“Live is best organized as a series of daring ventures from
a secure base”, Bowlby
Filled with euphoria, Somalia is emerging from over twenty
years of state collapse and some even say that Somalis are
determined to rebuild the country this time. However, there
are persisting security challenges despite recent military
gains against Al-Shabaab, the extremist militant group that
has been waging bombing campaigns against the Somali
authorities. Speaking in his inauguration as the newly
elected president of Somalia, Mr. Hassan Sheik Mohamud has
outlined his vision for Somalia for the next four years,
underlining security as his number one priority in a country
that is suffering from multiple malaises including
environmental, economic, social and political - a daring
venture indeed. Can the new president achieve security in
Somalia? To answer this, we need to identity the
insecurities the country is facing with regard to human and
state security. Moreover, I will attempt to explain that
security is not one dimensional issue and that its units are
interdependent, making necessary to take a holistic approach
when dealing with security. This paper will critically
examine the number of security threats Somalia is facing
today, contextualizing it in a socially and culturally
sensitive manner and offering solutions to the present
security challenges and to prevent return of insecurities in
the future.
PERSISTING INSECURITY
The focus of the new government in Somalia is to end
insecurity as announced by the new president recently in his
inauguration speech (the Guardian, 16 September 2012). The
newly elected president has elaborated on this in another
speech in the southern City of Baidoa where he focused on
Al-Shabaab, an insurgency group that is in decline in its
territorial control in Somalia but still a major security
threat because of its bombing and insurgency military
tactics. The president challenged Al-Shabaab in his speech
by offering them a political dialogue while at the same time
making it clear that all options are on the table including
military action. The president also rightly highlighted "the
judiciary and democratic rule" as part of what he considers
critical in the restoration of security in Somalia. From a
theoretical standpoint, the concept of human security is
best explained by the contrasting views of the neo-realist
and post-modernist thinkers. The neorealists argue that
state’s security is paramount as it is the "guardian" of the
nation and if the state is secure, the people are at peace (Buzan,
1991). This approach focuses on the military capability of
the state to deter external aggression and to provide
internal security. However, some point out that the state
could be a security threat itself to its own citizens and
the security of the state itself does not guarantee human
security and freedom. In this context, the postmodernists
propose a "broadened conceptualization" of security that
embraces individuals and groups (Booth, 2005). In this
sense, the target or the referent is not the state but the
human. This argument forces the state to not only
concentrate on the defense of the country but also the
protection of the citizens and the well-being of the
society. This means that security is not only physical
security from harm or threats but also security risk from
lack of human rights and any threat to human dignity and
wellbeing such as hunger and lack of economic opportunity.
However, both sides recognize the importance of the strength
and capability of the state to provide security. This means
that there is an agreement that a weak state that can't
defend its territory can't logically provide human security.
In this view, Somalia has been weakened by years of civil
war and foreign intervention. The state which is made up of
"people, territory and government" has suffered major
setbacks in the context of Somalia. The state doesn't have
control over its territory, the Somali people had no
functioning government for years and as a result there is
lack of trust and confidence in the state's ability to
govern and restore order. Famine, terrorism and foreign
domination rule the day in Somalia. The state needs serious
fixing. The restoration of security in Somalia has to start
with the building blocks of the state, its institutions and
its monopoly on responsible violence. It has to win the
hearts and minds of its citizens and regain its sovereignty
from the clutches of internal and external forces. These
forces include Al-Shabaab, Somali clannish politicians, and
the enablers of domination that continue to make the Somali
leaders subservient thugs. Exceptional leadership skill and
courage is critically and urgently needed to overcome these
existing extreme challenges and deficiencies in a
responsible manner.
INTERNAL SECURITY THREATS
There are five major internal security threats to the Somali
state including weak institutions, the Al-Shabaab, the
clannish politicians who cater to not only the clan interest
but their own interest, underdevelopment and external
interference. All feed one another and the first four form
the basis for the external security threat. Fixing these
problems will diminish or may even end the external threat
entirely, while also making it a strong, responsive state
possible.
STRENGTHENING WEAK INSTITUTIONS
In order to achieve state security goals, robust
institutions are required that can provide public goods and
that are resilient to internal political and economic
challenges as well as external pressures. Institutions are
the explicit expressions of effective political process of
states (Wade, 1990). This means that the art of leadership
in negotiations between the state and “societal groups”
produce the institutions that maintain order and mediate
relations between the state and citizens for collective
action. The Italian thinker, Gramsci provides possible
relevant ideas to the current institutional formation in
Somalia. Gramsci wrote that a state’s historical process
produces “organic relations between political and civil
society” (Lawrence and Wishart, 1971). This means that
through conflict and negotiations, the particular interests
of the different groups in society merge at the political
level where they take national character in the state
machinery, “providing intellectual and moral unity.” Through
this, good institutions emerge that are responsive to
societal needs and enjoy greater legitimacy. In the
historical context of Somalia, post-colonial institutions
were distant and unresponsive to the needs of average
citizens due to lack of vision, lack of government resources
and delivery capacity. During the Cold War, the state was
marked by strong institutions with better economic
development but also engaged in violence, exclusion and
nepotism. Since the collapse of the state in 1991, the new
institutions that took shape in Somalia were tribal based as
clan politics have been the norm for the past two decades in
the absence of national state. Tribal or clan politics has
been characterized by greed but effectively utilizes the
concept of tribal grievances to capitalize on perceived
inequalities, exclusion or oppression. To address this
problem, clannish politicians engage in collective
punishment, monstrous widespread victimization of women and
children and propensity for revenge. The emerged clannish
politicians have wrecked the country as they have demolished
many of the social and political institutions that unified
the country including the institution of Somali citizenry.
In its place, they constituted the clan identity and
sometimes clan based regional identity, leaving the people
divided and in conflict. To solidify this process, they
continue to push for the construction of clan based
constitutional system that legalizes tribal territories.
Such proposition is enshrined in the provisional
constitution and one can’t overstate the urgency and the
need to rectify this. Clannish politicians are a threat to
Somalia’s national security and to the long-term stability
of the country. Dislodging the clannish politicians and
restoring the Somali political identity, the citizenship of
the SOOMAALI, is of prime importance. Similarly, the state
can’t be representing one region, clan and a particular
interest group and this realization must sink in the minds
of the new leaders in Somalia. The new institutions must
reflect the merged interests of the political and civil
society, while the Somali political identity is the
expression of this political unity. The need for balanced
power with checks and with regional autonomy can be achieved
without adversely affecting the unity of the Somali state.
AL-SHABAAB
Al-Shabaab has stated that they are fighting for the
implementation of Islamic rule and expelling the foreign
troops in Somalia by force. Their actions, however, has
spoken volumes. They have killed more Somalis than foreign
troops and they have been violating Islamic rules by their
continued violence against Somali civilians. Many Somalis
have turned against the actions of Al-Shabaab and it has no
moral authority at all. The new president, Mr. Mohamud has
rightly pointed out that Al-Shabaab should lay down their
arms and join other Somalis seeking political solution. By
choosing dialogue, Al-Shabaab may be able to claim victory
over violence and this will give the Somali people new
opportunity to reclaim their lives. Given the historical
hardline position of Al-Shabaab, there isn’t much hope of
peaceful resolution. The new Somali president has made it
clear about the resolve of the government to restore peace
and security. Al-Shabaab is one of the greatest security
challenges Somalia faces today. And the best strategy to
defeat Al-Shabaab is not militarily but as Fareed Zakaria
aptly put in an article published on Washington post, “the
real answer, many argue, is to strengthen the state's
capacity so that the government has greater legitimacy and
the opposition gets discredited”. It is very obvious that,
there can be no military victory regarding Al-Shabaab and
the Somali social institutions can offer key solutions to
the Al-Shabaab phenomenon. The Al-Shabaab ideology can be
confronted through religious education and combated through
the media and by allowing greater civil rights.
UNDERDEVELOPMENT
Peace dividend is capitalized across Somalia as business is
picking up speed after the threat of Al-Shabaab has declined
with its loss of territorial control in many parts of
Somalia. With growing youth unemployment and fast population
growth, Somalia may slide back into internal conflict. The
current militaristic approach to peace in Somalia doesn’t
seem to be focusing on this challenge. Daryl Copeland (2009)
believes that “sustainable development” is critical for the
long-term stability and security in countries like Somalia
that have multiple security problems. He notes in his latest
book, Guerilla Diplomacy that the traditional military
engagement in countries like Somalia does not address their
security needs. Moreover, he admonishes the militaristic
approach of the Western policy makers as he believes that
this approach undermines the human security needs. He
writes, “to address the fundamental drivers of insecurity,
decision makers must break the habits of attempting to
contain or subdue adversaries and instead move toward
engaging them while acting on the most pressing needs of
humanity. They must reduce the use of armed force in favor
of diplomatic approaches to achieve economic and political
objectives, which will entail stowing the cold war baggage,
substituting dialogue for battle, and embracing
human-centered equitable and sustainable development as the
long-term basis for the new security.” He makes the
connection between peace and development but advocates
dialogue instead of military to fulfill the human security
and development needs. In this view, focusing on military
success only in Somalia will not guarantee human security.
EXTERNAL THREATS
The US and its EU allies have adopted the war on terror
campaign to contain the “Al-Shabaab violence” in Somalia.
This campaign manifests itself through the military forces
from several African countries under the African Union
Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). In this model, no US or EU
forces are on the ground in Somalia to “minimize their human
cost.” This means that the US and EU countries incur
financial cost while the Africans sacrifice human lives.
This military model is considered “smart” in Washington and
Brussels and its narrative is palatable to the domestic
polity. However, the conflict in Somalia can’t and should
not be understood through the narrow prism of the war on
terror and there are deeper and more complex national and
regional political dynamics that explain the anger and
disappointment of the Somali people. Like many parts of the
globe, there is a regional conflict in the Horn of Africa
that has its history in the colonial period. Both Kenya and
Ethiopia have territorial dispute with Somalia and they
pursue narrow state interest that fosters instability in
Somalia. In this perspective, both countries view a strong
Somali state as a national security threat. To achieve their
stated goals, both countries provide weapons and political
capital to factions in Somalia. Some of the factions, mainly
clan based, collaborate with these two countries to gain
political edge over other rival clans. This tactic has
devastated the Somali state and rendered the country a
hotbed for different forces that include nationalists such
as the once Eritrea based Re-liberation forces, religious
groups such as Al-Shabaab and many non-violence resistance
groups. The cause for their struggle is to end the unending
military activities of Kenya and Ethiopia.
The US and EU are considered enablers of these two countries
as they underwrite their activities in Somalia. This
endangers the lives of the other African forces that are not
considered to have similar objectives in Somalia such as
Uganda, Brundi, Djibouti and Sierra Leone. The contributions
of these African troops are widely and positively recognized
in Somalia; however, they will not be able to maintain
independent standing in Somalia and may face hostile
reaction in relation to the activities of Kenya and Ethiopia
inside Somalia and this may create hostility towards them.
The new Somali government can’t rely on the African troops
for its long-term security and it has the opportunity to
continue with the rapid rebuilding of the Somali security
forces so it can assert itself and its national interest.
Moreover, with the changing international approach regarding
Somalia, the new government may have the opportunity to
convince the US and EU to end their support for Kenya and
Ethiopia. This requires exceptional diplomatic strategy and
vision. The presence of Kenya and Ethiopia in Somalia has
the potential to reignite clan based violence and the
resurgence of Al-Shabaab.
CONCLUSIONS
The new government in Somalia has identified restoring
security as a priority and it is clear from security
perspective in its broad concept, it includes both state and
human security. This means that the new government must
consider the internal and external threats that are drivers
of insecurity. There are key security concerns that demand
concurrent attention which includes not only the political
and institutional transformation, curbing the violence but
also focusing on the economic and development needs of the
country. Such an approach will foster peace and harmony and
will spur economic opportunities. The external security
threats will always continue to exist as this comes with the
anarchical international system, making incumbent on all
states to guard against outside interference. In this sense,
domestic peace starts with building unity among the diverse
political and civil society groups and the business
community. By taking this approach, the new Somali
government may succeed to embrace a more centrist attitude,
while strengthening the institutional capacity to be more
responsive to the needs of the national community. In this
perspective, state and human security can be restored.
The opinions contained in this article are solely those
of the writer, and it does not represent the editorial
opinions of kacadeey online |
