Written by Sam Urquhart
Somalia
is the forgotten front in the “War on Terror.” Americans are rarely
told anything about what goes on there, who the actors are and, more
importantly, the reasons behind conflict in the Horn of Africa. Hence
it is not surprising that there has been no concerted activist
challenge to U.S. support for Ethiopia’s war in Somalia, but such a
challenge is urgently required.
Last month, Human Rights Watch released a
report
which clearly set out how badly the recent war in Somalia has failed
its people and what tragedy it has become. Entitled “Shell Shocked:
Civilians Under Siege in Mogadishu,” the report argues persuasively
that Ethiopia’s December 2006 invasion of Somalia has “generated a
human rights and humanitarian crisis on a scale not seen since the
early 1990s.” That is, in a country that has seen near constant
inter-clan fighting for sixteen years.
Thousands
of civilians have been killed in battles between Ethiopian forces and
the insurgency that their presence has provoked. As
HRW
notes, in two major battles in Mogadishu (in March and April 2007),
“The Ethiopian forces also appeared to conduct deliberate attacks on
civilians,” while the puppet transitional government, which they are
propping up, “totally failed to give warnings of offensives, pillaged
property and interfered with humanitarian assistance, launched campaign
of mass arrests and mistreated those they captured.”
Between
March 29 and April 1, Ethiopian forces targeted the neighborhoods of
Casa Populare, Towfiq and Ali Kamin in the Somali capital, attacks
which led to a “devastating” impact on civilians, over 400 of whom were
reported killed. Then, from 18 April to 26 April, the Ethiopians
attacked again – this time in the northeast section of Mogadishu, and
with similar brutality.
HRW suggests that
300 died in this round of fighting, although numbers are necessarily
approximate. Nobody is counting Somali bodies.
Along
with the tragedy of civilian deaths, moreover, these attacks uprooted
thousands of residents, forcing them into an exodus to makeshift camps
outside Mogadishu. The transitional government has not just ignored
those refugees, it has actively thwarted attempts by aid agencies to
reach them and to treat children suffering from disease and
malnutrition. Meanwhile, the Ethiopian offensives targeted crucial
infrastructure which could mitigate civilian suffering. As the report
relates, “[the Ethiopian forces] appeared to conduct deliberate attacks
on civilians, particularly attacks on hospitals,” while they
systematically looted medical supplies for their own purposes.
The
report also hints at the daily reality of occupation, noting a pattern
of carnage in which insurgents strike Ethiopian or government targets.
This then sparks a military (and brutal) response from the occupiers,
which ignites popular resistance still further. Until its occupation
unravels, however, Ethiopia will continue to inflict “sustained rocket
bombardment and shelling of entire neighborhoods” as reprisals for
popular resistance.
These are abuses which amount, in the words of Human Rights Watch, to war crimes.
HRW
also applied the designation to “all parties” – including the
insurgency which its researchers accuse of “deploying…[in] densely
populated civilian areas” while “possibly used civilians to
purposefully shield themselves from attack.” These are shameful acts,
but also not unexpected from people trying to defend both their country
and their homes from outside attack.
To
its credit, the report singles out the occupier for its sharpest
accusations, but it also makes another telling accusation. The war
crimes being perpetrated in Somalia, it charges, “have been met with a
shameful silence and inaction on the part of key foreign governments
and international institutions.” Governments around the world have been
silent or, worse, complicit in Ethiopia’s sub-imperial atrocities.
Complicity City
Complicity
is not too strong a word. In fact, the Bush administration has been
overseeing Somalian affairs since at least early 2006. In June 2006, a
coalition of warlords sought to enter and take Mogadishu – causing a
series of battles in which hundreds died. As it turned out, and popular
rumor is backed up by the majority of regional analysts, the so-called
Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism was cobbled
together by the
CIA and Ethiopia.
When
that failed, rumors began emerging from Uganda and Baidoa, the only
city controlled by the transitional government of Somalia. The Observer
reported in summer 2006 that after the
APCRT
debacle, private military firms based in Virginia had been linking up
the Ugandan government with Addis Ababa and the TG for a renewed
assault on Mogadishu, which was by then controlled by the Islamic
Courts Union. Letters from the employees of Select Armor and
ATS
Tactical discussed how their forces could avoid “another Dien Bien Phu”
in Somalia. This presumably meant how they could draw the forces of the
ICU into open confrontation without losing their supply lines, as the French did in Indochina.
By
now, several hundred Ethiopian troops were in Baidoa, protecting the
TG, and the presence of these forces – compounded by a baffling UN
report which attempted to link the Islamic Courts with Hezbollah and
Iranian uranium deals – meant that peace talks floundered. The Courts
would not negotiate with the TG while it was a tool of the Ethiopians.
Meanwhile, with the collapse of the
CIA
backed warlords and the strategic retreat of the TG to Baidoa, the
Islamic Courts were free to expand into other areas of Somalia, such as
the southern port of Kismayo, which they captured easily, yet by
expanding they gave the impression of launching a military conquest.
This allowed Ethiopian president Meles Zenawi to pose as threatened by
the Courts, which he duly did, using the language of Muslim-Christian
conflict to arouse American support.
But
the November 2006 UN report on the arms embargo on Somalia proved the
final nail in the Islamist coffin. It was this report, more than
anything else, which doomed the Courts to becoming another front in the
War on Terror and another one launched under cover of a blitzkrieg of
lies.
The
report was packed with exotic fabrications, with the transparent
intention of priming Somalia for a UN approved attack. For instance,
its compilers presented “evidence” that 700 Somalis had travelled to
Hezbollah in 2006 to fight against Israel. This was obvious nonsense.
As Andrew McGregor of the Jamestown Foundation
noted
, “With an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 trained fighters in the
ICU,
the decision to send fighters to Lebanon would have stripped the Somali
Islamists of nearly a third of their best men.” Moreover, while
“Hezbollah did not even commit its reserves during the fighting with
Israel…according to the report, Hezbollah shipped arms, which it needed
in the middle of a war, to Somalia in exchange for foreign fighters
that it did not need.”
The
prospect beggars, and beggared belief, but that did not stop major
media outlets reporting it seriously, without consulting an expert like
McGregor. The Washington Post
reported
that “Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt and the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon
are providing arms, training and financing to Islamic militants as they
seize political and military control in the East African state of
Somalia.” Reuters
reported
the UN document as arguing that “A web of nations and armed groups are
fuelling Somalia’s march to war…[while it painted] the most
comprehensive picture yet of disparate foreign interests hardening into
alliances with Somalia’s interim government and its powerful Islamist
rivals.”
A
week after the report was leaked to Reuters, and while the UN Security
Council was debating its contents, then U.S. ambassador to the UN John
Bolton
summed up
the U.S. position, stating that “we have looked at the situation in
Somalia, and I think there’s pretty general agreement that we need to
do something as opposed to just watching the situation deteriorate.”
A
few days later, the U.S. submitted a resolution to the Security Council
that would have massive repercussions (and would also be very poorly
reported). As Bolton
told reporters
, the resolution sought to “[endorse] the efforts of
IGAD
(Intergovernmental Authority on Development) states and the African
Union to deploy a peacekeeping force in Somalia and support a partial
lifting of the arms embargo for the purpose of assisting the force and
associated training,” That is, it managed to lift the arms embargo on
Somalia selectively to endorse a gathering Ethiopian invasion of the
country and to empower one faction of warlords against the rest.
With
this resolution now rubber-stamping an act of aggression against the
Islamic Courts, in favor of the Transitional Government, the Ethiopians
then sought a casus belli as soon as possible. As Islamic Courts
fighters advanced on Baidoa in December 2006, they fell into the “Dien
Bien Phu” trap, which came off perfectly, ending with the rout of the
Courts’ forces as Ethiopian and TG troops marched into Mogadishu. But
this only began the tragedy of Mogadishu, and the criminal occupation,
again – an occupation founded on a lie.
Written by Sam Urquhart