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.
No comments:
Post a Comment