|
Issue 372
| Front
Page |
| News Headlines
|
|
|
| Local
and Regional Affairs |
|
|
|
Editorial |
|
|
|
Features
& Commentry |
|
|
|
International News
|
|
|
|
Opinion |
|
|
|
|
Written
by Marko Kananen
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Somalia has been in a state of chaos and anarchy since the fall of
dictator Said Barre in 1991. The war situation has thus continued, with
short exceptions, for 18 years. Due to the humanitarian, political and
economic disaster, caused by two decades of war, Somalia is generally
described as a failed state. But what do we mean by this concept, and
more importantly, what can we do to help Somalia and all the other
failed states?
Although there are lot of differences between various failing states,
there are also certain similarities between them. According to Joمo
Marques de Almeida, adviser to the President of the European Commission,
failed states share four characteristics. Firstly, in a failed state the
central government has lost its control and authority over its territory
and is thus unable to safeguard peace, law and order. Secondly, failed
states are characterised by “warlord politics”: violence is needed to
control the distribution of wealth and the building of political
alliances. This makes it hard to distinguish between rebel groups and
government forces. Thirdly, in failed states humanitarian tragedies,
caused by extreme poverty, hunger and deceases are widespread. Also
human rights and democratic norms are commonly subverted. Fourthly,
conflicting parties are financed, for a large part, by money coming from
kidnapping, trafficking, prostitution, and smuggling. Hence, the state
of anarchy serves as a façade for organised crime.
Failed states pose a severe challenge for the EU’s traditional methods
of foreign policy. First of all, most of the instruments available to
the EU depend on the diplomatic channels and existence of an effective
and recognised state. However, this is not, per definition, the case in
the context of failed states. In many conflict areas it is hard to find
political leaders who are in a position to, first of all, negotiate and
cooperate with the international community and secondly, to have enough
influence to truly change the situation. For example, in Somalia there
have already been 14 attempts to create a central government – so far
they have all failed. The country is divided into multitude of clans and
sub-clans, not to mention that the northwestern part of the country –
Somaliland – has unilaterally claimed independence. Therefore it is not
a surprise that the diplomatic channels have remained mostly mute.
But what is the alternative to diplomacy? Military interventions can
make the matters even worse. The UN Mission in Somalia (1992-1995) led
to significant casualties and failed to restore order. Hence, as the
example of Somalia shows, even a benign intervention, such as protection
of food delivery, can become violent and turn the intervener into a
party to the conflict. In addition to being risky, dangerous and
possible ineffective, military interventions are also domestically
highly unpopular. Therefore the European Union has rejected calls from
the African Union and Somalia's neighbours to deploy peace-keeping
forces in the country.
In addition to diplomacy and military intervention, humanitarian aid is
one of the standard methods in crisis situations. This has been the case
also in Somalia. However, already since the 90’s there has been a
growing awareness of the problematic effects caused by the international
aid. In Somalia, aid materials have become a main target for the various
militia and bandits and they are used to financing the war activities.
This does not mean that humanitarian aid to Somalia could or should be
stopped. On the contrary, according to the UN analysis more than three
million people in Somalia – a third of the total population – is
dependent on humanitarian assistance. But aid alone can not solve the
problems of a failed state.
In Somalia all the standard prescriptions for troubled countries –
diplomacy, peacekeeping and humanitarian aid – have thus proven to be
unable to change the situation. Therefore, there is clearly a need for
alternative ways of helping failed states. Lately, various books and
reports have been conducted to highlight these new ways of crisis
management. The thing that most of the experts seem to be emphasising is
flexibility. For example, Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart[2] have
criticised the western world for its outmoded vision of a sovereign
state, which in many parts does exist anymore. Today, identities and
loyalties do not necessarily correspond to traditional nation-states,
and nations are not as unified and autonomous as it is often expected.
Therefore, the authors are encouraging the international community to
create and to foster more bonds with different actors of civil societies
and markets.
Also Joمo Marques de Almeida is supporting this kind of perception. In
stead of emphasising the fixed idea of sovereign statehood under central
government and democratic principle, more flexible solutions, such as
trusteeships, shared sovereignties or federal structures, should be
employed to deal with the complex situation. In Somalia this has been
partly done in case of Somaliland. The international community has not
recognised Somaliland’s independence, but it has still cooperated with
the government in Hargeisa. Although independent Somaliland does not fit
into the image of a unified Somalia, held by the international
community, from a humanitarian perspective relatively peaceful and well
functioning Somaliland is a big step forward.
In addition to flexibility we need pragmatism and concrete solutions on
the level of individuals. As Paul Collier writes in “The Bottom
Billion[3]. “, the reasons for Africa’s history of repeated coups d'etat
and civil wars are not caused merely by a fractious populace or
especially bad politics, but mostly by poverty. In an environment of
hopeless poverty, joining a rebel army offers a small chance of riches.
Therefore, a citizen-based approach, emphasising the basic wellbeing of
the people is crucially important in stabilising societies and
preventing the circle of violence.
What Collier, Ghani and Lockhart all emphasise, is the importance of
engaging the local people in tackling their problems. They have to be
allowed to and empowered to promote and manage local projects. For
example, food aid is far less helpful than giving people the chance to
earn money to buy their own, by providing them with work. This means
that the international community has to take a bottom-up approach,
supporting, encouraging and enabling the local people to take the
matters in to their own hands. A good starting point is the creation and
gradual expansion of networks of local actors.
Bottom-up approach also means that the international community has to
strive for to cooperate with all the parties connected to the conflict.
The international community has to make clear that it supports the
general principles of reconciliation and consensus-building, and not a
certain political leader or a party. As put by Ghani and Lockhart,
foreign-backed leader, taking decisions from the top down, is far less
likely to be seen as legitimate by citizens, or to inspire their
loyalty.
To conclude, failed states need careful handling. In a situation of
complex power structures and vulnerable institutions, the role of the
international community is important. However, it has to remain in a
background and let the local people take the lead.
Marko Kananen*
Wien – Austria
________________________________________
* Marko Tapio Kananen is social scientist specialised in the European
Union, and journalist at Ideal Communications in Vienna
________________________________________
[1] Since 2005 the American think-tank Fund for Peace and the magazine
Foreign Policy have been publishing an annual failed state’s index,
listing the most vulnerable states facing the risk of a major collapse.
In the last year’s index Somalia took the unwanted first position.
[2] Ghani & Lockhart (2008): Fixing Failed States: A Framework for
Rebuilding a Fractured World. OxfordUniversity Press.
[3] Collier (2008): The Bottom Billion. Why the Poorest Countries are
Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Oxford University Press.
Source: Newropeans Magazine
|