Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Somalia, why do we give a fuck?

whothehell@where?

22:30 / 15.06.06

this quote from todays new york times:

" "We need to have legitimate actors inside Somalia with whom we can work," Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's top counterterrorism official, told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday. "

i don't have a link as i'm working from the dead tree stuff here, sorry, find it yourselves, but the question is: why do we give a fuck about the stability of somalia?

they have nothing to exploit

from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/so.html

Exports - commodities:
livestock, bananas, hides, fish, charcoal, scrap metal

Oil - production:
0 bbl/day (2003 est.)

Oil - proved reserves:
0 bbl (1 January 2002)

-

is it their proximity to the arabian peninsula? something to do with kenya perhaps? why does somalia matter?

i can't figure it out

22:59 / 15.06.06

The worry is that Somalia could easily become something akin to Taliban regime Afghanistan Mk II, a training ground for Jihadis worldwide and a source of instability in an already unstable region.

Unfortunately, the US doesn't really have the resources to win the engagements that it is already entangled with, let alone opening up a new conflict. So the resorted to plan B and provided weapons and support to secular warlords in the hope that they could hold the country under their thrall. That plan failed and the US is now left with another unattractive situation that it doesn't know what to do in...

06:48 / 16.06.06

... and it's on the horn of Africa, threatens the Gulf of Aden and entry to the Red Sea. Check out Bab el-Mandeb, Djibouti, piracy, the USS Cole bombing. Blocking Bab el-Mandeb would cause a disruption of oil supplies, with serious economic consequences.

14:29 / 16.06.06

... and I forgot to mention that Somalia has uranium and largely unexploited reserves of iron ore, tin, gypsum, bauxite, copper, salt, natural gas (5.663 billion cu m proven), and likely oil. Somalia isn't exploiting this wealth because of lack of technology, political instability, scarcity of professionals, and mismanagement (see).

*

15:25 / 16.06.06

...and some people live there, I hear.

15:52 / 16.06.06

That's why the USA is involved? I don't think so.

*

16:01 / 16.06.06

Of course not, elene. But I live in the US, and that's why I give a fuck. I'm sure the de facto government has other priorities. I see that it was an irrelevance and I'll cease to rot the thread.

17:24 / 16.06.06

I usually just stick to the facts, but perhaps id entity is suggesting I'm too cold in that regard, so here's what I think the USA is doing in Somalia, specifically why it backed the recently deposed warlords. I think the USA seeks to shatter Somalia into small regions and then make deals with the invariably corrupt leaders of these regions, the warlords, to gain extremely cheap access to the above mentioned resources.

Kiltartan Cross

20:54 / 16.06.06

Is it so totally inconceivable that US self interest might be linked to an increase in stability and general conditions in the region? Good grief. US foreign policy does not need to destroy things in order to benefit the US; a policy of enlightened self interest, of helping create a stable state which preferably won't churn out a hegemonising swarm of jihadi fruitcakes, is probably going to help the States more than splintering the country into an even more anarchic state. Although, of course, seeing the US as an irredeemably evil empire which never carries out a good action if it can carry out a bad one surely has an attractive ring.

21:59 / 16.06.06

I think there is probably an interesting thread to be had on the virtues of intevention.

What kinds of intervention are the most effective and sustainable?

What would the reaction and consequences to international/US sanctioned intervention in Zimbabwe? or Darfur? or Burma? Would it be different from purely US (or US-led) intervention in the same countries.

How about the cases for intervention in Chechnya or Tibet? It's not going to happen but what about the moral case for democracy promotion there?

23:04 / 16.06.06

i think tibet's already solved the democracy problem, king gyanhmahoosit pretty much lost grip during the protests

but there must be a reward for intervention, it can be intervention on moral grounds with no material, resource type reward as long as there's a gain in political capital, good p.r. or whatever, sway in the region perhaps, definately set up some "lily pads" after intervention, but that's another prize isn't it, there must be a prize, intervention on purely moral grounds with no reward other than having "done the right thing" or "fought the good fight" that's just lunacy

Tryphena Absent

00:15 / 17.06.06

What would the reaction and consequences to international/US sanctioned intervention in Zimbabwe? or Darfur?

If the US had gone into Darfur rather than Iraq in 2003 I doubt that we would be having this discussion right now. At that moment in time it was where a peace keeping interventionary force was actually needed. That's why it's totally inconceivable that US self interest might be linked to an increase in stability and general conditions in the region. If Western governments in general had actually performed an action that protected people from genocide at the time that it was taking place, instead of hiring people to talk about legitimate actors in countries, (and genocide confirming military action as positive after the event) than they might be seen as having positive intentions.

*

02:02 / 17.06.06

Sorry, elene. I was irked, actually, at the way I perceived the tone of the original post and abstract; I wasn't intending to misdirect but obviously I did. Plz disregard my temper-tantrum.

06:48 / 17.06.06

The USA would not back the Somali warlords if stability and justice were its aims, Kay. No way. Its aims are control and access at minimal cost.

06:48 / 17.06.06

There’s no reason to apologise, entity, I see where you were coming from.

Kiltartan Cross

23:02 / 17.06.06

The USA would not back the Somali warlords if stability and justice were its aims, Kay. No way. Its aims are control and access at minimal cost.

Heh. I was kinda rhetorically stating to myself "The bloody Marshall Plan worked, why are they such fools these days" rather than "giving guns to warlords is a good plan". Although I'm not sure (I'm pretty damn certain, come to think of it) that having an anarchy ruled by warlords is actually worse for the world than having a stable fundamentalist Islamic hierocracy*, given the example set by the last one.

I guess in an ideal world there'd be some way of implementing a reformist, modernist, democratic, enlightened form of Islam, like Turkey only nicer, from which a wave of happiness would spread out across global Islam and reign in the nutters. I can't see it happening, though; certainly not something that could be imposed.

*I'm warming to this word. Rule-by-priests rather than theocracy, rule-by-god. Describes things a helluva lot better, no?

08:28 / 18.06.06

Yes, hierocracy's a good word for it. However there are usually some written guidelines, a Bible, a Koran, and an orthodox interpretation involved too, not merely the whims of a priestly class, and that's what makes the difference. I'm sure it's better for the majority of people that a church be in control rather than warlords. People invariably choose Shari'ah over warlords. They did in Afghanistan and they'll to so in Somalia too.

Neither Afghanistan nor Somalia is a nice place, and they’ve been kept in a worse state than they need be for a very long time due to the machinations of the great powers. That is a far greater problem than their religion. What is it you don’t like about Turkey? That it oppresses it’s Kurdish population?

11:47 / 18.06.06

i think tibet's already solved the democracy problem, king gyanhmahoosit pretty much lost grip during the protests

Erm Bacon, I think you might bet confusing Tibet with Nepal...

18:53 / 18.06.06

i think you're right

both buddhist, it's almost forgivable

23:34 / 18.06.06

Kay - I've got to say there are a fair few things in your most recent post I'd like to see you expand upon.

Although I'm not sure (I'm pretty damn certain, come to think of it) that having an anarchy ruled by warlords is actually worse for the world than having a stable fundamentalist Islamic hierocracy*, given the example set by the last one.

What exactly do you mean when you refer to 'the example set by the last one'? Which particular attributes of the Taliban regime do you find that much more egregious than those of the warlords?

Rule-by-priests rather than theocracy, rule-by-god. Describes things a helluva lot better, no?
Depends whether or not you believe in god I guess. Or disbelive in one god more than others... My point is that differentiating between rule by priests and rule by god could easily be used by people of faith to 'other' anyone who has a religious faith that is not their own...

I guess in an ideal world there'd be some way of implementing a reformist, modernist, democratic, enlightened form of Islam, like Turkey only nicer,

What do you mean here by nicer? The only consistant powerful break on the power of the priests in Turkey has been the military, and their methods have been forcful to say the least. I am in no way a supporter of faith-based government, but I don't think the human rights abuses of Turkey's military should be completely overlooked either...

Kiltartan Cross

10:34 / 19.06.06

What exactly do you mean when you refer to 'the example set by the last one'? Which particular attributes of the Taliban regime do you find that much more egregious than those of the warlords?
Their systematic destruction of cultural artefacts and banning of cultural expression (other than the most rigidly Islamic ones). The hegemonising, cultural-cleansing aspect of fundamentalist Islam as practised in Afghanistan repelled me. That aside, I don't doubt that rule by warlords is, or can be, just as unpleasant a repression as the rule by clerics, but they don't necessarily feel the need to commit cultural destruction at the same time. I've long wondered whether it is a personal failing of mine to see the destruction of culture and economy as ultimately more dangerous than the destruction of life (because the long-term ramifications of both cause extended damage to life); that I'm a "Zeroth Law" person; but I digress.

Essentially I'd like to see a world full of states in which the personal freedoms of the individual were guaranteed above the societal restrictions that religions would like to impose. That no nation would compel its citizens to act in accordance with a particular religious dictat. I don't believe that this ideal is compatible with many fundamentalist interpretations of religion.

Turkey
Perhaps I have slandered Turkey; my citing a "better Turkey" was meant to imply one which was somewhat less corrupt and repressive, but I may be wrong to perceive the country so.

07:02 / 21.06.06

I'm not sure about culture as a whole, but I am sure the destruction of a statue of the Buddha, or a statue of anything else, is not comparable with the loss of a human life. What is lost? No future, no human potential, merely a lifeless artefact. Thailand has offered to rebuild the Bamiyan Buddhas but they can't rebuild a single Afghani killed in all of these years of chaos. Placing an inanimate object above a human life is surely one reason some religions say one ought not to have idols. I agree with them.

I too would like to see a world full of states in which the personal freedoms of the individual were guaranteed above the societal restrictions that religions would like to impose, at least the specific restrictions of any one religion, for your freedom to kill or rape me must be restricted, and many of your other freedoms too, whether by religious or by legal dictate. I won't tolerate it otherwise. A world ruled by warlords cannot be that world, a world where an individual can acquire a people's wealth and then sell it for personal gain cannot be that world, a world where armed men can, with impunity, break into my home and rape me cannot be that world.

10:22 / 21.06.06

Turkey
Perhaps I have slandered Turkey; my citing a "better Turkey" was meant to imply one which was somewhat less corrupt and repressive, but I may be wrong to perceive the country so.

The point I was attempting to make wasn't that you were slandering Turkey, more that Turkey's secular tradition has come at a price of an interventionist military that are willing to step in and prevent a priest-class taking over the country. This military also has had a history of massacres and ethnic cleansing that is still a contentious issue today.

I guess what I'm saying is that Turkey is not really the blueprint you would want to follow if you were seeking to promote a set of core values that all states should strive to adopt.