| Somalia is being run by many masters with irreconcilable agendas, but this exploitation must end if peace is to prevail |
| External powers with different agendas are currently making the decisions on behalf of the Somali people [EPA] |
Somalia is currently under what James Fearon and David Laitin of Stanford University call "a neo-trusteeship system". Various external powers, while disagreeing among themselves, make the important decisions for the Somali people.
On January 30, 2011, the Ethiopian-dominated Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a regional organisation comprised of seven East African states, called for an extension of the Somali parliament's mandate. The dysfunctional Somali parliament duly understood the message sent by Addis Ababa and within three days unilaterally extended its mandate for three years.
The US and UN rejected the unilateral extension, with James Steinberg, the US deputy secretary of state, arguing that it would strengthen al-Shabab and Augustine Mahiga, the UN special representative for Somalia, joining in the chorus of criticism. The disagreement within the international community over Somalia was exposed, with Ethiopia and IGAD lining up on one side and the US and UN on the other.
The fact that agencies within the US have at times pursued different policies in Somalia adds another layer of complexity. The defence department views Somalia through the lens of the 'war on terror' and, as a result, allies itself with Ethiopia, while the state department is aligned more closely with the rest of the international community.
Two months on, the Obama administration is still insisting that the decision to extend the mandate be reversed. As a compromise, Washington has suggested a one-year extension of the parliamentary mandate and two back-to-back presidential elections in August 2011 and 2012.
But the Obama administration has condemned neither IGAD nor Ethiopia for triggering and defending the Somali parliament's decision at international forums. Logic dictates that if Washington is so serious about this it should direct its concerns to the source of the latest political entanglement – Ethiopia. And, as bizarre as this may seem, Meles Zenawi, the Ethiopian prime minister, could deliver a reversal of the decision much more promptly than the Somali parliament.
Meanwhile, the UK is positioning itself to lead Somalia's post-transition period after August 2011 – a role it sought to kick start during a conference it hosted in February. Unsurprisingly, besides some general recommendations, nothing substantive came out of the gathering.
Although Mahiga participated in the UK conference, he failed to influence its outcome and therefore called for another conference to be held in Nairobi in March. Both the Djibouti government and the TFG rejected this, arguing that it would not advance peace in Somalia. Obviously, this will further exacerbate perceptions that Mahiga, like his predecessors, is micro-managing Somali affairs as though he is the governor of the country.
Perhaps a reconciliation conference for Somalia's external patrons is in order.
Missing Somali voices
In all of these discussions the one thing that is missing is the voice of the Somali people. And this politicking does nothing to advance peace or state-building in the country.
Somalis have not elected the members of their parliament; Ethiopia and its proxy warlords selected half of them in 2004, while the rest were selected by Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, the president, and Sharif Hassan Sheikh Adan, the speaker of parliament, in 2009, when the parliament was expanded to feature a staggering 550 members.
In the more than six years that the Somali parliament has been in place it has not fulfilled its basic functions, failing to produce a single piece of legislation. In addition, it has not linked the government to the people it claims to represent; many of its members do not even visit, let alone seek to advance the long-term interests of, their constituencies.
In general, the assumption, although this is not stated publicly of course, that drives these external, paternalistic and, at times, counterproductive initiatives is that Somalia is not ready to become a nation again.
There is a widespread belief among members of the international community that Somalis are too divided and too clannish to lead their own state. Some even employ economic arguments to question the viability of a Somali state.
The most important decisions, such as the type of constitution it adopts or who represents the people, are therefore taken with minimal input from the Somali people themselves.
Seeking support
Of course, one may argue that Somalia is not alone in its trust status. The international community has used similar arrangements in a number of cases, including East Timor, Sierra Leone and Liberia. But, at least, the powers that be (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) were open about their approach
Continued
No comments:
Post a Comment