The smoke has cleared in Somalia. The Islamic Courts Union, whether its rule was good or bad, is now nothing more than a memory. During the ICU control of Mogadishu, several Internet cafes were set up throughout the city- a sign of some kind of "Western" normalcy pleasantly replacing the khat-induced bloodbaths that were such a vivid memory of the UN Operation Enduring Hope. The ICU, acknowledging that khat does make you crazy, banned the use of the drug which had become a daily activity for many Somalis. The price of an AK-47 assault rifle in the open-air arms bazaars of the city shot way up as supply reduced when the ICU reined in the Klinsyr clan and its particularly ambitious warlord- the same group responsible for smuggling a huge volume of small arms and light weapons from the Middle East into Somalia as well as some of the recent acts of piracy in the Suez Canal.
There was a brief flurry of violence as the Ethiopian military and the small vestiges of the legal government of Somalia pushed into Mogadishu to displace the ICU. The Americans dropped a rain of bombs for good measure, claiming those crazy al-Qaeda guys were hiding in random villages, but succeeded only in killing swathes of civilians. The Internet cafes closed down. The price of AK-47's continued to increase as demand now went up and the supply remained at a fairly small trickle because of the recovering Klinsyr operations. It could have been a disaster in the making- another "Black Hawk Down", but this time with Ethiopians against Somalis in the heart of Mogadishu.
But the Ethiopians did something smart. They realized that if they moved their troops into the capital of their neighbour, it would be interpreted as an act of war by the people of Somalia. The Ethiopians would not be liberators, come to save them from an oppressive Islamist regime. Instead, they would be seen as conquerors come to deliver the final death blow to Somalia- so fearful of the might of the Cish people. The propaganda prospects would simply be unlimited for the ICU. They could whip the people of Mogadishu up into such a frenzy, they wouldn't need khat to get every man, woman and child to grab the nearest inanimate object and use it as a weapon against the hapless Ethiopian force.
Knowing this, the Ethiopians stopped their force outside Mogadishu's outskirts and told the Somali government's forces to seize the capital themselves. If the legitimate government wanted to exert its legal authority over Mogadishu, it would have to do it with legitimate government forces, not their friends. This was an interesting juxtaposition from the Americans, who micro-manage many of the conflicts they become involved in internationally. The Americans are only now just making serious efforts to hand over authority for peacekeeping and policing in Iraq to the actual Iraqi government. For the longest time, the Americans simply disempowered the new regime in Iraq by insisting on using American forces to solve Iraqi problems. The Ethiopians, on the other hand, had their strategy quite well-conceived before moving into Somalia to oust the ICU.
The Ethiopians even have an exit strategy. This will make sure that the Somali people, and any demagogues that might try to advantage of the situation, do not see that the Ethiopian force is an occupation force intent on either absorbing the troubled country into itself or is trying a neo-imperial gambit in the region. Who will be taking Ethiopia's place in assuring security in the country while the UN-sponsored government asserts its control? The African Union.
If you're apprehensive about the idea of African Union troops trying to ensure security in Somalia, you're not the only one. The African Union has made little progress in stopping the Janjaweed massacres in Sudan. In fact, nearly every pan-African collective security agreement and peacekeeping operation has failed miserably. The history of mistakes, errors, and poor planning is a long one. Explaining what went wrong and how things could have been done better in the history of the African Union and its predecessors, the Union of African States and the Organization for African Unity, could easily be the topic of a thesis, and is far too detailed a topic to get into here. Sudan is a nasty place. The Janjaweed have a great deal of resources at their disposal, what with having the support of the Sudanese government in Khartoum. But Somalia is an even more difficult place, having a long history of internecine warfare and being heavily armed through American and Soviet meddling during the Cold War (Colt and RSA used Somalia as a weapons proving ground, equipping rival militias with experimental weapons, then watching the news to find out how many casualties their weapons were able to inflict, then modifying their weapons accordingly). If the African Union has its hands full with Sudan, how can it seriously hope to handle Somalia?
When one looks at the list of countries providing troops to the Somalia operation, ones hopes are not dramatically raised. South Africa, Nigeria, Uganda, and Malawi. South Africa has a very advanced war machine at its disposal. The Nigerians try hard, and make up for the lack of weapons technology with their effort. Uganda was the home of Idi Amin, and it is still believed that Hutu generals escaped from Rwanda into Uganda and continue to mastermind the chaos of the Congo from the comfort of Uganda. Malawi has long been embroiled with rebels of various causes that keep giving the government a hard time through guerilla warfare. It's not encouraging.
So the question is: Can African do it? Can Africa break the long tradition of botched operations and dependency on Europe to get anything done in terms of providing security and defending human rights? I suppose we'll find out soon enough. The first detachments of the African Union peacekeeping mission are due to arrive in Somalia to begin relieving Ethiopian troops next week.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
The Compass Is Broken
After killing some time while waiting for another class to start at University, I came across the following Political Attitudes test. It had been one I took a while back, and I managed to stumble across it again. The URL is www.politicalcompass.org
It's curious to see how ones beliefs and opinions on matters can change so profoundly over the course of only a few years. According to this test, when I originally took it two years ago my political attitudes were more in line with a Red Tory: strong government involvement in the economy and socially conservative. Now I seem to be more in line with a liberal egalitarian: personal freedom, small government becoming involved in the economy only in a moderate role to ensure some measure of social justice.
One peculiar thing, however, about these political attitudes quizzes is that they also take into account the personal biases of the person designing the test. The questions tend to be more normative and qualitative. Stuff like "The government has no place in the bedroom." The test then asks you to either "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" with this very interpretative question. The example stood out in my mind and might not be the best choice to illustrate my point, but it seems that the political attitudes of the test designer are highly reflected in the results received by the people taking the test. To a left-wing socialist, I might find myself being placed on the right-side of the spectrum of ideologies. To a neo-conservative, I will probably be judged as a socialist bringing my crazy ideas from Europe with me like the carrier of some viscious disease.
In other words, take political attitudes tests with a grain of salt. They over-simplify very complex systems of philosophy and world-view. Even calling someone a "liberal egalitarian", precise a term as that might seem, is over-generalization. What is a "liberal"? The word "liberal" is usually defined in everyday language as "numerous" or "generous". For example, "He fired into the forest, liberally." Or "He is very liberal with his money." This could mean that a liberal would promote "liberal", that is to say "numerous", controls over the economy of a country through Crown Corporations, public works projects and heavy taxation/susidization. But liberal is also conceived of as being "forward-thinking" and "socially progressive". Forward thinking? In what society? In Iran, forward thinking would be questioning the current social status of women as being "half of a man" in terms of legal rights. In Canada, forward thinking might be construed as... well, I don't think we've decided what forward thinking is yet. European Union ascension? Gay marriage? Legalized marijuana? The Political Compass says I should be libertarian on all of those things as I'm a very mild liberal. But there's only one of those three things that appeals to me and it definitely has nothing to do with drugs that could drastically damage my liver, brain and lungs nor does it have anything to do with forcing religious figures to perform ceremonies that are against their moral conscience. If you haven't guessed it yet, I'm a big fan of the EU and believe firmly that Canada would be better served through closer economic and political ties to Europe than to the United States.
The reason for this rant? Ambiguity of political language. One man's liberal is another's conservative. Political Attitudes tests are good fun for wasting time and entertaining notions about whether you really could be compared to the Green Party in Germany and at the same time be as socially libertarian as Nelson Mandela. Quizzes that claim to be the be all and end all of determing political ideology are jokes. And, to a degree, it does a discredence to the discipline of Political Science when there are no fundamentally univeral terms by which we can associate different people's beliefs into roughly working systems without confusing the heck out of everyone else in our field. But, then again, we probably don't want to wind up with such specific terms as Philosophy that we wind up losing our breath when referring to our own self-label. "Deontological liberal egalitarian with utopia-welfarist tendencies" somehow seems less appealing to the common voter than "liberal" or "idealist".
It's curious to see how ones beliefs and opinions on matters can change so profoundly over the course of only a few years. According to this test, when I originally took it two years ago my political attitudes were more in line with a Red Tory: strong government involvement in the economy and socially conservative. Now I seem to be more in line with a liberal egalitarian: personal freedom, small government becoming involved in the economy only in a moderate role to ensure some measure of social justice.
One peculiar thing, however, about these political attitudes quizzes is that they also take into account the personal biases of the person designing the test. The questions tend to be more normative and qualitative. Stuff like "The government has no place in the bedroom." The test then asks you to either "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" with this very interpretative question. The example stood out in my mind and might not be the best choice to illustrate my point, but it seems that the political attitudes of the test designer are highly reflected in the results received by the people taking the test. To a left-wing socialist, I might find myself being placed on the right-side of the spectrum of ideologies. To a neo-conservative, I will probably be judged as a socialist bringing my crazy ideas from Europe with me like the carrier of some viscious disease.
In other words, take political attitudes tests with a grain of salt. They over-simplify very complex systems of philosophy and world-view. Even calling someone a "liberal egalitarian", precise a term as that might seem, is over-generalization. What is a "liberal"? The word "liberal" is usually defined in everyday language as "numerous" or "generous". For example, "He fired into the forest, liberally." Or "He is very liberal with his money." This could mean that a liberal would promote "liberal", that is to say "numerous", controls over the economy of a country through Crown Corporations, public works projects and heavy taxation/susidization. But liberal is also conceived of as being "forward-thinking" and "socially progressive". Forward thinking? In what society? In Iran, forward thinking would be questioning the current social status of women as being "half of a man" in terms of legal rights. In Canada, forward thinking might be construed as... well, I don't think we've decided what forward thinking is yet. European Union ascension? Gay marriage? Legalized marijuana? The Political Compass says I should be libertarian on all of those things as I'm a very mild liberal. But there's only one of those three things that appeals to me and it definitely has nothing to do with drugs that could drastically damage my liver, brain and lungs nor does it have anything to do with forcing religious figures to perform ceremonies that are against their moral conscience. If you haven't guessed it yet, I'm a big fan of the EU and believe firmly that Canada would be better served through closer economic and political ties to Europe than to the United States.
The reason for this rant? Ambiguity of political language. One man's liberal is another's conservative. Political Attitudes tests are good fun for wasting time and entertaining notions about whether you really could be compared to the Green Party in Germany and at the same time be as socially libertarian as Nelson Mandela. Quizzes that claim to be the be all and end all of determing political ideology are jokes. And, to a degree, it does a discredence to the discipline of Political Science when there are no fundamentally univeral terms by which we can associate different people's beliefs into roughly working systems without confusing the heck out of everyone else in our field. But, then again, we probably don't want to wind up with such specific terms as Philosophy that we wind up losing our breath when referring to our own self-label. "Deontological liberal egalitarian with utopia-welfarist tendencies" somehow seems less appealing to the common voter than "liberal" or "idealist".
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
War From Afar
The United States is an empire. This has become an unequivocal fact. Even the most staunch pro-America fanatics could not excuse the actions of the Bush Administration when it unilaterally invaded Iraq, committing an act explicitly deemed illegal and against human interests by the United Nations. During the Cold War, imperialist acts could be excused as being part of a greater world-wide struggle against the forces of communism- a battle for the freedom of humanity in all corners of the globe. During the War on Drugs, the invasion and oppression of numerous Latin American countries was excusable, perhaps, because illicit narcotics being produced in those places were hurting Americans and, indeed, people all around the world.
But the war on terrorism is a stretch as an excuse for breaches of international law. The Americans stretched it to the breaking point in Iraq. And it would seem Bush realizes this. Or, at least, someone in the Pentagon does, as the American imperial war machine has taken up a new way of exerting its interests and agenda upon other states: war by proxy, and war by strategic bombing.
The war by proxy is something that has been going on in the news for the past couple of weeks. On New Year's Eve 2006, Ethiopian bombers attacked Mogadishu Airport as a prelude to an overt invasion and seizure of power from the Islamist regime that had displaced the warlords. Ethiopia did not do this because they felt particularly threatened by Somalia. It is true that Somalia has been, and could again be, a problem for Ethiopian security. During the 1960's, the Mogadishu government managed to achieve widespread support through the utilization of a policy similar to Hitler's "Lebensraum". That is to say, the Somali government decried the way East Africa was carved up by the British and other colonial powers at the end of the World Wars. The predominant language spoken in Somalia is Cish and, as some may be already aware, language is often believed to be the main basis for the determination of a national group. So, using this argument, Somalia claimed to be the appropriate political representation of those peoples in East Africa that speak the Cish language. Unfortunately, due to the way the Europeans ignorantly carved up Africa, large numbers of Cish speakers were left living as minority groups in Kenya and Ethiopia. Somalia eventually invaded both Kenya and Ethiopia in 1965, the Somali-Ethiopian War not ending until 1966 with the defeat of the Somali invasion, due in no small part to the interference of British Special Forces units operating in Somalia in support of Ethiopian and Kenyan troops.
Perhaps with memories of this war, or due to a more sinister agenda, Ethiopia was only too willing to fight America's war against the Somali Islamists, who were making promises to people in Mogadishu that "all Somalis will some day live under the same flag". But the issue with Somalia is not solely Ethiopia's.
Apparently, the Americans have an agenda there too. How is this known? Because the Americans, being bad poker players, finally showed their hand- all the while without exposing themselves to gunfire, in keeping with their war by proxy. Yesterday, an AC-130 gunship (for those unfamiliar with these things, they're massive plains capable of dropping thousands of rounds per second from multiple machineguns and cannons, used extensively during the Vietnam War as part of the American strategic bombing campaign that left thousands of civilians dead) flew over the town of Amfadow in the southern tip of Somalia, not far from the border with Kenya. The reason? Suspected al-Qaeda operatives were hiding out there. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Americans have moved a small segment of the fleet they have standing watch over the Persian Gulf to Somalia- blockading what little sea traffic exists off the coast of the country. From these naval vessels, several helicopters launched today to engage in a series of rocket attacks on the same town- Amfadow. Unconfirmed reports from the Somali Defense Ministry, now again controlled by the "legal" government of Somalia that went into exile when the Islamists seized Mogadishu in a bloodless coup, state that 31 civilians were killed. The designation of the American helicopters are presumed to be Apaches, given the extent of the damage (an Apache attack helicopter is practically a small army in a flying tin can due to the sheer amount of firepower it packs, a complicated interface allows the pilot to see exactly where he is aiming through cameras mounted just under the muzzle of each gun and filtered into a display that projects the image directly into the retina- effectively allowing the human to merge with the machine in something almost out of a sci fi movie).
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman had this to say about the attacks: the bombings were "based on intelligence that led us to believe we had principal al-Qaeda leaders in an area where we could identify them and take action against them. We're going to remain committed to reducing terrorist capabilities where and when we find them." Gee. That sounds an awful lot like the line about "Iraq possesses or intends to possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq also harbours terrorists." Maybe someone didn't read the memo about Saddam being hated by al-Qaeda for his secular policies and Sunni background. If that's the case, here's a memo for the Pentagon: "We're onto you. We've heard this story over and over again- the boogeyman is out to get us. And guess what? It's not funny any more and, one of these days, we're going to put a stop to your oppression."
But the war on terrorism is a stretch as an excuse for breaches of international law. The Americans stretched it to the breaking point in Iraq. And it would seem Bush realizes this. Or, at least, someone in the Pentagon does, as the American imperial war machine has taken up a new way of exerting its interests and agenda upon other states: war by proxy, and war by strategic bombing.
The war by proxy is something that has been going on in the news for the past couple of weeks. On New Year's Eve 2006, Ethiopian bombers attacked Mogadishu Airport as a prelude to an overt invasion and seizure of power from the Islamist regime that had displaced the warlords. Ethiopia did not do this because they felt particularly threatened by Somalia. It is true that Somalia has been, and could again be, a problem for Ethiopian security. During the 1960's, the Mogadishu government managed to achieve widespread support through the utilization of a policy similar to Hitler's "Lebensraum". That is to say, the Somali government decried the way East Africa was carved up by the British and other colonial powers at the end of the World Wars. The predominant language spoken in Somalia is Cish and, as some may be already aware, language is often believed to be the main basis for the determination of a national group. So, using this argument, Somalia claimed to be the appropriate political representation of those peoples in East Africa that speak the Cish language. Unfortunately, due to the way the Europeans ignorantly carved up Africa, large numbers of Cish speakers were left living as minority groups in Kenya and Ethiopia. Somalia eventually invaded both Kenya and Ethiopia in 1965, the Somali-Ethiopian War not ending until 1966 with the defeat of the Somali invasion, due in no small part to the interference of British Special Forces units operating in Somalia in support of Ethiopian and Kenyan troops.
Perhaps with memories of this war, or due to a more sinister agenda, Ethiopia was only too willing to fight America's war against the Somali Islamists, who were making promises to people in Mogadishu that "all Somalis will some day live under the same flag". But the issue with Somalia is not solely Ethiopia's.
Apparently, the Americans have an agenda there too. How is this known? Because the Americans, being bad poker players, finally showed their hand- all the while without exposing themselves to gunfire, in keeping with their war by proxy. Yesterday, an AC-130 gunship (for those unfamiliar with these things, they're massive plains capable of dropping thousands of rounds per second from multiple machineguns and cannons, used extensively during the Vietnam War as part of the American strategic bombing campaign that left thousands of civilians dead) flew over the town of Amfadow in the southern tip of Somalia, not far from the border with Kenya. The reason? Suspected al-Qaeda operatives were hiding out there. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Americans have moved a small segment of the fleet they have standing watch over the Persian Gulf to Somalia- blockading what little sea traffic exists off the coast of the country. From these naval vessels, several helicopters launched today to engage in a series of rocket attacks on the same town- Amfadow. Unconfirmed reports from the Somali Defense Ministry, now again controlled by the "legal" government of Somalia that went into exile when the Islamists seized Mogadishu in a bloodless coup, state that 31 civilians were killed. The designation of the American helicopters are presumed to be Apaches, given the extent of the damage (an Apache attack helicopter is practically a small army in a flying tin can due to the sheer amount of firepower it packs, a complicated interface allows the pilot to see exactly where he is aiming through cameras mounted just under the muzzle of each gun and filtered into a display that projects the image directly into the retina- effectively allowing the human to merge with the machine in something almost out of a sci fi movie).
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman had this to say about the attacks: the bombings were "based on intelligence that led us to believe we had principal al-Qaeda leaders in an area where we could identify them and take action against them. We're going to remain committed to reducing terrorist capabilities where and when we find them." Gee. That sounds an awful lot like the line about "Iraq possesses or intends to possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq also harbours terrorists." Maybe someone didn't read the memo about Saddam being hated by al-Qaeda for his secular policies and Sunni background. If that's the case, here's a memo for the Pentagon: "We're onto you. We've heard this story over and over again- the boogeyman is out to get us. And guess what? It's not funny any more and, one of these days, we're going to put a stop to your oppression."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
