INTERVIEW
Bruck Shewareged

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, December 23, 2006 – Prof Kinfe Abraha is director of the Ethiopian International Institute for Peace and Development with the breaking out of war between the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) and the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia this week following the UN's decision to send in peacekeepers.

Bruck Shewareged of The Reporter asked Prof. Kinfe what the security implications would be for that country and Ethiopia. Excerpts:

Is it conceivable to send a large peacekeeping force into Somalia while certain preconditions have not been fulfilled like the consent of the two parties?

It is extremely difficult to get the Islamists to agree to a peacekeeping force because they basically believe it would be hostile to them. If a peacekeeping force is sent to Somalia, it would have a mission of essentially protecting the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) which at present is regarded as a weaker partner.

But as opposed to the view of the UIC, the TFG would most welcome such a peacekeeping force. The mandate perhaps is different from other peacekeeping forces that are sent, for instance, to Liberia.

In what way would it be different?

In the Somalia situation, you have two blocs, the UIC and TFG. In the case of Liberia, for example, the factor was Charles Taylor, the guy responsible for the anarchy. Removing him was a simpler task. In this situation, the mandate of the peacekeeping force is one of trying to maintain a balance of forces in Somalia.

In other words, it would mean, for the UIC protecting the TFG, an elected and legally constituted entity vis à vis the UIC, a religious group that operates mainly in southern Somalia. But the anxiety is that the clash between the two could result in a prolonged civil war.

The time, of course, is a bit problematic because the crisis in Somalia intensified from June 2006, after the defeat of the warlords in Mogadishu. The UIC was given plenty of time to amass weapons, to organize itself and so on, whereas the TFG did not receive much support from the international community in time.

It seems on the ground that the UIC has the upper hand, be it in terms of military or the territory it controls. So why would it accept foreign troops which, in effect, would protect the transitional government?

The UIC will not accept that, and it made its position very clear.

If 9 to 10 countries, as mentioned in UN report, assist the UIC, wouldn't they likely give recognition to it should it overcome the transitional government?

Well, the transitional government is recognized by the UN, AU, IGAD and many countries. The UIC has not received official recognition from any county. In fact, it is one of its Achilles heels, one of its weaknesses.

In terms of territorial control, I don't think the UIC controls large areas as is often stated in the media.

How so?

Somaliland and Puntland are not under its control. Central Somalia may be partially under its control. It controls Mogadishu and its environs up to Benadir area and some isolated pockets. So, essentially, if you look at Somaliland and Puntland together they constitute maybe two-thirds of Somalia which are clearly out of the UIC control.

But in practical terms, Somaliland is not considered to be part of Somalia anymore...?

Yes, it is a de facto state but it is an element in Somalia. It cannot be dissociated altogether until it is recognized as a sovereign entity.

Does UIC's control extend to Jubaland?

The UIC has taken control of some towns in the Juba area. But Baidoa is essentially the seat of the TFG. Right now they are trying to get closer to Baidoa.

Fighting has already broken out near Baidoa on Wednesday. How would it change the picture in Somalia?

It depends. The information I have is that it is the UIC which started the fighting. The soldiers of the TFG are trying to repulse the attack. The flash points of the fighting are 50-60 kms away from Baidoa.

If the TFG scores a victory, an important victory, I think probably the UIC forces will be repulsed. That will be one sobering lesson for them. It will regulate or modulate their future actions.

If, on the other hand, the UIC scores victory, it will be very detrimental to the TFG. The government might repulse the attack. It has trained around 10,000 soldiers.

The UIC repeatedly said that it has declared jihad against Ethiopia. If open hostilities break out what would be the implication for Ethiopia's security?

The UIC has no reason to fight Ethiopia because they have no axe to grind with it. The only reason why it targets Ethiopia is that it firmly believes that Ethiopia supports the TFG. The aim of the UIC is to remove the TFG in order to extend its control all over Somalia.

It is alleged that the UIC has connection with al-Qaeda. And if war breaks out some fear that bombs might start to go off here and there. Isn't this considered as a security implication?

As an extremist group, they are likely to use different types of tactics to get at Ethiopia which they regard as adversarial. But the government is aware of this and I think all necessary steps have been taken to ward off such possibilities. The police, the army, the national security bureau are likely to look into it very vigilantly. I think most of the fighting will take place in Somalia by and large. But, of course, the border has to be patrolled. I think Ethiopian soldiers are there to look after the border.

Djibouti is mentioned in the UN report as one of the countries supporting UIC. At the same time it does business with Ethiopia, mainly through its port. Should war break out, it is expected to take sides. In your opinion, would it take sides with Ethiopia or the extremists?

I don't think it matters either way

How?

Djibouti has friends in Somalia, some among the business community who have been supportive of the UIC but retreating now because of the draconian Sharia laws introduced. Djibouti might think twice before it makes a decision of that sort?

Of siding with the UIC?

Yes. It probably will not define its position. It is true it's been identified as one of the countries supporting UIC. But I don't think the Djiboutians are in a position to deliver weapons. They don't have such resources.

Djibouti knows which way its bread is buttered. Ethiopia is the sole user of its harbor. So the collateral damage will be massive for Djibouti. I think they will behave more cautiously. That will be my prediction.

If Ethiopia is entangled in conflict, it is not likely to use the port very much. The Djiboutians are also aware that there are other places to go. If Djibouti takes a hostile position, Ethiopia will react. It will not react by declaring war on Djibouti, perhaps, but by looking at other options other than the harbor. So, they will be cautious.

Hundreds of thousands of Somalian refugees live in Ethiopia, including in the capital. And they are not even in camps. UIC has the chance to recruit members from the refugees and inflict damage against Ethiopia. What will be the fate of the refugees if hostilities commence?

First of all, I think, most of the Somalis residing in Ethiopia are sympathetic to Ethiopia. They have been making statements to this effect. If the UIC tries to penetrate, the Ethiopian government can also do the same thing. It can forestall it. Those collaborating with the UIC can be targeted. My hunch is that they will be careful whatever their sentiment. They will be cautious. They will not want to burn their fingers because the consequences can be devastating for them.

Countries as diverse as Eritrea, Libya and Iran are cited in UN report as supporters of UIC. What do you think is their common reason?

It is very difficult to figure out. Most of these countries say they are waging war against terrorism. And they are also victims of terrorism. If you take most of these countries at a time and look at their history, they had suffered from terrorist acts. The evidence that they shouldn't extend support to UIC is very convincing.

As victims of terrorism, fundamentalism, extremism, they ought to be in the same camp with Ethiopia. And most of them are the so-called members of the global coalition against terrorism. So it is mind-boggling. And it doesn't make sense.

But there is this archaic view of perceiving Ethiopia as the proverbial island of Christianity, which is totally wrong. Ethiopia is a land of Christians and Muslims as well as adherents of other religions. Ethiopia has a secular constitution. The state doesn't have a religion anymore.

In older days, of course, during the time of the emperor, there was divine source of power, Solomonic kings and so on. But that is no longer the case. Christians and Muslims are equal before the law.

Let's take Libya. Their leader is known to have cracked down on extremists. So how come he supports the Somali extremists?

They don't have the moral authority and the rationale to do it but they appear on the UN list. Most of them are, maybe, doing it for their own reasons. Iran and Saudi Arabia are competing for the leadership of the Islamic world. That might be the rationale behind it. Otherwise it is very difficult to justify or explain it. It doesn't make sense.

Ethiopia has quite friendly relations with most of these countries as well. It has bilateral diplomatic links. So it is difficult to understand it or justify it.

If these countries continue their support to the UIC, shouldn't Ethiopia review its relationship with these countries ?

Generally, governments don't take hasty actions to redress such kinds of conflictual situations. They tend to wait and see. So we are not likely to see an aggravation of the situation.

Of course, it is not good news. One cannot say that this will not have some implication on the relationship somewhere down the line. But I don't expect hasty or drastic steps. Perhaps the support they extend is not as significant as it is reported.

Source: The Reporter