Analysis The Chrismas War in the Horn of Africa continues: What’s the way out?

Introduction

Once again the Horn of
Africa is on the news radar screen with the usual nauseating projection and
imaging of a region embroiled with a seemingly unending litany of violence,
invasions, genocide, destruction, chaos, forced migration and a state of general
insecurity. The recent socio-political upheavals and developments in the Horn of
Africa region require deeper reflection why this state of unwholesome existence
that continues to threaten life and well being persists with what appears to be
a timeless abandon.

1.
Each State in the Horn region is in a State!

Nearly all the states
that constitute the wider Horn of Africa have one crisis or another. In
Ethiopia we mention the recent setback of an election on May 15, 2005 that
nearly got this ancient nation to come into the contemporary history of
democracy only to frustrate the manifest will displayed by the people to
self-govern by returning the incumbent in violation of what appeared on the
whole to be an election result that favoured the opposition parties. It is an
irony that those duly elected are in prison whilst some of those who have been
de-elected are still in Government. Civil society leaders, journalists, scholars
and human rights activists are still in jail even as the country is poised to
celebrate its millennium on September 11, 2007! It is a real tragedy that
Ethiopia may celebrate its millennium with its incumbent rulers at war with the
neighbours of Eritrea and Somalia  and forcing opposition leaders in jail to
face grave charges of ’treason’ violating the rights of those who have been 
duly elected in what they believed to be a democratic process and election. Once
again the enormous joy that people should have in reaching 2000 years after
Christ may be eclipsed by the knowledge that the country is threatened by war
that may have no end, starvation that continues to recur every year, and the
ominous development more and more into repressive dictatorship. Moments like the
millennium could have presented opportunities for the rulers not to be blinkered
by failing to rise above the pettiness of politics to occupy the majestic height
of historical imagination and presence. But in Africa we have rulers whose
manner of ruling over people makes them behave like masters and not public
servants, thus always falling fearful doing anything to keep their fear in
abeyance by creating even more fear than learning to doing what is just and fair
for people by engaging sincerely with democratic experimentation, dialogue,
reconciliation, tolerance and empowering politics.

In
Somalia
the situation remains
as chaotic as it has been since Said Barre left in haste in 1991. The breakdown
of public authority and its dispersion into clan and warlordism has been the
single most alarming development in Somalia. When the Islamic Union Courts (IUCs) 
appeared to have the upper hand in Mogadishu over the warlords, there seemed to
be a sceptical reception of their role in warding off one undesirable and worse
warlord groups for  their own not as worse IUCs. The latter seemed to have been
contaminated by some Jihadists in their midst at loggerheads with the secular
Transitional Federal Government backed by Ethiopia and recognised by UN and AU.
The invasion by Ethiopia backed by the current US Government against the IUCs
opened the floodgate again for the warlords to resurface and embolden themselves
in Somalia.

The violent overthrow
of the IUCs was justified by the claim that they are ‘Islamist terrorists.’  By
some accounts the IUCs were recognised to be near a delivery point of what is
sorely lacking in Somalia, namely stability at least in Mogadishu if not in the
whole of Somalia.

By other accounts, the IUCs were part of the global terror
network. However one looks at it, once again like in the Cold War period, the
Horn of Africa is sadly incorporated as the African flank in the geo-politics of
the so-called global war on extremism and terrorism. For the Horn of Africa to
be at the forefront in the war on global terror in Africa, and play in US
Government politics in its drastic compression and framing of the complexities
of world politics to those who are for terror and those who fight it, means that
the region is repeating the role it played during the Cold War. A region that
has not learned the lessons from the cost to it of being embroiled in the Cold
War is bound to repeat it in this new era of what has been described as the
Global War on Terror.

In Sudan there
is even more alarming development such as genocide and  even modern day slavery
in the Darfur area where apparently culturally ’Arabized Africans’ attack other
Africans with the connivance if not active support of the  militias  by the
Basher Government  in Sudan that  have been responsible for murdering and
uprooting whole communities. The crises in Darfur continues to go on despite
protests by the UN, EU, the Africa Union, USA, Britain and global civil society
and human rights organisations. More worrying is the oft-repeated stories that
practices and instances of slavery still exist in Sudan and Mauritania. The
practice of selling humans in the 21^st century is indeed one that
Africans must never tolerate, as indeed they must never tolerate dictatorship.

 In
Eritrea,
opposition is severely
punished. Eritrea remains in a no-war, no-peace state with Ethiopia since the
outbreak of the large scale war in 1998. Being together with Ethiopia or living
separately did not seem to make any difference in relation to bringing about a
normalised and peaceful relation amongst such geographically contiguous close
neighbours. Each side accuses the other of supporting forces trying to
destabilize it. It is thus one of the most confounding dilemmas trying to make
sense and to searching for what would work to bring about an amicable
relationship between the two warring regimes that continue to hurt the people by
their inexplicable actions to stay belligerent for the long haul.. It is
alarming to read the attitude of Issyas Afeworki and Meles Zenawi. Issays has
been quoted to say that they have no resources to build a nation, they have no
skill to build a nation, they have no knowledge to build a nation, but they are
still determined to build a nation. It seems the only thing Issays seems to have
is arrogance to make a nation if these quotes attributed to him are correct. And
lo and behold, a nation built driven by arrogance or hubris  may not endure
unless there are impeccable reasons for its creation, which there may well be,
that  seems as  yet not clear to the person who  is the  leader though!

Whilst Issayas is
determined to make a nation, Meles seems determined to ‘ethnicise’ an old nation
and re- make it by parcelling it into vernacular-ethnic enclaves. Ethiopia has
the history to make a nation. It has resources to make a nation, just as it has
the arable land and the water to feed itself. It has the skills if not the
social capital to make a nation. It has the knowledge to make a nation. Yet the
current rulers are not determined to make the nation. They seem determined to
parcel it into many ‘ nations, peoples and nationalities’ with ethnic-vernacular
laws and grammar.

Djibouti
has armies from France,
and US anti-terror military contingent operating in its soil. Whilst it is not
formally involved in disputes, it faces from the fallout from the region’s
generalised instability. There are Afar based liberation movements operating in
Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia.

Kenya
faces huge pressure
from refugees and those who flee from all these numerous conflicts. It has its
own ethnic tremor that may erupt into violence unless the democratic
institutions outpace the ethnic agitators in the course of time. The democratic
transition from KANU-dominated rule to the NRK coalition is a great historical
achievement in democratic transition which none of the other states in the Horn
of Africa region have attained. Whilst the issue in Kenya is sustaining
democratic transition, the issue in the rest of the Horn of Africa is the
rudimentary absence of any credible security order to experiment with democracy
and development. The others have not yet fully emerged from being trapped in
conflict.

Uganda
has also faced election
problems, involvement in the fighting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
the destabilising armed resistance from the Lord Resistance Army, and its
current involvement in the Somalia conflict by placing troops in support of the
Ethiopian and American Governments’ pursuit to track Islamists in IUCs and their
external allies.

What is common amongst
these states is that they are to one degree or another involved in what is
called the global war on terror on the side on the main protagonists consciously
or unconsciously. They are also involved with each other’s problems. They
provide facilities to opposition forces and refugees against each other.
Recently we have seen the military intervention in Somalia .The existing pattern
of relations need to change by encouraging a radically new perspective for the
region’s states to move from a conflict community into a security community.

2.
Negative Foreign Interventions Continue

The larger Horn of
Africa region (consisting of Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Uganda, Eritrea
and Sudan) has experienced greater (internal and external) political, social and
economic upheavals since the 1960s. For mainly strategic reasons the region is
currently considered (by the US and some European countries in the west) as an
integrated part of confrontation against extremism. Here the region’s proximity
to the Middle East and global shipping routes is considered vital.

Today it is no
exaggeration to state that the Horn of Africa is one of the most volatile
regions in the world. The region suffers from numerous political, socio-economic
and cultural challenges. These problems affect not only the peoples and the
countries in the regions but also the wider world. Issues such as political
instability, economic and ecological  degradation and cultural tensions
contribute  not only to the generalised state of underdevelopment but also to
the numerous interlocking conflicts that have brought major regional and
continental conflicts fuelling the rate of increase of regional and global
migration and insecurity..

Perhaps where ‘God may
fear to tread’; the Great Powers seemed willing to risk intervention. On the one
hand the Great powers are openly involved militarily, on the other the fragility
of the region can tempt in attracting jihads to operate wily- nilly in the
region. The New World Order is becoming more like the new world and ecological
disorder. There is a sigh of relief that the Cold War is not replaced by a Hot
War. There is anxiety that the Cold War is not replaced by a peaceful, mature
and sane world. We have now the current ruler of the major power drastically and
radically reducing world politics to the simplicities of either for terror or
against it, in the same way during the war the politics was reduced either for
America or the Soviet Union.  Once again our local elites have bought in this
politics for reasons nothing to do with any grander purpose other than to
address their immediate fears and concerns by tagging behind the current US
Government’s formulation of the world disposition of forces for the 21^st
century.

3. Deadly
Arms Continue to flow unregulated into the Region

The risk of a power vacuum is huge. The fact that Somalia has no state is a
threat not only to the region but Africa and the world. The region continues to
be awash with various types of deadly weapons, fuelled through endless conflicts
rooted from the period of the European Scramble for Africa (indeed if not
earlier!) to the period of de-colonisation in the 60s, and throughout the
post-colonial period.

The region has been a victim of the arms race sponsored supplied to varied
groups largely but not exclusively by   the ex-colonial powers. And during the
Cold War, the super powers who did a classic swap  between Ethiopia (from USA to
USSR) and Somalia( from USSR to USA) during the 1977-78 War dumped huge arms to
a region whose poverty requires making arms and armies history to make poverty
history!! The region does have the trained armies to use modern deadly weapons
that cost millions of lives. In certain occasions rulers in the region received
these weapons as an integrated part of the development aid from major powers.
Warlords, for instance those in Somalia, used to purchase it from the numerous
open markets in and around some Western and Eastern European countries. To the
surprise of many, some of the notorious warlords in Mogadishu as late as last
year terrorised innocent civilians with new weapons imported from the UK, a
western country that officially supports the UN weapons embargo against Somalia.
Thus, the flow of weaponry and easy accessibility appears to constitute one of
the main challenges to peace and stability in the Horn of Africa.

Small arms proliferation follows protracted conflict. The Horn of Africa can
attract weapons of mass destruction. The fact that Somalia has no state with a
regulatory power to enforce control on arms means that potentially any hazardous
weapons can enter the region via this open border. Weapons that might seriously
harm the people of the region and beyond can be shipped into it and may be used.
Those evil and dark forces from outside can also use Somalia’s current chaotic
situation to experiment with deadly weapons and virus. The longer Somali stays
in a state of chaos, the more likely that the whole region and Africa can be a
victim of yet untold perfidious evil. And all those who continue to unsettle
Somalians to sort their affairs will go down in history for having brought
untold suffering on the people of the region. This crime is way beyond anything
that humanity can bear. It is this danger that must be stopped by finding a
workable and stabilising settlement in Somalia without one internal and external
group seeking exclusive control without the consent of the Somali people.

4. The Wars between
Somalia and Ethiopia: Addressing the root cause

The X-Mass war is the
third major war between Somalia and Ethiopia. Since the independence of Somalia,
Ethiopia and Somalia had two major wars. The first took place in 1964 under the
emperor four years after Somalia got its independence from Britain and Italy.
The first war has been blamed on Somali irredentism due to the claim of the
Ogaden region by the then Somali Government. The Ogaden is a semi desert region
the British transferred to Ethiopia following the end of World War two.

The Second war was
initiated by Said Barre’s Government in 1977. Receiving military aid from the
Soviet Union and free oil from some Middle Eastern regimes, the dictatorial
Barre regime confidently launched a surprise attack against Ethiopia in 1977.
With free oil from Iraq and the Gulf, together with weapons from many countries,
the Somali army captured a large portion of the Ogaden. Allies of then left-wing
regime in Addis Ababa, Cuba, Yemen and the Soviets that mysteriously changed
sides led one year after the start of the war the defeat of the Somali army.
Returning to Somalia in disarray and demoralised, senior officers of the Somali
army engaged in a failed coup led by, among other officers, president of the
current transitional federal Somali government, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed. Coup
leaders that were captured were sentenced to death or sent to long term
imprisonment. 

Unlike the two earlier
wars initiated by the Somalia side, this time the current Government in Ethiopia
initiated the armed invasion based on the assumption of an IUC verbal
declaration of war and invitation by the Transitional Federal Government. This
makes it new. It looks the regime in Ethiopia is too embroiled and is not likely
to extricate itself as it sought possible when it declared entry into the fray.
The armed resistance is savagely flaring.

If the Ogaden is the
reason for the conflict, the main culprit must be British imperialism that
arranged to cede one of the ’stars’ to the Ethiopian emperor’s request whilst
sections of the British foreign office upheld the ’five stars’ Somali
nationalist position. Like Kashmir, the Balfour Declaration, the Skyes-Picot
Agreement in dividing the Arab nation, it appears the same imperial trick or
formula of setting up the natives to fight it out potentially igniting conflict
later was left behind. And predictably the ensuing post- colonial state in
Somali cannot have a five stars flag without having a five star territory. The
wars ensued to match the stars of the flag to match with the territories making
all now victims Somalians, Ethiopians and Africans as a whole, and others who
sell the weapons reaped benefits.

How to address without
inciting nationalist passion how this imperial formula is behind the reason that
left the issue that deflected Somali and Ethiopia to address issues of
development rather than settling borders is indeed an important question. If
this issue can be confronted with reason and tolerance by demanding those who
created the formula to pay for the way they set Ethiopia against Somalia and the
vice versa would be the right approach. The Ethiopians and Somalias should not
fight but they must unite to demand why this formula was created and what was
the reason for this double standard of giving five stars to Somalia whilst
giving one of the stars to Ethiopia at the same time?

Of course, the
situation in Somalia has gone well out of control to bring back negotiation and
dialogue to sort this vexing problem out. But if the true history of how this
conflict was formed is known, perhaps the local actors can take note and use it
to modify their behaviour with it. 

 5.
Is there a way out?

The future of politics
in this region is very difficult to predict. The worst case scenario will be if
America and the regime in Addis Ababa continue to insist that the conflict in
the Horn of Africa is part of the so-called global war against terrorism. Then
prolonged suffering and hardship awaits the people in the region. There will be
a war of religion and it will affect all countries in the region and beyond.
Religious warlords will emerge.  This can become a self- fulling prophecy
internationalising the conflict and making it impossible to see a way out. This
option is the worst one and unfortunately the logic of the conflict judging by
recent events seem to go in this direction.

The preferred approach
would be if the warlord led government in Mogadishu can engage with the
principle of broad- based civic inclusion where they invite all relevant
political and social actors, even the leadership of ICU to construct and find a
comprehensive lasting solution to the Somali people and to the region as well.
If this reconciliation approach is chosen internally, and if there is also a
shared approach by all those who have one interest or another to support
reconciliation rather than partisanship and belligerence, then a window of
opportunity may be open… The problem is that the warlord government does not
have the vision and means to host and undertake such process. In addition, large
constituents of the Somali people do not have any respect for warlord members
that dominate the government.  This option will be very good, but its chance is
not yet that realistic. 

The role of mediators
and honest peace brokers is very critical. But such honest mediators that can
enjoy the respect from the various groups are not easy to deploy. The AU can
emerge as one of such mediators. The EU can also if it plays that role. Even the
USA and other states can. Norway has been quietly taking such roles and doing
reasonably well in many difficult conflicts such as Sri Lanka, Sudan and others.
Even those in the region can play a constructive role instead of being party to
the wrong politics imported from outside and acting as warriors and compounding
the difficulties a very difficult region.

If the AU takes its
mediating role seriously, it needs to be prepared not to fail but succeed. The
AU can unhinge the deadlock if it is backed by the resources and power of the
major and pivotal African countries such as South Africa and Nigeria and others
who are in the conflict already. Also Older and wiser statesmen like President
Nelson Mandela and others who most Somalis even ICU members, have respect should
be used by the AU to support its efforts.

The US and EU should
support the AU. The current US posture does not seem able to bring peace to
Somalia. Nonetheless, some surprising contacts between the US and IUC have taken
place. The US embassy in Nairobi and its ambassador met the leader of ICU, whom
the media claims to have sought refuge in Kenya. Surprisingly, the US diplomats
are insisting that some in the ICU leadership should be included in the
Transitional arrangement.  It may after all appear that America may have learnt
a lesson or two from the numerous mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq that it will
not pay to isolate certain legitimate political groups in these countries. If
the US Government begins to treat the Somali issue differently, this will hugely
help to change the conflict environment into a security environment.

 Another important
aspect is that the EU, the UN and the US do not share a shared approach on how
in the long term to solve the Somali conflict. As experiences in Puntland and
Somaliland show Somalis will only enjoy viable peace when they are left alone,
in combining traditional authorities with certain form of modern state
governance. Any mediation intervention should be mindful of traditional
sensibilities whilst addressing universal values of human rights, rule of law
and democratic governance.              

The Diaspora
communities in the world from the region must play a constructive role to
contribute for peace and stability in the Somalia and the wider Horn. There is a
need to use modern technology to communicate and create shared values in order
to address the specific problems of the region. The Diaspora can be a creative
and regenerative force or can enter into the conflicts of the region. There must
be an intelligent way to intervene to promote regional security, creativity by
providing resources and knowledge.

It is increasingly
becoming evident that through the internet and the extended mobility and
communication opportunities, the Horn of African migrants scattered all over the
world retains daily communication with those they have left behind. This
communication can be constructive or destructive in a region with many
intersecting and cross-cutting conflicts. The opportunity for transforming the
destructive communication into constructive communication requires learning,
knowledge, capacity and research. How to mediate the communication from the
scattered migrants to those in the region by strengthening  research, knowledge,
training, learning, capacity building will constitute an important part of the 
strategy of intervention.

Concluding Remarks

We propose to bring
together the region’s Diaspora communities to support a:

1. Horn of Africa
   Research Network on Regional Integration and Development (HANRID).  This
   network will Undertake and build research and knowledge through analytical
   scrutiny on the dynamics of conflict and migration, underdevelopment,
   breakdown in governance, state collapse in creating new translational modes
   of production and relations calling for newer and sharper tools of social
   and economic analytical approaches and strategies to input knowledge and
   information into policy making and improving the quality of debate and
   engagement by fostering civically engaged citizens.
2. Tap into the global
   pool of Horn of Africa’s Diaspora as knowledge and resource bearers to
   connect their own activities and resources to the region’s conflict
   resolution efforts and shaping the productive power and development futures
   of the region and wider Africa. The objective is to found, design, and
   settle how a Horn of Africa Research Network that will create policy forums,
   knowledge production and outreach community activities.
3. We have published a
   book on Diaspora and State Reconstitution in Somalia.
   
   
   This will provide
   information and help in communicating with the wider Diaspora and home
   communities.
   The book addresses
   empirical research on how the Diaspora lives, works and communicates with their
   own communities at home.

4. We have planned a
   workshop  that will create a forum for the region’s  researchers to  present
   their research and network and develop a shared understanding and trust to
   support the region: see link at

 www.ihis.aau.dk

www.ihis.aau.dk/development

www.ihis.aau.dk/ccis

There is more we can
all do. Unless self- initiated, constructive and productive approaches are taken
to bring the region to share a common approach to problems and conflict
resolution, we will continue to experience problems. There is a need to build
resources for the capacity to make it possible to negotiate out of any
difficulty and conflict however difficult. This capacity building must be built
on a sustainable basis not only in the Horn of Africa but all over Africa.