Somalia, invaded and occupied by Ethiopia with the encouragement of the
United States, is now to be reduced to a "trusteeship" of Addis Ababa, the
aggressor. "This is a case of putting the fox in charge of the barn so that
he may teach the chicken how to function in an orderly manner!" Those
Somalis that choose to recognize Ethiopia's authority will be targeted by
the resistance, deepening conflicts in that wounded society. That may be
Ethiopia's intention. "Ethiopia is set to discredit any vestige of
nationalist leadership and to spread violence and hate."
United States, is now to be reduced to a "trusteeship" of Addis Ababa, the
aggressor. "This is a case of putting the fox in charge of the barn so that
he may teach the chicken how to function in an orderly manner!" Those
Somalis that choose to recognize Ethiopia's authority will be targeted by
the resistance, deepening conflicts in that wounded society. That may be
Ethiopia's intention. "Ethiopia is set to discredit any vestige of
nationalist leadership and to spread violence and hate."
"The arrangement places Somalia at the mercy of its occupier, Ethiopia."
As America and indeed the rest of the world were counting down the last few
days before a historic election, Somalia was hard-pressed to face another
less promising replay of an old history; one destined to take it where no
other sovereign state has ever gone before - into oblivion!
Though it is not officially being called that, Somalia has in effect become
the first country in the 21st Century to be placed under trusteeship.
The trusteeship system was established to help United Nations Trust
Territories [1] (former colonies) attain the capacity for self-determination
and self-governance. This is good so long as there is a trustee willing to
help in capacity-building and a trustee council providing the necessary
supervision and scrutiny.
The irony in this case is that it is not the United Nations imposing this
decision; rather, it is the Horn of Africa regional authority IGAD
(Inter-Governmental Authority on Development [2]). The UN has suspended the
trusteeship mandate in 1994. And contemplating what impact this precedent
might have on the sanctity of the state sovereignty enshrined in the UN
Charter requires a whole different discussion. This article, needless to
say, deals with the imminent ramifications of IGAD's decision, and how that
might further complicate the already volatile situation in Somalia.
Some are already convinced that the "Declaration of the 13th Extraordinary
Session [3] of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of states and Governments" is a
better alternative to the current state of chaos and relentless violence in
Somalia. Others feel they heard this all too familiar argument when the
Ethiopian tanks roared into Mogadishu [4] in December 2006 after crushing
the Islamists who established relative peace and order in a number of Somali
towns and regions. The horrific result of that ill-advised invasion is
Africa's worst humanitarian crisis [5].
True, when the options are limited, choosing the lesser of two evils is the
logical approach to problem solving. However, what is in reality a "lesser
evil" is open for debate.
"The IGAD declaration as a manipulative charade to lend a façade of
legitimacy to the Ethiopian occupation of Somalia."
The supporters of this controversial declaration base their argument on the
premise that expedient, selective power-sharing is the solution. And since
the declaration, among other things, compels the TFG (Transitional Federal
Government) to form a new coalition government in two weeks, they are
counting on a high profile Islamist accepting the Prime Minister position.
And the name often mentioned is that of Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed - the
ousted chairman of the ARS (Alliance for Re-liberation of Somalia [6]).
However, it is important to note that, in his current status, after breaking
up with ARS, this charismatic leader is widely believed to have little or no
direct influence on the steadily growing insurgency determined to drive the
Ethiopian forces out of Somalia.
Others, on the other hand, consider the IGAD declaration as a manipulative
charade to lend a façade of legitimacy to the Ethiopian occupation of
Somalia.
Adding insult to an injury, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, who
engineered the meeting, is the current IGAD Chairman who presided over the
meeting.
And while there are indeed other questionable provisions in the declaration,
number 16 and 17 clearly stick out. The former states in no uncertain terms
that "the anchor of all the efforts in relation to Somalia must be IGAD."
And, the latter, in an extrajudicial overreach devoid of any diplomatic
refinement, asserts that "in default of the above, the IGAD Assembly shall
meet and review its options, as it will not be business as usual."
Wittingly or otherwise, the TFG and IGAD agreed to sign onto a scheme
mimicking the UN Trusteeship only to place Somalia at the mercy of its
occupier, Ethiopia. This is a case of putting the fox in charge of the barn
so that he may teach the chicken how to function in an orderly manner!
Part of Ethiopia 's strategic plan is to keep Somalis at war with one
another. This is articulated in its National Security Policy and Strategy
posted on the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Foreign Affairs
website [7]. And, candidly speaking, that is why for the last 17 years no
other country but Ethiopia has armed Somali factions against one another,
and tried to micromanage the Somali political affairs. And IGAD has been the
enabler.
IGAD has long been accused of being subservient to the wishes of
Washington's loyal partner in the region in its failed foreign policy driven
by GWT (Global War on Terrorism). Despite the expressed protestations by
some of its members such as Eritrea and Djibouti, IGAD had opted to remain
silent on Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia - an act that would ultimately
compel Eritrea to withdraw its IGAD membership. This left Ethiopia,
Djibouti, Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, and Somalia as the current members of IGAD.
The situation in Somalia is more desperate today than it has ever been.
Among other things, Ethiopia is set to discredit any vestige of nationalist
leadership and to spread violence and hate. Imagine this scenario: Sheikh
Sharif becomes a Prime Minister and takes his position as one of the
Ethiopia-dependent cardboard figures. Insurgents fire at the Ethiopian
troops, and the latter respond with indiscriminate shelling in a scale
comparable to the " Mogadishu massacre [8]" of early 2007.
Meanwhile, piracy and kidnapping of international aid workers, and the
reckless actions of various criminals and extremist outfits in Somalia
continue to overshadow the suffering of over 1 million internally displaced
persons and over 3 million on the verge of starvation.
Abukar Arman is a writer who lives in Ohio. His work has appeared on the
pages of International Herald Tribune, Al-Jazeera Magazine, and Tikkun
Magazine.
----
End notes:
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Trust_Territories
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Authority_on_Development
[3] http://www.igad.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=192&Itemid=96
[4] http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=449&Itemid=1
[5] http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/20/africa/20somalia.php
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_the_Liberation_of_Somalia
As America and indeed the rest of the world were counting down the last few
days before a historic election, Somalia was hard-pressed to face another
less promising replay of an old history; one destined to take it where no
other sovereign state has ever gone before - into oblivion!
Though it is not officially being called that, Somalia has in effect become
the first country in the 21st Century to be placed under trusteeship.
The trusteeship system was established to help United Nations Trust
Territories [1] (former colonies) attain the capacity for self-determination
and self-governance. This is good so long as there is a trustee willing to
help in capacity-building and a trustee council providing the necessary
supervision and scrutiny.
The irony in this case is that it is not the United Nations imposing this
decision; rather, it is the Horn of Africa regional authority IGAD
(Inter-Governmental Authority on Development [2]). The UN has suspended the
trusteeship mandate in 1994. And contemplating what impact this precedent
might have on the sanctity of the state sovereignty enshrined in the UN
Charter requires a whole different discussion. This article, needless to
say, deals with the imminent ramifications of IGAD's decision, and how that
might further complicate the already volatile situation in Somalia.
Some are already convinced that the "Declaration of the 13th Extraordinary
Session [3] of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of states and Governments" is a
better alternative to the current state of chaos and relentless violence in
Somalia. Others feel they heard this all too familiar argument when the
Ethiopian tanks roared into Mogadishu [4] in December 2006 after crushing
the Islamists who established relative peace and order in a number of Somali
towns and regions. The horrific result of that ill-advised invasion is
Africa's worst humanitarian crisis [5].
True, when the options are limited, choosing the lesser of two evils is the
logical approach to problem solving. However, what is in reality a "lesser
evil" is open for debate.
"The IGAD declaration as a manipulative charade to lend a façade of
legitimacy to the Ethiopian occupation of Somalia."
The supporters of this controversial declaration base their argument on the
premise that expedient, selective power-sharing is the solution. And since
the declaration, among other things, compels the TFG (Transitional Federal
Government) to form a new coalition government in two weeks, they are
counting on a high profile Islamist accepting the Prime Minister position.
And the name often mentioned is that of Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed - the
ousted chairman of the ARS (Alliance for Re-liberation of Somalia [6]).
However, it is important to note that, in his current status, after breaking
up with ARS, this charismatic leader is widely believed to have little or no
direct influence on the steadily growing insurgency determined to drive the
Ethiopian forces out of Somalia.
Others, on the other hand, consider the IGAD declaration as a manipulative
charade to lend a façade of legitimacy to the Ethiopian occupation of
Somalia.
Adding insult to an injury, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, who
engineered the meeting, is the current IGAD Chairman who presided over the
meeting.
And while there are indeed other questionable provisions in the declaration,
number 16 and 17 clearly stick out. The former states in no uncertain terms
that "the anchor of all the efforts in relation to Somalia must be IGAD."
And, the latter, in an extrajudicial overreach devoid of any diplomatic
refinement, asserts that "in default of the above, the IGAD Assembly shall
meet and review its options, as it will not be business as usual."
Wittingly or otherwise, the TFG and IGAD agreed to sign onto a scheme
mimicking the UN Trusteeship only to place Somalia at the mercy of its
occupier, Ethiopia. This is a case of putting the fox in charge of the barn
so that he may teach the chicken how to function in an orderly manner!
Part of Ethiopia 's strategic plan is to keep Somalis at war with one
another. This is articulated in its National Security Policy and Strategy
posted on the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Foreign Affairs
website [7]. And, candidly speaking, that is why for the last 17 years no
other country but Ethiopia has armed Somali factions against one another,
and tried to micromanage the Somali political affairs. And IGAD has been the
enabler.
IGAD has long been accused of being subservient to the wishes of
Washington's loyal partner in the region in its failed foreign policy driven
by GWT (Global War on Terrorism). Despite the expressed protestations by
some of its members such as Eritrea and Djibouti, IGAD had opted to remain
silent on Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia - an act that would ultimately
compel Eritrea to withdraw its IGAD membership. This left Ethiopia,
Djibouti, Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, and Somalia as the current members of IGAD.
The situation in Somalia is more desperate today than it has ever been.
Among other things, Ethiopia is set to discredit any vestige of nationalist
leadership and to spread violence and hate. Imagine this scenario: Sheikh
Sharif becomes a Prime Minister and takes his position as one of the
Ethiopia-dependent cardboard figures. Insurgents fire at the Ethiopian
troops, and the latter respond with indiscriminate shelling in a scale
comparable to the " Mogadishu massacre [8]" of early 2007.
Meanwhile, piracy and kidnapping of international aid workers, and the
reckless actions of various criminals and extremist outfits in Somalia
continue to overshadow the suffering of over 1 million internally displaced
persons and over 3 million on the verge of starvation.
Abukar Arman is a writer who lives in Ohio. His work has appeared on the
pages of International Herald Tribune, Al-Jazeera Magazine, and Tikkun
Magazine.
----
End notes:
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Trust_Territories [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Authority_on_Development [3]
http://www.igad.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=192&Itemid=96 [4]
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=449&Itemid=1 [5]
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/20/africa/20somalia.php [6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_the_Liberation_of_Somalia
Homepage:
