Somalia
Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress polled 108 foreign affairs experts across the political spectrum about terrorism and related issues.
Asked what country is likely to be the next al Qaeda stronghold, the experts said:
- Pakistan — 35%
- Iraq — 22%
- Somalia — 11%
- Sudan — 8%
- Afghanistan — 7%
The experts also put Pakistan at the head of the list most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists by 2012:
- Pakistan — 74%
- North Korea — 42%
- Russia — 38%
- Iran — 31%
- United States — 5%
The experts were divided about how to change US policy toward Pakistan: about a third favored sanctions against the country, and a similar number advocated increasing US aid.
Pakistan likely tops both lists both because of ideological forces at work within the country, and because it is regularly cited as one of the states most likely to fall apart.
Foreign Policy offers the odds on six new states achieving independence:
1. Kosovo
Odds — “strong”: driven by US and EU support, it has a good shot at full independence from Serbia
2. South Sudan
Odds — “not great”: a 2011 “referendum will probably happen; and it will probably come out in favor of independence; and Khartoum will almost certainly find a way around the results.”
3. Somaliland
Odds — “very good”: effectively independent from Somalia since 1991, it already has its own government, army, and currency; international organizations will attend to the disastrous state of the rest of Somalia first, however
4. Iraqi Kurdistan
Odds — “fair”: Turkey’s strong opposition may be overruled by facts on the ground if Iraq disintegrates
5. Palestine
Odds — “good”: “details” in the way of a two-state solution will eventually overcome the objections of “the extreme radical wings” on both sides
6. Taiwan
Odds — “poor”: China is getting stronger and stronger, and Taiwan “will accept autonomous status” under China
The International Crisis Group (ICG) issued a warning on Somalia today. It begins:
The draft resolution the U.S. intends to present to the UN Security Council on 29 November could trigger all-out war in Somalia and destabilise the entire Horn of Africa region by escalating the proxy conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea to dangerous new levels.
The resolution would authorize regional intervention on the side of the weak Transitional Federal Government (TFG), to protect it against Somali Islamic forces.
The ICG warns that outright foreign intervention on behalf of the TFG
would likely fracture the parliament beyond repair and reinforce the impression that the TFG is simply a proxy for Ethiopia. The loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the Somali public would be irreversible.
Ethiopian and other states are hostile to the Islamic forces in Somalia because “of its irredentist views, and support for international terrorist elements and cross-border Ethiopian rebel groups.”
US backing for this course of action, and prior support for Somali warlords who opposed the Islamists, also hint that the United States is in danger of repeating a dire mistake of the Cold War.
In places such as Vietnam and Central America, the US tended to misunderstand the relationship of local events to the main contest of the Cold War, and take action without regard for the real strategic stakes or the moral consequences.
Action to oppose the Islamists in Somalia might be warranted by American interests and morally preferable to the alternatives, but it might also be a sign of a kneejerk anti-Islamicism.
The WP reports that fundamentalists are edging out the moderates for control of the Islamic militias.
The first hints of change came when militia members forced the closure, in some neighborhoods, of cinemas showing the World Cup and films they deemed too sexually explicit. Some young women opted for more conservative head coverings, some young men for shorter hair.
Restraining mechanisms might come into play:
Some Somalis hold out hope that the same loose coalition of businessmen, activists and clan elders that helped drive out the warlords will soon turn against the militias as power breeds brashness. Ali Iman Sharmarke, a businessman and radio journalist in Mogadishu, said he believed the Islamic militias would lose power if they grew too strict in their interpretation of religious law. “People will hate them as they hated the warlords,” Sharmarke said from Nairobi. “The moderates will not fly with bin Laden.”
Overall, the likelihood of the “Taliban on the Horn” scenario prevailing has risen, and this also ups the probability of future war between Somalia and Ethiopia.
After 15 years without a central government, Somalia is showing signs of movement. It is not clear where it is going, however.
Two new forces are at work: a weak internationally-supported transitional government has been formed, and last week Islamic militias seized the capital, driving out warlords apparently backed by the US.
Several possible scenarios could arise:
1. Continued chaos
No group predominates, and the Islamic militias and new government simply become additional factions in the mix.
Behind this scenario is something basic to the Somali character. As an International Crisis Group analyst put it in the WP, “The Somali allegiance to any authority is as fickle as it gets. This is very tricky terrain.”
2. Taliban on the Horn
The Islamic militias could seize control, and institute Islamic totalitarianism. They also prove willing to harbor al-Qaeda members, offering a rare sanctuary for the group.
There are signs that this is becoming more plausible:
Moderates among the supporters of the Islamic militias acknowledge a rising extremism within the country. More women than before cover their faces rather than just their hair. Strict Islamic justice is popular. City leaders warn that without massive and rapid rebuilding, anti-Western forces such as al-Qaeda are certain to grow in their appeal.
There also was a palpable unease about the plans of the Islamic militias, which are by all accounts a fractured group split between moderates and extremists. The militias, the residents said, attempted to shut down a company that dubbed Indian movies into Somali, apparently because they were regarded as too risque.
It may be this scenario that caused the US to support the Islamists’ warlord enemies, possibly making future hostility more likely.
3. Islamic peace
Islamic forces could take over the country and prove relatively competent administrators, avoiding Taliban-like excesses.
Ignoring the transitional government has dangers, however as it
is supported by Somalia’s neighbors, the United Nations, the United States and the European Union, so opposing it could mean regional and international isolation and possibly crippling sanctions for any administration the Islamic forces try to build.
4. A peace of unity
The transitional government, the Islamic militias, and others could find sufficient common ground to form a real national government — leaving aside, for the moment, the quasi-independent regions of Puntland and Somaliland in the north.
This is currrently the stated intention of the militias.
Foreign policy and the Fund for Peace have released their annual Failed States Index, a valuable tool for tracking potential instability.
Foreign Policy explains:
The category of “failed states” has become part of the strategic vernacular, and it has many definitions. For the purposes of this index, a failing state is one in which the government does not have effective control of its territory, is not perceived as legitimate by a significant portion of its population, does not provide domestic security or basic public services to its citizens, and lacks a monopoly on the use of force. A failing state may experience active violence or simply be vulnerable to violence. The great majority of the states listed in the index are not presently failed states. The index measures vulnerability to violent internal conflict. It is an index of country risk, not of countries that have already failed.
The 20 most endangered states are concentrated in Africa, and include many of the least-governed countries. Ranked from most in danger downwards, they are:
1. Sudan
2. Congo, Dem. Rep. of the
3. Ivory Coast
4. Iraq
5. Zimbabwe
6. Chad
6. Somalia
8. Haiti
9. Pakistan
10. Afghanistan
11. Guinea
11. Liberia
13. Central African Republic
14. North Korea
15. Burundi
16. Yemen
17. Sierra Leone
18. Burma
19. Bangladesh
20. Nepal
The status of all 148 rankings is mapped here.
Instability in Pakistan is potentially disastrous: it could be the first nuclear-armed state to fail, and some of the parties that might get hold of the country’s nuclear weapons have links to Islamic extremist groups.
Number 31 on the list is Egypt, a lynchpin state of the Middle East, and right behind it at 32 is Indonesia, one of the largest countries in the world.
The Washington Post reports that US warships opened fire on suspected pirates in international waters off the coast of Somalia. A US naval officer notes that waters around Somalia ‘are infested with pirates, seaborne armed robbers who board any boat or ship they can approach and rob the crew at gunpoint.’
Somalia is the least-governed country on the planet. That it is harboring pirates suggests why these holes in international order can matter. It is also thought to be a potential al Qaeda refuge, and is prime breeding ground for diseases such as avian flu, as there is no healthcare system in place.
It would be ripe for the kind of international trusteeship applied in Bosnia and Kosovo, but is so disordered and violent that it would take more will to enforce such an arrangement than international actors have.