I would like to see it happen before I believe it. It’s not because they voted on a resolution that it will actually happen.

Past U.N. missions in Somalia were among the most disastrous missions in U.N. history. UNOSOM and everything that followed (UNITAF, UNOSOM II) has proven to be part of what is now the problem. By only dealing with the warlords (and not disarming them) in brokering a “peace accord” and not looking to involve Somali civil society, they (the U.S. and the U.N.) re-enforced the position of those same warlords, who had everything to gain from the continuation of the conflict because that is where they derived their powers from. The result was disastrous, as we can witness today.

The U.N. lacks the vision to deal with a problem like this. It thinks in Western terms of state institutions while Somalia is a clan based society. If you want to look at how it could work just look to the north of Mogadishu: Somaliland. It declared independence in ’91 and since ’93 they have a constitution. And it has done so without the help of the U.N. or any other outside influence and their western style intstitutions. No, instead they relied on their own traditions like the consultation of the “elders” and religious leaders and they created a clan based gov’t where the clans now form political parties. The point is, they changed from within and it payed of: Somaliland has had relative peace for the better of fifteen years now.

Great points BM. If this UN intervention seeks to shore up the warlord-led transitional government (and legitimizes the Ethiopian invasion) it has no chance of working.

There are serious flaws in this approach. As Britain’s ambassador to the UN says, his aim is “to broaden the political base of the transitional government.” He has also said that “It sends a signal to the Somali people that we have heard their cries. It sends a signal that this council is serious.”

Yet the Transitional Government is wildly unpopular, as it is seen as a stooge of the Ethiopians, it has done virtually nothing to reconstruct Somali infrastructure, rides rough-shod over clan structures and is seen as being dominated by one particular clan. Its troops have also been raping, killing, abducting and robbing with impunity – while it has been associated with brutal Ethiopian reprisals, which have killed thousands of innocent civilians.

How will people respond to “broadening” support for such a government?

It’s all a bit reminiscent of Haiti unfortunately, where the UN rode in on the back of a U.S. sponsored coup against Jean Bertrand Aristide and has subsequently done less than bugger all for the people of Cite Soleil and other poor urban areas, while massacring them when they protest.

Islamist leader says Somalia talks waste of time (Reuters)

Here’s what Sheikh Aweys (ex “leader” of the Islamic Courts Union) is saying about things in Somalia at the moment:

The solution is simple. Our enemy Ethiopia should be removed. We have a responsibility to first throw them out then we can organise a national conference after attaining freedom.

And he also said:

We would love America to be led by a man who would reduce the current problems in the world, who would ease the suffering of many oppressed people like us.

Wonder who he’s talking about?

Guys,

I agree that any peacekeeping force must encourage internal solutions to governance … and not just give the Baidoa-base TFG a carte blanche to do what it wants. Call me naive, but I believe compromise is possible between the Somali opposition and the Baidoa regime. However, a strong framework of security is necessary to enable talks.

Thanks David. Don’t you think that framing the concept of “talks” in more traditional Somali terms would help? For example, a recent editorial on the Garowe website argued that:

Money, manpower and other resources have been spent to bolster the TFG, but the disappointing performance of the government’s leaders should neither be rewarded nor tolerated. If the international community – and especially the UN – is truly genuine about finding a lasting resolution to Somalia’s 18-year civil war, then the world must genuinely discuss the withdrawal of Ethiopian armed forces from Somali soil and allow the Somali people to engage in under-the-tree reconciliation that has historically been a cornerstone of culture and politics in the Somali Peninsula.

I think this means discard the framework of the TFG, bring representatives from the various clans together and allow a consensus to emerge over time. Sure security is necessary to facilitate this, but then without a guarantee that such a recognisably Somali solution will emerge security seems unlikely, if you catch my drift.

Hence the Ethiopians should leave as soon as possible, and the UN should be very clear about being a facilitator of talks, not a backer of the status quo (with minor alterations).

How does that sound?

Also got to keep those U.S. paw prints well away from any solution