the weapons embargo placed against Somalia. Somaliland is worried about this as these weapons maybe targeted against us. Or they may give these weapons to neigboring Puntland where we had a clash last year due to a border dispute.
Joshua
June 16, 2006
5:41 pm
One big question left unanswered is this: If Somaliland does formally break away from greater Somalia, how will the Islamic militants controlling greater Somalia respond? Will they recognize Somaliland as an independent state, or is another East Timor in the offing?
Curzon
June 16, 2006
6:03 pm
That's a distant concern at this point and mere speculation -- who can tell? Of more immediate importance is how the Puntland-based Baidoa interim government will face the Islamist militants, and what will become of the ever-weakening warlords. For anyone who follows the news of the world, this will be a constant issue in the headlines for at least the rest of this year, and it's all but impossible to predict the outcome.
Rommel
June 16, 2006
7:24 pm
It is easy for me to say this I'm sure, because I am disconnected personally and geographically from the Horn but perhaps it is good that SOMETHING is happening in Somalia/Puntland/Somaliland. Sure, we in the West (and I'm sure many in Africa) do not want to see the Islamists overrun the country, but this recent chain of events may lead to some good, or at least some signifigant change and/or stabilization in the long run. The Horn has been a stagnant, festering wound with no impetus for change for many years now. Perhaps with the world's attention now back on it something will happen.

Of course that something might be really, really bad from our perspectives. But then again, maybe Somaliland will get her recognition (Faisal I am ashamed my country has not done this yet - who are we placating?).
Chirol, Curzon, YH - Might I suggest in the Alternative Borders series be the Horn of Africa?

Somaliland, Puntland, Islamic Republic of Somalia, southern Sudan, Darfur, northern Kenya, Ethiopia has its shares of ethnic/religious problems...

I sometimes disagree with the redrawn borders, but those posts always stir up the best conversations. I always learn something new..
Curzon
June 16, 2006
7:42 pm
Rommel: That something is happening is a good thing in that the situation "as is" had no future. Perhaps at this point, any change is good, even Islamists, with their own version of law and order.

Without insulting my dear colleague, I don't buy the underlying ideas that drive the "alternative borders" posts, so a Horn of Africa version will not be forthcoming from me.
Hunter
June 16, 2006
9:17 pm
the wikipedia article and this post say ethiopia recognizes somaliland, but the nytimes article faisal reproduced here indicates "although the neighboring countries of Ethiopia and Djibouti do allow people to travel with [a Somaliland passport] while still not officially recognizing Somaliland as a country."

anyone know what the deal is?
Curzon
June 16, 2006
9:38 pm
1. Regarding Ethiopia's recognition of Somaliland, remember that I am not a first-hand source. The wikipedia article notes that a citation is needed. This may not be correct.

2. That a country would not have international recognition yet its passport still be valid is certainly not a first. We don't recognize Taiwan as an independent state, but accept people with passports from the "Republic of China." Recall also that you can "buy a Somali passport.":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/05/16/the-bbc-gets-it-wrong-again/
Chirol
June 16, 2006
10:11 pm
Curzon: Regarding your second to last comment. What underlying ideas don't you buy? As noted before, I don't pretend to think that simply redrawing "fairer" borders will magically solve the various conflicts of the world. However, I do feel that looking into the history of borders in troubled areas, and visually showing alternatives which could very well have prevented a number of conflicts, is helpful in understanding the underlying problems and ethnic conflicts in a number of regions. Just consider Balochistan which is split between 3 countries.

As Rommel mentioned, it's valuable as a thought provoker and visual aid not necessarily as a realistic solution or fix all.
Curzon
June 17, 2006
12:45 am
Dearest colleague: like the proposed partitionings of Iraq, the idea in your Central Asia post seemed to be that there's a magic line where one can divide the regions where the Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Turkmen, and others (or the Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Turkmens, Christians and others) live. That's simply not the case. When I was in Almaty I met Ukrainans, Germans, Kazakhs, Russians, Jews, Tatars, Tajiks, and more importantly, people who were part one and part another. You can't delineat Uzbek-Tajik borders in most towns, let alone national borders. Often such a partition would force _families_ to choose sides. Yet there is no magic geographic line. Instead, having minority populations of neighboring nations in each state allows more fluidity across borders, a kinder nationalism, and tolerance. Note that the closest country to being a real nation-state in Central Asia is Turkmenistan, and it's a disaster.

Sidenote #1: The best borders out there are natural borders such as islands (Britain, Japan), yet in the Indonesia post you maintain the New Guinea and Eastern Malay/Indonesia divide. That would be the first change that should be made in Southeast Asia.

Sidenote #2: Ralph Peters is a second-rate fiction writer!
germanicus
June 17, 2006
7:44 pm
Curzin, for a "second rate fiction writer" Peters has had at least one NYT bestseller. Not bad for a " second rate" fiction writer. By the way, he wrote it while he was a Sgt. in the Army.
Kirk H. Sowell
June 18, 2006
5:52 am
Curzon: "Sidenote #2: Ralph Peters is a second-rate fiction writer!"

I disagree. I think that Peters is really a third-rate current affairs analyst whom you have attempted to elevate by calling him a fiction writer, so that he could make it to the level of being second-rate. And Germanicus, I have to say that having a NYT bestseller is by definition something that comes from writing a popularization of a serious subject, and such books are, in my opinion, rarely genuinely good.

More pertinently to the post: Somalia going to way of 1990s Afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster. Clinton was right to get us into Somalia, but for the wrong reasons - he thought it was humanitarian, so we could pull out as soon as the geopolitical weather got bad, but it was and is a country of security importance. We should have stuck it out. And Curzon, I believe that these Islamists are specifically allied with al-Qaeda, as Walid Phares writes at CT Blog.
germanicus
June 18, 2006
11:05 am
Sowell, if memeory serves me, it was Bush One that got us into Somalia and Clinton inherited the mess. You are entitled to your opinion of Peters and I know it won't bother him one bit.
Catholicgauze
June 19, 2006
1:36 am
Today the local newspaper had a story on this. They titled it "Somalia chooses Islam over Civil War." I am still looking in the historical section for "South chooses Union over Civl War"
Kirk H. Sowell
June 19, 2006
3:51 am
Germanicus:

Yes, you are correct, it was Bush I would sent the troops to Somalia, just before his term ended. Neither he nor Clinton was concerned about the long-term implications, or gave much thought to them. As for Peters, I'm puzzled why any serious person would like him. I've read part of his "New Glory" book, and I actually share part of his vision, but everything with him seemed to be a grand vision; I agree with TPM Barnett that he is not a systematic or strategic thinker. A bit more sophisticated than Rush Limbaughs and Al Frankens of the world, yes, but when there are alternative sources of analysis available I'm not sure what attraction Peters holds.

Catholicgauze: Ah, you suffer from Lousy Local Newspaper With A Monopoly Syndrome. Did you realize that 95% of Americans suffer from the same? The best cure I know of is to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and drop the local paper as quickly as possible.
germanicus
June 19, 2006
6:34 pm
Sowell, perhaps people appreciate Peters because he has been there and done that, not like the, for lack of a better term, "ivory tower thinkers' who haven't that you mentioned [although, I admit, it is hard to consider Rush or Al as "ivory tower thinkers--wannabees maybe?]. I respect the opinions of those who have been on the battlefield a lot more than those who are academics. Not a satisfactory answer from your prospective, but the best I can do. By the way, your advice re: Catholicgauze is spot on. Hope your advice is taken. Cheers!!
Chirol
June 19, 2006
7:00 pm
Curzon: As to the borders, I've mentioned a number of times that there are no ideal borders and certainly no magic line to be drawn which will instantly solve problems. The point is simple. Colonial borders have caused a great deal of conflict across the globe and taking that into consideration is hardly an unsound idea.

As to population distribution, again, as I've said, I realize many areas are mixed and have nowhere said that any type of perfect partition exists. But for most states to function, groups either have to be fairly equal (33% / 33% / 33%) and geographically mixed or have one dominant majority. The problem is that don't have this which has caused a number of problems (see: Nigeria).

Instead, having minority populations of neighboring nations in each state allows more fluidity across borders, a kinder nationalism, and tolerance.


Hardly. Are you telling me that Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran are shining examples of this? Your point merely demonstrates what a horrible idea/problem this is. Especially in central asia, this merely helps perpetuate the cycle of state failure. Having basic control of your country is a prerequisite to having a successful country. Turkmenistan's problems have nothing to do with its borders and everything to do with one whacky guy. Afghanistan's, however, DO very much have to do with borders whether to Tajikistan or Pakistan.

All: As for Peters, I think as an anaylst he's far and away 3rd rate. He dabbles superficially in a few academic areas without really getting into any of them. Sociology is probably the most prominant. And as a writer, he's horrible. I made the mistake of buying New Glory which was essentially a few hundred pages of ranting, cheap insults, no footnotes and little research. New Glory is overpriced firewood.

However, as Germanicus notes, he does have a wealth of experience on the battlefield that many don't have and the abiity to draw some lessons from that. Some of what he writes is definitely worth reading, but with many a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I think most of his popularity stems from the fact that he's one of the few soldiers who can write a book which thus lends a certain amount of credibility to his writings. The problem is, like Germanicus does, that his experience is used as a shield for his often poor writing or second rate analysis.