Google
 
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts

Monday, February 26, 2007

Somalia's Government, Somalia's Affair

As recent examples are showing, a country's government has to be chosen by its people.

By Liam Bailey

In the west there is a fear of Islamic terrorism, triggered in the most part, and rightly so by two New York skyscrapers being brought down by hijacked civilian airliners, Sep. 11 2001, and subsequent attacks in Europe. This has led to Muslims being dehumanized. Islamaphobia as it is termed, is currently at an all time high.

Take Britain for instance, the terrorists who attacked three London underground trains simultaneously on July 7 2005 wanted to bring down the British government and for Britain to become an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law. To the British people, who are used to having freedom of choice, the thought of Britain being ruled with the strict behavioural codes and punishments associated with Sharia law is a scary thought. I know, because it instilled fear in me, until I began talking about these matters with Muslims.

Abdallah, who commented on one of my articles on the Somali crisis at Desicritics.org (comment #7) told me:

Honestly as a Muslim and one who knows and understands the Sharia law very well there is nothing oppressive or unjust about it, however, what is oppressive and unjust is having a handful of tribal-based-military-styled-self-serving-ignorant-misdirected so called mullahs take oath to up hold the laws of Islam that they really don't practice in their own houses!

Introduction of Sharia Laws goes further than someone pushing it down people's throat, it needs preparations, and has to be on whole hearted consent. In a sense it most be voted on and everyone participate, not by some fools [Union of Islamic Courts] who thought they had the whole country under their thumb.


It suddenly occurred to me, Sharia law doesn't scare Muslims, because good Muslim's live by strict behavioural and religious codes anyway, such as no alcohol or sex before marriage, and only eating a certain type of meat etc.

Somalia's Union of Islamic Courts have been branded as extremists by the west, some hard-liners within the group deserve the title. However the courts have also been the victim of the one-size-fits-all War on Terror branding and are labelled as an Al Qaeda affiliate. Now, I don't know whether or not the group has or is harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists, as has been alleged by the U.S.. What I do know is that, now, while they are employing similar insurgent tactics as Al Qaeda (in Iraq) and other groups in Iraq, there is one key difference: they are not targeting civilians.

So, if they were and/or are sheltering Al Qaeda it is because they share a common enemy, the U.S., which over they years and even more currently has created the impression that it is an enemy of Islam. A view commonly held by extremists. Not because the UIC are an Al Qaeda affiliate, or because they are fighting the same war with the same tactics.

Although the UIC is not specifically targeting civilians, they are being killed in the crossfire. Like Dec. 23's audacious UIC attack on a Transitional Federal Government military base, when Ethiopian and TFG forces retaliated with heavy artillery and tanks. At least three people died and fifteen were injured as the 20 minute battle spilled into surrounding neighbourhoods. Such battles and civilian deaths have again become a daily occurrence in Somalia. Under the UIC they were a rarity.

If some within the UIC were administering a misinterpretation of Sharia law from a bad interpretation of Islam, at least Somali citizens weren't being killed and injured in their droves each day. In fact they were relatively safe if they lived to the letter of the UIC's Sharia law.

Now death is much harder to avoid. In clashes Dec. 23 a woman died and six children were injured when artillery shells landed on their tin shacks, one of the children's life hung in the balance, witnesses told CNN his head was severed. Another nine people were injured and one killed when a rocket struck a house.

It was strange, when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), who made short work of overthrowing the warlords that ruled Somalia with anarchy for years, were ousted with so little resistance by the Ethiopian and Transitional Federal Government (TFG) forces. The two week conflict was more of a chase than a war as the Ethiopian forces followed the trail of the UIC in an almost constant retreat. Now, as the UIC launch daily attacks, growing in severity and audacity it becomes clear that they were conserving, men and ammunition for a bloody guerrilla war.

They are employing much the same tactics as they did when they swept into control of most of Southern and central Somalia, lightning raids. The differences are that against the superior Ethiopian military they are striking then retreating. What the UIC lack in heavy armor they make up for in higher mobility and their ability and willingness to use it to their advantage.

So, Somalia is likely to face similar chaos as Iraq for the foreseeable future, and why, because an Islamic movement wanted to govern with Sharia (Islamic) law. Somalia is an Islamic country. Whether the UIC's interpretation of Sharia was wrong and it was being administered too strictly it was up to the Somali people to sort out. After all, they have a much better knowledge of it than the U.S. administration, or Christian Ethiopian government who were responsible for the end of UIC control and the beginning of anarchy. However strictly the UIC were ruling I bet Somalis would turn back time in a heart beat, especially those who have lost loved ones in the recent fighting.

When are the U.S., and their proxies like Ethiopia going to learn that a country's government and the way it chooses to rule is an internal affair, and should be dealt with internally. In any interpretation of the Islamic faith, Jihad is not to be shied away from. It is true, that under the Islamic faith, those dying fighting Jihad go straight to paradise. Where the extremists misinterpret, intentionally or otherwise is that suicide is forbidden under any circumstances, Jihad included. If the UIC continued on the path of governance they were on before they were ousted, and angered the Somali population. I fully believe the Somali population would eventually have risen up in Jihad to install a true and pure version of Sharia law.

Now, that may well have led to the same kind of chaos that Somalis are currently enduring, but at least it would have been their choice, and they would be dying for their freedom. Instead they are dying as part of a western war on an abstract noun.

Governing Somalia

I wrote this article Feb 20 2007, all earlier articles, except those below can only be viewed at War Pages on Wordpress.

Governing Somalia:

What is more important, freedom or security? Asks Liam Bailey


In the last throes of 2006 Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia, and with Somalia's Transitional Government (TG) forces drove the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) out of Mogadishu, and with the help of American air strikes, supposedly, out of Somalia. Somali residents had lived in a state of anarchy since the dictator Siad Barre was ousted in 1991. The Union of Islamic Courts restored order and allowed people to go about their normal lives in relative security.

In UIC controlled areas children could go to school safely and once more hospitals could treat the sick without flows of injured coming in from daily violence. However, the UIC ruled with a strict code of Sharia law, meaning the security came at the cost of some personal freedoms and civil liberties. With the UIC ousted, 2007 began a new chapter for Somalia, a new chapter of violence and insecurity.

The UIC began their sweep to power, taking the capital Mogadishu Jun 2006. By December they controlled most of Southern and Central Somalia. The Transitional Govermnent's one remaining stronghold was Baidoa and a small area surrounding it, where it is widely believed Ethiopian troops were stationed to protect the government.

The United Nations was responsible for the imposition of the TG. In early December they still recognized it as the only governing body in Somalia or "The only route to peace and stability" --as it was called in Resolution 1725--, despite it being made up of warlords. The warlords were responsible for much of the violence, insecurity and terrorization of the civilian population before the UIC took power.

The U.S gave strong support to the TG, against the UIC forces. Strong support to the very warlords that, by inflicting heavy casualties, forced the withdrawal of U.S. forces in a peacekeeping mission in the early nineties. U.S support failed to stop the UIC advance. Shortly before the Ethiopian invasion the U.S presented a draft Resolution to the UN Security Council (UNSC). The Resolution laid out the rules of engagement for a proposed Inter-Governmental Authority on Development and African Union force to enter Somalia. The fore was to protect the TG, to restart the peace negotiations between the TG and the UIC, but ultimately to reinstall the UN recognized government and engage any forces running contrary to that mission.

It was adopted as Resolution 1725 but the UIC's rapid sweep to power gave the impression that they were a strong determined and highly capable fighting force. This combined with the UIC's war declaration on Ethiopian forces in Somalia, their threats to attack peacekeepers and the Iraq quagmire, which started from a similar mission, to make IGAD countries reluctant to send their forces into what could easily become another Iraq.

Ethiopia showed no such reluctance, because Ethiopia had no such noble intentions. With U.S. support, Ethiopia responded to the UIC's final attack on the last remaining government stronghold of Baidoa. Ethiopia said throughout that it had no intention of occupying Somalia, its only mission was to oust the UIC and return the TG to the seat of power. Unexpectedly the UIC put up little resistance, displaying none of the fight to the death attitude they had spoken of. Ethiopian and TG forces made short work of removing the strict regime of the UIC. As they beat a hasty retreat the UIC made statements to the press promising to wage a guerrilla war, "like Iraq".

So, it seems that the U.S., Ethiopia and the UN believe freedom is more important than security.

Ethiopia is keeping to its word and their forces have already begun to withdraw. The UIC is also keeping its promise and since their defeat, Somalia, more specifically Mogadishu has been rocked by almost daily, mortar, rocket propelled grenade attacks, and occasional suicide bomb attacks. According to reports an 8000 strong African Union force is now expected to enter Somalia in mid-April 2007. Uganda was due to announce a date for a small Burundian advance force but the news conference was cancelled.

Given the failure of 7000 AU troops to stop the violence in Darfur, Sudan, it is unlikely they will adequately fill the vacuum left by the Ethiopian forces. It is also unlikely they will afford the TG the same protection as the Ethiopian force and a UIC uprising could begin anew. Given the consistent UIC statements to view peacekeepers as an invading force it is almost certain the peacekeepers will become targets for insurgent warfare, and even more certain they will fail to stop the insurgency.

Mogadishu residents are fleeing the city en masse to take residence in makeshift refugee camps on the outskirts. Without security people can't live their day to day lives but have the freedom to make personal choices. I believe Somalis would rather be secure in their day to day lives, be able to live in their homes, be able to go out without getting caught up in violence or fear of not returning home, or having no home to return to, and be able to send their kids to school without fear of them being killed on the journey. Even if it meant they couldn't enjoy western comforts, listen to western music, or go to the cinema.

So, by trying to give the Somali people freedom, Ethiopia and the U.S. have returned them to the anarchy they have already endured far too much of. Some people are forced to leave their homes, and so not free to live where they choose, others are forced to stay indoors. Therefore security is more important than freedom, because without security there isn't much freedom, and what little there is can't be enjoyed.