Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia in order to thwart the ambitions of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) marks a turning point in tensions in the Horn of Africa. After months of denying the presence of its troops on Somali territory, Ethiopian forces went on the offensive against the ICU, who withdrew from Mogadishu, the Somali capital in late December 2006. Ethiopia’s government stated that they were acting on behalf of the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG), which was based in the town of Baidoa approximately 60 miles north of Mogadishu.
Ethiopia’s occupation has gained broad support from the international community, based on their claim that they were acting to support the legitimate government of Somalia, which needed help in confronting the ICU. The US in particular has backed Ethiopia’s actions, and has provided significant military support to Ethiopian forces. This support has involved tracking ICU movements and military advisors on the ground. However, US involvement in Somalia is not a new development, or a reaction to Ethiopia’s moves.
The CIA and Pentagon began to increase their activities in Somalia as soon as the ICU started to gain significant control of areas of the country. For at least a year, the US has been providing backing to forces hostile to the ICU, either directly or indirectly using Ethiopian forces.
Funding was provided to the warlords in direct control of Mogadishu in order to defeat the ICU. The warlords formed an organisation called the Alliance for Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (ARPCT) in February 2006, which received funding from CIA operatives based in Nairobi, the Kenyan capital.
After the ICU ousted the warlords from Mogadishu in June, US mercenary companies began to operate in Somalia, coordinating with the security forces of Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, President of the TFG.
In early December, General John Abizaid of the US military’s Central Command visited the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa to agree on invasion plans with Ethiopian President Meles Zenawi. According to diplomatic sources, the US had its own special forces on the ground in Somalia to assist Ethiopian troops, in addition to providing satellite tracking of ICU troop movements.
The US has defended its support for Ethiopia’s actions in Somalia on the basis that the ICU were harbouring the suspected organisers of the attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. These attacks led to the deaths of over 200 people, of whom a dozen were American citizens. Thus the justification for the Ethiopian/American aggression in Somalia rests on two main claims:
1. The ICU are linked to terrorists involved in the embassy bombings, and if unchecked they will destabilise the whole region
2. The TNG is the true legitimate government of Somalia, which has the backing of the majority of the population.
What is the reality of these claims?
The ICU arose in response to the demand of the people in Somalia to have some measure of stability and justice in resolving problems. There has been no functioning national government in Somalia since 1991, when the puppet government of Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown. Since that time, different areas of the country have been in the hands of rival warlords from different clans. In the 1990’s, famine struck Somalia resulting in the death of thousands as the instability severely disturbed economic life, and the warlords prevented food aid reaching those in need of it. The United States’ last intervention in Somalia came during this period. At that time, the American forces had to retreat in humiliation, with the loss of 18 troops. Mogadishu had to recover from the loss of 10000 civilians killed in the American ‘humanitarian intervention’.
Since the American retreat, all regional and international attempts to generate a settlement in Somalia, for their own interests, have been political rather than military in nature, but they have all resulted in failure. In all 14 different transitional governments have been set up with international sponsorship, only to fail completely because of lack of support amongst the Somali people.
During the same period of time, the civilian population has continued to suffer. There has been repeated bloodshed as rival factions battled for control of different areas of the country. The uncontrolled, unaccountable militias could loot, rape and kill without answering for their crimes. The ICU thus arose as a result of frustration people felt with the current situation.
As the people had thoroughly tired of disputes leading to bloodshed, different clans began to turn to their Ulema to resolve disputes with shari’ah verdicts. This practice increased until the different Islamic courts were called upon to resolve disputes between different clans. Only after this process had gained support from across southern Somalia did the movement gain backing to start taking political authority. The people were happy to see the back of the warlords.
Therefore, the ICU emerged as a response to the popular demand of the Somali people to look to the shari’ah to solve their problems. The movement grew in power and popularity as a result of the solutions they delivered for the society in terms of stability, security and a peaceful way to resolve disagreements in society.
As for the claim that the ICU were harbouring terrorists it should be noted that this is not the first time that Somalis have had to suffer due to false allegations about terror suspects. After 9/11, Hussein Mohammed Farah Aideed (a warlord, and interior minister in the TFG) claimed the Al-Barakat wire transfer network “had ties to terrorists and that there were terrorists in Somalia sympathetic to Osama bin Laden”. At the time Al-Barakaat was Somalia’s largest employer; the company was transferring around US$140 million annually to Somalia being sent by Somali Muslims from around the world.
Based on these terrorism accusations, the US (and then the UN) began an investigation into the company and forced it to cease all operations. This led to the loss of millions of dollars sent by Somalis from around the world, as money in transit was frozen. After years of investigation examining the records of this company and its owners, not a single terrorism charge has resulted, but the millions of dollars needed in Somalia are still frozen. So the US, Ethiopia and their Somali agents have a track record of using false allegations to justify aggression.
Who are the Transitional Federal Government, are they popular and legitimate?
Ethiopia and the US have justified their interference in Somalia on the basis that the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) is the best hope for peace and stability in the country. According to these claims, after years of instability and violence, the TFG will open a new chapter in the history of the state. Examining the track record of the key figures in the TFG reveals the truth behind the propaganda.
The current ‘President’ Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed is the former leader of the Puntland region, which formed a separate regional government from the rest of Somalia in the 1990s. He held the post of President until 2001 when his term in office expired. However he refused to recognise the new government and instead led forces loyal to him in a military campaign to seize power. After seizing Garowe the capital of Puntland in 2002, he was recognised as President again, and held power in the region until October 2004 when he became president in the TFG.
Aside from the President, the ministers for defence, finance and the interior are prominent warlords, while other ministers represent the interests of different militias. These are the same people who contributed for years to bringing Somalia to the point of destruction, yet the US and the UN have no qualms in proclaiming them as the country’s only hope.
While the US may currently feel content that it has achieved its aims in Somalia through Ethiopia and the Somali TFG, it is clear that this is merely the latest stage in the conflict for Somalia. Somalia is a highly strategic land, holding a key role in the region as a whole. Aside from its own natural resources, which include deposits of oil, gas and uranium, it has a long coastline on the Red Sea, one of the world’s most important waterways. The consequences of the American war-by-proxy will soon manifest in countries in the wider region.
Already, Ethiopia’s claims about terrorism in Somalia are resulting in increased tensions with Eritrea, Ethiopia’s eastern neighbour. These two countries, formerly close allies whose presidents both had strong backing from the US, became embroiled in a territorial dispute. This led to a border war lasting from May 1998 and June 2000. While an internationally brokered peace treaty exists between the two countries, and their dispute was supposed to be resolved in the international court system, tensions have increased between the two countries. During 2006 both countries mobilised troops to their border.
Ethiopia alleges that Eritrea provided troops and shipments of arms to the ICU, and the US backs this claim. The implication being that Eritrea is a direct or indirect sponsor of terrorism. While Eritrea’s President Isaias Afewerki denies this claim, his government has also condemned US and Ethiopian military involvement in Somalia. The situation between the two countries is thus primed for a war of words to escalate into a military confrontation.
Ethiopia is not the only neighbouring country set on interference in Somalia. At the behest of America, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has offered to supply 1500 troops for a UN intervention force in Somalia. The Museveni regime has played a notorious role in regional affairs, notably in the crisis in the Congo. Uganda and Rwanda sent thousands of their troops across their western borders following the Rwandan genocide of 1994, which involved the deaths of around 800,000 Rwandans, predominantly from the Tutsi tribe. These two countries claimed that they sent their troops across the border to apprehend participants in the genocide. Soon however, their troops were mainly responsible for controlling diamond mines and natural resources in eastern Congo, generating millions of dollars a year for military and political leaders in both countries. With such a track record, suspicion of Uganda’s role is understandable.
As well as regional powers, other countries active on the world stage have interests in the wider Horn of Africa region to which they have committed resources. China is the largest foreign investor in Sudan, and receives 7% of its total oil supply from that country. Over the past few years, China has been cultivating strong link with Sudan’s neighbours, aware that its vital oil supplies move through their waters. For this reason, China is now the largest supplier of military hardware to both Ethiopia and Eritrea. As the country works to rival the US on the world stage, it has focused increasing attention on relations with African states, due to their rich natural resources.
France is another country with strong ties to the Horn of Africa that have remained in place since the colonial era. As the US has sought to increase its influence in the region over the past ten years, France’s eminent position has been under threat. The major French military base in Djibouti, Camp Lemonier, now also hosts US forces. The US Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) has been based there since 2002, and it is from here, just north of Somalia, that US military activity throughout the whole region is coordinated. France also has thousand troops based in Chad, Sudan’s western neighbour.
France is indirectly supporting rebels in the Darfur region through the Chadian government led by Idriss Deby. He has strong ties to the Darfur rebel movements, who he provides backing for against the Sudanese government. In turn, the Sudanese government of Omar al Bashir provides backing to rebels in Chad seeking to overthrow Deby. French aircraft mounted attacks on the Sudan-backed rebel forces in April 2006, deterring them from an attempt overrun the Chadian capital and remove the Deby government.
Somalia and the Horn of Africa as a whole can expect to witness continued foreign interference and backing for rival local leaderships. Many analysts predict that American difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan have emboldened other powers to rival the US in the economic and political arena. Former US assistant Secretary of State, Chester Crocker, admitted to the BBC in December, “Africa is in play again…it is a more competitive playing field which gives greater influence to African leaders as well as to potential competitors or ‘balancers’ of US diplomatic leverage. It is not just China: it is Brazil, the Europeans, Malaysia, Korea, Russia, India.”
After suffering years of instability, Somalia seemed to have fresh hope in the emergence of the ICU. The movement developed as a result of the Islamic sentiments of the Somali people and their conviction that the Islamic shari’ah represents the only true basis on which to govern. One of the fundamental pillars required for a people to progress is to have common reference points emerging from a shared culture. In contrast, with the return of the conflicting clan agendas of the TFG, the country can expect further instability and bloodshed. The whole region needs the emergence of an alternative to the current system in place. In return for loyalty to foreign powers, local leaderships are given free reign to exploit the vast wealth of their lands. As long as those products, whether valuable minerals or cash crops, keep reaching the markets, they can be assured of support from one or another foreign power, enough to keep them in office unless a new favourite emerges.
The only solution for Somalia and the Horn of Africa region is for the return of the Khilafah, which will manage the affairs of people according to Islam, unify differing clans around the Aqeedah of Islam and ensure the whole society can benefit from the immense wealth these lands have been blessed with.