How do you solve a problem like Somalia?

Somalia is a large coastal country that exists in name only. The Government broke down over twenty years ago after a decade of protracted civil war and is now a series of Warlord fiefdoms and local rulerships.

Without education an entire generation is virtually illeterate, without health care life expectancy has plummeted to the mid thirties. Armed Gangs roam the countryside, pirates haunt the seaways, radicalism is growing apace and the whole show could easily spill over into neighbouring states which are non to secure themselves.

This is a thread dealing with the underlying problems of the country, not any individual symptom, although the piracy has marked the intrusion from private grief into the International Conciousness and prompted the dispatch of Naval task forces from around the world. Indeed here and here alone we see the PLAN, Russian and NATO navies operating in neutral territory and each applying their own strategies to the day to day problems.

None of this though seems to address the underlying problem of a crisis that the International Community is finally waking up to realise has been left to fester far too long.

So to kick off, what can be done to start reversing this situation and who are players; State or otherwise, best placed to do it?

Great Title..Let's keep it civil gents! Ok?? OK!!

I have no clue myself. None. This land has been basically lawless for some time.

In the early 90's I worked for Goodwill industries in San Diego. We have several Somalis. It seemed to me that those folks felt there country was hopeless, sad to say, that is why they had fled to the USA. Hopeless.? yes.. abject poverty, Crime. Religious and political factions. Not to mention warlords and criminal gangs. those folks had no clue and neither do I. It is a very complicated situation.

As I said the in the piracy thread, the nortwestern part of Somalia is known as Somaliland. It was a British Protectorate from the late 1800s onto independece, so it was always somewhat seperate from the rest of Somalia. In 1991 when the country disintegrated it declared independence. They got on America's good side by turning over or helping find some wanted Al Qaeda types. Now it has a parlimentary democracy that is largely clan-based, and a military that at least seems to be more professional than the rest of the factions in Somalia, armed with T-55s, BM-21s, Fiat 6614 Light APCs, various Soviet artillery pieces (And possibly other heavier equipment but that is really unknown, the Internet doesn't reliably say), and they actually seem to have a firm rank system and uniforms and the like. So they can defend themselves even from the Shaahab Islamist insurgent faction down south.



Personally I think that recognizing the independence of Somaliland would enable foreign aid to come into to at least that part of the country and help it develop further and be a staging area to get aid into the rest of the country, but more importantly it would prevent Somaliland from being sucked down by the rest of the country and even more importantly would establish a sort of block against trouble seeping out of Somalia; a Somaliand Navy could patrol the Gulf of Aden, and the military would be a good check on the Taliban-like Shahaab. It wouldn't solve the problem of Somalia, but it would help lessen and contain the problem.

Somaliland's main rival is the lesser equipped would-be breakaway republic of Puntland, which is less firmly independent from Somalia as a whole and less well equipped and developed. I do not support recognition for the Puntland seperatists.

Does the rest of Somalia recognize Somaliland as independent? If not, it may cause future problems down the road as people there may view this as yet another move by outside forces in arbitrarily divvying up land. We already have Israel and Palestine, no need for another similiar scenario.

Rather, I think the most viable and practical option would be to avoid politics and simply encourage economic development. Make an effort to police illegal dumping by other countries, help villagers by restocking depleted fishing stocks, help villagers with agricultural tech and tools. One way we are trying to dissuade the average Afghani from growing opium is buying pomegranates from them. When people have a sense of livelihood, they are less inclined to anarchy.

Make it a testing ground for nuclear weapons?

Sorry, serious now. Damn good question and one I've thought about (similar situation to Iraq, Sudan, Burma etc in the sense that you ask yourself "what is the hope for these people???". I don't have a clue. The US withdrawal, humiliation even, tells us all we nee to know: Somalia isn't worth the major power's bother.

As for piracy, I don't think the military solution has any weight whatsoever.

Are anyone of you capable of bring in rain? You can't really maintain an organised society without a reliable supply of food and water.

Stabilize Somalia would mean allowing it to develop, wich requires it to stabilize. There the problems start already. I think in this advanced stage outside input is required, in this case also some kind of force to assert certain basic rules.
A stable pole would be a good point to start. So I support Finn's idea of helping Somaliland to prosper and develop. In the same way a few improvements in Kenya in that direction would also help. These poles can then eradiate into Puntland and southern Somalia. Maybe some basic trade can emerge and an example for people how to improve their lives. But that has to be backed up by (local) security forces, who themeselves most probably need outside help, to secure the gains.
This is a very long lasting progress that would have to move throughout Somalia.
The problem of providing water for drinking, health care and agricaulture is an important one. Then again there are two rain periods and dry periods in between. I believe if serious efforts are made, there can be a lot more water stowed then is now the case. I guess right now nobody cares at all.

The best that's ever possibly going to happen is by chance a pragmatic dictator arises that takes over the entire country and then he or she wishes to raise the standard of living of his or her people and then some major power is there to assist. Why is that? Because the international community in itself has competing and conflicting ideologies on how to deal with any poor country. The West doesn't like China's way, even though it has raised the standard of living on average on the Sub-Saharan African continent. Which is in part trading resources for building infrastructure, a key in economic growth. But many criticize because it rewards non-democratic countries. In other words, only countries that follow Western values should be rewarded. Then a country like China isn't going to support the West because their way usually means establishing a government that most likely won't be politically friendly or even neutral.

Really the whole Somaliland independence thing is a relic of colonialism. You have Somali militia illegally crossing into neighboring countries already. Is Somaliland not going to have the same problems if not more so since the Somali people will see their own country split watching foreigners give privilege to some over over others? And not to mention that is a key strategic choke point. A little self-interest might not be involved here? Seems like that's continuing on the same path of where they are now.

As controversial and unusual as it sounds, I think we need to support a dictator in Somalia. But not a dictator aligned with Ethiopia or the warlords, as they've proven that they can't even govern their small plots of land. The instances of rape, extortion, bribery, excess tolls, random murders, and looting are prevalent in those areas -- committed by the warlords' own men!

As much as I hate to say it, the Islamic fundamentalists seem to be a lot more competent at leading the country, despite their strict views on issues like music, entertainment, extreme punishment, etc... . It's no wonder that businesses and the general populace were actually cheering when the ICU (Islamic Courts Union) rolled into Mogadishu in 2006 and implemented sharia law. Business picked up again due to the dissipation of fear of having to pay bribes or being looted, ports and airports that were closed off for years were reopened, and pirate bases were even shut down. People actually felt safe and secure, knowing that if you committed a crime, you'd probably get stoned to death.

Would that be an ideal situation? No, but any semblance of viable political and economic institutions, even fundamentalist Islamic, is better than having no state at all since the early 1990s. It's an utter disgrace, honestly.

ccL1 said:

Would that be an ideal situation? No, but any semblance of viable political and economic institutions, even fundamentalist Islamic, is better than having no state at all since the early 1990s. It's an utter disgrace, honestly.

Click to expand...

Well that's pretty much the exact same thing that happened in Afghanistan in the 90s. The Taliban took over and were cheered because they were better than the warlords they defeated, but the people quickly grew tired of their oppressive rule and they allowed Afghanistan to be a base for international terrorists. For that reason, the United States will never allow Muslim extremists to take over Somalia. Never. We saw what happened to the ICU. The US will do it again. To the US government, preventing Somalia from being a terrorist haven is far more important than reducing the people's suffering. That's just the unfortunate facts of the situation.

And with regards to recognizing Somaliland, I realize that it might anger the rest of Somalia and the country would have problems. In most circumstances I would not support that sort of thing. But I think that in this terrible situation there simply aren't many options and recognizing Somaliland would be a way of at least doing something, even with the above-mentioned downsides.