 |
Somalia and Afghanistan: Six Months Later, the BBC Catches On |
 |
The BBC catches up, but not quite.
Me in December of 2007:
The war in Somalia is not some obscure "African tribal conflict" - it is a direct result of international political maneuvering, just like Afghanistan. The similarities between the two countries, in fact, are striking. Both fell apart during the Cold War endgame. Afghanistan, invaded by the Soviets in 1979, has seen near-continuous warfare ever since, with some participants funded by the US. Somalia, after switching its allegiance from one superpower to another in the 80s, found itself abandoned by both in the early 90s. A coup brought down the president in 1991, and the chaos that began then has lasted until now.
In conditions of chaos and instability, Somalia and Afghanistan have both provided havens for terrorists at times (surprise surprise). They also both have powerful neighbors who meddle in their affairs (Ethiopia and Pakistan, respectively) and just happen to be US allies.
The BBC, last Friday:
So is Somalia in danger of becoming the new Afghanistan of East Africa?
Certainly western security sources are worried that the country's large ungoverned spaces are very inviting for would-be jihadists, as are its virtually non-existent border controls. Indeed it is thought there are already terrorist training camps in Somalia, though on nothing like the scale of pre-9/11 Afghanistan.
But there are vital differences.
The fall of the Islamic Courts has limited the freedom would-be jihadists have to operate in the country and has even led some to leave to surrounding areas.
Added to that, Somalia's intricate clan structure and high levels of violence make it a tough and dangerous place for outsiders, in comparison to the more permissive atmosphere created in much of Afghanistan by the Taleban before their fall from power.
Always talking about the clans, never talking about the Cold War history.
But wait, what they're saying is that without the Courts, Somalia doesn't look like Afghanistan did with the Taliban? That would seem to make sense. But they're comparing the wrong periods: Somalia's present with Afghanistan's recent past. The real question concerns the present situation in both countries: does Somalia without the Courts looks like Afghanistan without the Taliban? The answer is, with a few qualifications, yes. And the corollary is that these conflicts will drag on, and on, and on, and the Courts (or ash-Shabab, if you prefer) and the Taliban are not going anywhere. Not until we change our approach (hint: try talking).
this is definately an interesting comparison - between two of the most fucked up and difficult situations of which the salience is such that the media reports. while i'm somewhat reluctant to give up clan structures entirely in some quest for understanding, i agree that this aspect is not put into context enough and it certainly doesn't suffice as any sort of explanation. nonetheless, i don't quite understand your 'with' or 'without' logic, but having to produce about 12 times as many pages as i have days to do so, i mustn't procrastinate any further, despite the temptation offered by this post…
Other people emphasize the clan shit so much that I de-emphasize it, perhaps more than necessary, as a counterweight.
If what I meant about the Courts and the Taliban wasn't clear, let me take another shot: when hardline Muslim groups take power in these countries, like it or not, they bring some measure of stability. That happened with the Taliban in the 90s and it started to happen with the Courts in 2006. Moreover, when those groups were taken down the situations respectively returned to chaos and violence. The main difference is that the Taliban were in power for much longer in Afghanistan, and of course the American army is directly present in Afghanistan rather than just a proxy as in Somalia.
But the situations have run pretty parallel otherwise. With a hardline Muslim group in power, the two countries would look roughly similar is my guess. And with no one in power but a puppet government, they look quite similar as well.
right, got it. that's what i thought you were saying, but the bbc shit about somalia without the courts not looking like afghanistan with the taliban threw me off a bit. i agree with your assessment of the similarities between the two cases and would perhaps even venture to guess that there are some similarities in the landscape of clan structures between the two countries, though i don't wish to invest that proposition with any explanatory power.
difficult thing though. i recently heard tom koenigs, the former UN special representative for afghanistan, give a talk. though, of course, he had many things to say, one could boil it down to his key opinion that everything depended on 'soft infrastructure', i.e. state institutions and especially education. of course this assessment was also a product of his postition in afghanistan, having been responsible for all things humanitarian and having had basically no connection to any national military undertakings, but i tend to agree with him to some extent. naturally the main problem was that he didn't suggest any ways in which anything could actually and concretely be achieved, considering the myriad of other problems and severly hampering conditions and so forth. though he didn't say it directly, it was implicit in his discussion that groups like the taliban needed to be incorporated in some kind of state making process since they were unlikely to just go away. though i somehow suspect that a situation like the one afghanistan is in requires far more radical measures to be taken than the soft power instutionalization approach by tom koenigs allows, i'm at least glad that someone at the very top of the UN mission in afghanistan, and thus not exactly in the most optimal position for getting things done, supports a some kind of dialogue as the only process that may have some long-term viability.