Somalia and aid relief: A case for non-state armed intervention

With most of Somalia's nine million residents on the brink of starvation, it boggles the mind that some nefarious characters would seek to gain from the sufferings of others.

Yet that's exactly what the radical Islamist group al-Shabaab is doing. While pundits argue the roots of the crises -- be it the heating of the atmosphere above the Horn of Africa due to global warming, residual internecine conflict or what have you -- al-Shabaab is making a bad situation even worse.

Thrown from power by the 2006 Ethiopian military incursion into Somalia, al-Shabaab still retains a solid grasp of Southern Somalia. Resisting National Federal Government (NFG) and African Union attempts to unite the country under Federal authority, "Africa's Taliban" use brutal tactics in an attempt to bring the nation under the rule of Islamic Sharia law.  

And despite recent threats directed at the World Food Program (WFP) and Western NGOs (and the killing of 42 relief workers between 2008 and 2009) al-Shabaab has suddenly changed its tune.

Operating primarily out of a need for self-preservation, the rebel movement has agreed to allow the WFP to distribute aid supplies within territory under its control. But the deal is not without its detractors. “Local analysts in Somalia said al-Shabaab lifted the ban on foreign aid organizations to generate money to fund their war effort, by charging those groups a registration fee.”

And it wouldn't be the first time al-Shabaab resorted to shameful tactics in a bid to fill their war chests. In the town of Merca, "the Shabaab decreed that gold and silver dental fillings were un-Islamic, and dispatched patrols to yank them out of people's mouths." My guess is that they ended up sending the fillings to Dollars for Gold.

Perhaps NGOs bribing their way into Somalia is better than shooting their way in (as the US did in 1993 during their UNOSOM missions). But what if al-Shabaab doesn't allow the WFP in? What then?

Somalia, effectively a failed state, has had little if any governance outside the capital, Mogadishu. Despite US efforts to prop up the NFG, lawlessness still rules the day. The area is extremely hostile to soft-targets like NGOs, and as with any NGO involvement in conflict zones, is subject to the approval of local warlords and corrupt officials.

Most murderous regimes are extremely suspicious of external influences. As was the case of Burma after it was hit in 2008 by Cyclone Nargis, such entities allow their people to experience extraordinary suffering before they are willing to allow foreigners to assist. Even then, access is restricted.

As WFP aid pours into Somalia and the situation stabilizes (or the rains come), it is likely al-Shabaab will order the expulsion of the WFP and its accompanying NGOs. With the region's populations still subject to conflict and famine, such organizations have little in the way of recourse. It is unlikely that the UN will put boots on the ground to protect continuous aid delivery efforts, as most Western nations have little appetite for another Somali escapade.

But not acting is also not an option, at least not one that any self-respecting modern society should entertain. While it's certain that the Somalis as a corporate body have burned many bridges in the past, that shouldn't exclude the world body from turning a blind eye to their suffering.

Despite previous efforts by the world community (mostly the US) to bring stability to the region, the population of the Horn of Africa is seemingly in a perpetual state of suffering. Seeing that this is the worst famine in 60 years, estimates are that as many as 15 million people are at risk of starvation across the region. Weakened refugees from Somalia and Ethiopia stream across the Northern Kenyan border in the hopes of reaching the aid camps located there. Overflowing to capacity, aid agencies like CARE struggle to provide what little they can to the starving and malnourished masses.

But mass migration is not always an option. Often the calamity overtakes a population too rapidly. Weakened by malnutrition, many die just from the journey. Then there's the possibility that neighbouring countries may close their borders, or simply may not have the resources to deal with the situation.

In these cases there are two options. If there is a resemblance of governance in the affected county, then all peaceful means of intervention should be exhausted. However, in those cases where a government is belligerent and unsympathetic towards its own populace -- or is systematically harming them -- then something must be done.

The face of aid relief to come?

The problem of course is what to do. The list of state actors and international bodies to deal with these contingencies are many, however more often than not they are too slow to act, or in the case of Rwanda in 1993, are simply unwilling to.

And I truly believe that protecting aid camps, guarding aid relief convoys and ensuring the safe delivery of aid is not the same as sending in the B-52s to carpet bomb a city back to the stone age. And such protection need not be undertaken by a nation state or even sanctioned by them – although UN vetting such actions would help.

The use of “private contractors” (as the US government puts it) has been extensive in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Mercenaries by any other name, there is an increasing use of private security personal to fulfil duties, like protection of VIPs, that the military has no interest in doing. In fact, such personale are already operating off the coast of Somalia

Due to the surge in hijackings of commercial shipping by Somali pirates, companies have been equipping ships with security details – ex-military types with AK-47s, in an attempt to stave of these attacks. According to the UN, “In the past 12 months alone there have been 286 piracy-related incidents off the coast of Somalia. They have resulted in 67 hijacked ships, with 1130 seafarers on board – whilst, at present, 714 seafarers are being held for ransom”. While historically contrary to International law (which states that civilian vessels must be unarmed), the practice of putting armed guards aboard is now vetted by the UN.

And this policy is working. Apparently not one ship with armed guards has been successfully hijacked. While some fear an escalation of violence, it's clear that armed guards are doing something that an international coalition with all its warships and firepower failed to do – that is to ensure the safe conduct of goods through the midst of a hostile environment.

And while I realize that NGOs currently rely on their neutrality in order to access conflict zones, neutrality is not always enough. If al-Shabaab changes its mind and refuses the WFP entry, only the fittest Somali (those with guns) --  will survive.

And like the situation with maritime shipping off the coast of Somalia, the use of private security forces in the distribution of aid would fall into a moral and legal grey zone, that is until the concept is proven successful. And unlike an international military expedition, private contractors are not subject to political haggling and indecision, have the training and the fortitude to deal with conflict, and could ensure (regardless of the hostile opposition) the distribution of aid and the protection of aid distribution facilities.

Of course there is always the issue of who can afford to hire these folks, as well as to whom they are accountable. Blackwater contractors unlawfully gunning down innocent Iraqis led to a massive backlash against such activities, but it is unlikely that a similar situation would result if contractors were involved in the protection of NGOs delivering aid. The intimate relationship that would exist between an NGO and its accompanying security detail would make a Blackwater type scenario extremely unlikely, if only because the NGO wouldn't stand for it.

But there's also the issue of mission creep, as with the US escalation of force in 1993 when the aid delivery mission in Somali turned into a hunt for rebel leader Mohammed Farrah Aidid (remember Black Hawk Down?).

However the rules regarding use of force by such contractors would be extremely specific, as with the protection teams onboard ships. Just as banks employ armed guards to escort their money around, these contractors would escort NGO personale with their precious cargoes of food, water and medicine.

Considering that human life is more important than shipping containers full of sweatshop made Nike running shoes or dollar store trinkets, I'm sure we can all agree that humankind's right to food and water is of the utmost priority.

Global warming and Canada's complicity

I've never really been much of an environmentalist. Growing up, my parents instilled in me some basic principles of conservation: things like recycling, not littering, and re-wearing the same clothes over and over until they stank or spontaneously biodegraded on my body (to avoid excess water consumption washing them I suppose) 

But one thing that always struck me about the environmental movement was the passion of the activists. My personal favourite are the new wave of Greenpeace folks who race around in their James Bond-esque speedboats in an attempt to interfere with the fishing efforts of those always chipper Japanese whaling crews.

The two sides exchange water cannon barrages, toss flash-bang grenades at each other, and follow the whole thing up with some nonsensical rambling over the bullhorn.

Perhaps I just never understood how people could get so worked up over a few clubbed seals or the cutting down of a couple hundred acres of forest. My understanding was that nature in all its massiveness would quickly replenish what was taken from it – no hurt, no foul.

But lately I can't help but feel that Canada's wilderness, with its incredibly varied and pristine ecosystems, seems to be feeling the sharp end of humanity's consumptionsickle (yes, like creamsicle only sharper and with more consumption)

Now don't get me wrong. I love the idea of a resource that took millions of years to come into existence being harvested in a twenty-year frenzy of drilling, pumping, scouring and digging. In fact, we should give ourselves a gold star for such efficient results.

If anything we should be kicking ourselves for not exhausting our resources faster. With worldwide appetite for carbon based fuels and rare earth elements at an all time high, surely now is the time to cash in. Combined with geopolitical instability in the Middle East and South East Asia where oil resources are capable of being held hostage by unfriendly regimes, nations are looking elsewhere to secure more reliable sources for their energy needs.

And Canada is only all too willing to prostitute itself. Between the Alberta oil sands and the planned exploitation of thawing Arctic waters, Canada has a unique opportunity to not only benefit from the effects of global warming, but to significantly contribute to the problem as well.

And if there is anything we Canadians do well, it's digging big holes. Apparently 20% of the oil locked in Alberta's 141,000 square kilometers of oil sands is recoverable through open pit mining -- that's a piece of real estate the size of the country of Haiti or Albania.

While most other countries battle genuine terra firma issues -- things like shrinking useable land due to population density issues or the reduction of arabal land for crop production -- Canada is busy turning tracts of earth the size of countries into toxic sludgepits.

Adding insult to injury, when the oil companies are finally finished their short lived Alberta misadventure they won't be replacing the boreal forests and muskeg destroyed in the process of extruding the oil (they will however sod it for you).

Not too far from my home sits an example of just such a useless piece of land. Closed in 1979, the Marmora open pit mine removed 1.5 Million tons of ore during its relatively short 24-year run, or enough to build 21 Nimitz-sized aircraft carriers.

The pit itself covers an area of 75 acres, and due to rainfall and underground springs the 600-foot deep pit has become a massive man-made (unswimmable) lake. Due to the mining efforts carried out there (as well as those of other local mines in the area) the wetlands of the region have been turned into heavily fortified no-go zones -- the soil heavily contaminated with runoff waste and mining by-products. Surrounded by a 10-foot tall barbed wire fence, the area is completely uninhabitable and is likely to stay that way for generations to come.

Comparatively speaking, the long term damage to the environment from the Marmora Mine surpasses even the nuclear destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which were quickly rebuilt and thrive today (despite higher rates of cancer and birth defects). Today both cities bear little evidence of the atom bombs, save that of a few war related memorials.

But the effects of mining are much worse. No amount of landscaping is going to bring back the natural beauty of the countryside with its forests and ecosystems. And it is also certain that these toxic, heavily compacted tracts of land will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years to come.

Not that Britain's richest man should give a hoot about that. To the ignorance of most Canadians, billionaire steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal is volunteering Nunavut -- Canada's Northernmost territory -- as his next mining experiment. Toting the massive infrastructure and labour benefits that his mine would bring to the local Inuit, Mittal is gambling on the assumption that given enough economic incentive, local and federal governments will bow to his plan.

And it will be his way or the highway, literally. Mittal's plan is to build a 150 km railway from the mine to not one, but two ports (which he will build). Not only this, but he'll need “to build 24 bridges, stretches of road, warehouses, fuel depots, landfills and an airstrip.” Phew. Oh, and he needs to open a few more mines just to extract enough ore to build everything he's got in mind.

Given that the Arctic is one of the few areas relatively untouched by human destruction, you figure its protection would be of vital importance to citizens and governments alike, right? You might even go so far as to expect the Feds to take up arms to defend it. Well, that's what's happening – kind of. Except that it's not the walruses, polar bears or permafrost getting the bodyguard treatment.

No, it is the humans. In particular, the humans who will be pumping the gas and oil out of the thawed ice flows. Locked in a bitter struggle over territorial borders, those nations ringing the Arctic Ocean (Norway, Russia, US and Canada) are attempting to work out the best possible settlement for their respective countries in regard to the region's massive carbon deposits.

Despite the global warming klaxon sounding regarding the futility and foolishness of pursuing a carbon based energy policy, these nations see only lost revenue generating opportunities. Like an addict desperate for the next high, these governments are desperate to be seen capitalizing on the massive natural wealth hidden beneath the sea floor, even if it means polluting pristine ecosystems or going to war over it. Which may happen.

Canada's fumbling response to the warming of the Arctic was to initiate an ice breaker ship building program (which is yet to see the light of day), recommended building an Arctic forward operating base to keep an eye on all the hypothetical shipping traffic, and rearmed the only actual Canadian presence in the North – a handful of Canadian Rangers – with new boots.

Russia on the other hand resumed long-range bomber patrols over the arctic, planted a flag 14,000 feet down on the ocean floor, and celebrated the whole thing by firing a bunch of missiles from a nuclear missile submarine.

What worries me is the attitude of all those parties involved, including Canada, regarding this newfound “Arctic soveriengty”. Nobody cared about the place when it was covered with ice and snow, but with the possibility of accessing all that valuable "black gold", suddenly the Arctic is everyone's concern.

It is possibly this banter between countries is just a case of harmless sabre rattling -- but I doubt it. What boggles the mind is that our supposedly modern liberal democracies are using militaristic rhetoric to defend an industry which is (at least in the West) primarily a private enterprise. This sets a dangerous precedent regarding the narrative of international relations, especially considering the primary actors -- Russia and the US -- have a history of using force in order to obtain natural resources and resolve territorial disputes.

Given the dwindling supplies of fresh water and arable land worldwide, it seems trivial to threaten war over something as silly as oil. Then again, the global economy would falter without it. With no viable fuel alternative, oil sands pundits like Paul Michael Wihbey are preaching the idiocy of not exploiting the few remaining fossil fuel reserves.

What is most confounding is while everyone is fully aware of the effects of global warming, the exhausting of the carbon based fuel supplies, and the global conflicts that will inevitably result – few nations are going "balls to the wall" trying to solve the problem.

Countries like America will declare war on drugs and terrorism (both impossible to achieve goals) coughing up trillions of dollars in the process, yet somehow find it distasteful to deal with what is quite certainly the two biggest threats facing humanity today – the effects of global warming, and the exhaustion of carbon based fuels. It's almost enough to turn me into an activist.