Truthfully I do feel that other nations have a responsibility to intervene in Somalia. Conditions there are deplorable and they need a working government. Also civilized nations cannot allow a broken barbarian land to threaten their security. http://kenopalo.com/ This link is to an African based blog highlighting an incident of Somali guerillas making a terror raid on the capital of neighboring Kenya 1 month ago.
A failed state like Somalia should be reduced to a size that can actually form a cohesive government, and the remaining territory should be absorbed by its neighbors. But this must be done carefully or it is a recipe for further disaster. If the neighboring countries are competing for land against each other, or are not capable of administering their new holdings effectively then it will surely end in more rebellions and war. http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/oct/21/nairobi-westgate-shopping-mall-soldiers-cctv-video This is a video posted on The Guardian today in which the Kenyan soldiers fighting the guerilla raiders from the last article are seen looting a store in their own capital. This calls into question the capabilities and resolve of they Kenyans and highlights the danger of simply allowing them to take power.
The international community must step forward in this case and carefully negotiate and mediate the territorial disputes, and then enforce peace in the new boundaries. If this means involving UN or US peacekeeping forces because the locals lack the training than it will be a worthy task for them. They must come as peacekeepers upholding legitimate governments, though not as conquerors.
The situation is certainly urgent however. The Nairobi attack was far from an isolated incident. Throughout Somalia fighting and terror continue. Just 2 days ago there was another bombing in Beledweyne, Somalia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24595012 With violence and death ongoing, an international call to action is needed.
International intervention in Somalia would hold great risks for the actors involved. There are many issues with international intervention including monetary risks, human life costs, and the question of who bears the brunt of the responsibility. Somalia has been a failed state for 22 years, this is not a new issue. The UN has attempted humanitarian intervention on two accounts with UNOSOM I and II (think: Black Hawk Down). These attempts failed. I agree, it is an urgent and dire matter, but it is an example of a state in which is far beyond aid or intervention from outside- rather it must come from within. This will simply only happen with time.
ReplyDeleteThe current crisis in Somalia is under great and violent danger. I do believe something should be done but I do not believe it would be wise for the U.S to be involved in the intervention. Their are so many other failed states just like Somalia who are experiencing corruption and violence, but I do not believe that the U.S should always be the "world police." We must take care of our own business in the U.S before we go to another country to assist them. As we discussed in class, there has been a strong interest in the UN when it comes to responsibility to protect. The UN should focus on a humanitarian effort, but when it comes to the U.S we must focus on protecting our own citizens and individuals before we intervene elsewhere. Right now I do not believe it would be wise for the U.S to take the monetary or risking soldiers lives in a country who has experienced violence for many years. The U.S should sit out on this intervention in Somalia, and let another country take care of business there.
ReplyDeleteIs size contingent upon success? Greece is a relatively small state, with deplorably economic and political issues. Currently at the mercy of the European Union, Greece will continue to dwindle until government reform is readily established...but we're not about to break up Greece and pass it around the European Union because their form of "problem solving" seems to be ineffective. Some of the same issues arise with places such as the Isreal-Palestine dispute...the argument over who rightfully deserves to keep the designated "religious" land and ideological differences of their separate cultures make living situations hostile. Cooperative relations are strained regionally and abroad and often involve countries wishing to do trade or negotiations. Those are not necessarily the same case as Somalia, yet somewhat similar in core issues. Dissolving an established nation state would plague the already volatile Africa with even MORE refugees, more cultural spats because of tribal in differences. Who would take in the responsibility of those Somalian citizens? A country already in the "red" might refuse to give aid to its neighbor because it would rather serve those that were already born and raised within the confines of their borders opposed to strangers.
ReplyDeleteA so called "cohesive government" you speak of depends on not size, but effort, resources (and without resources aid), public support, and of course collective action. I wouldn't agree that the US should dance in and mediate. We're already "mediating" in the Middle East, mediating Syria, watching North Korea and the South Pacific Asian islands, ensuring Putin doesn't get out of hand...the list goes on and on. A situation may be urgent, may be dire....but not long ago Turkey was embroiled in a similar debacle, Thailand and the Philippians experience domestic terror situations at the cost of its civilians. So are we to impede on a nation that is trying to re-establish or change its regime and state territory?
I'm not sure if I see a way for any nations or the UN to stabilize Somalia with intervention. The main problem causing violence to happen within the country has been economically based and politically fueled. Violence will continue until the nation wide poverty is reduced, which requires that the population have access to sustainable jobs. Civil strife and piracy have been rampant in Somalia because many within the population have no other option but to resort to illegal means to obtain capital. How would an intervention into the country fix this? The problem is that it wouldn't solve any economic problems. There is no single opposition force to put down. There are many groups fighting for resources in the state and for causes across borders. These violent episodes will only be solved when the government of Somalia seriously tackles its problems with economic and political reform.
ReplyDeleteGreat write up Kaibab! I disagree however with the interventionist solutions to the problems in Somalia. I certainly think there would be problems with US intervention in Somalia as it is a hub of African extremism and drug trade, as well as a host of other illegal activities. The US and its allies would need to systematically dismantle corrupt regimes as well as deal with a possible insurgency or rebel force that would emerge to oppose our intervention. I also find problems with dividing a country to make it more manageable, that is a huge breach of national sovereignty. I'm not saying there are a lot of great solutions on the table, but I don't feel like these are necessarily the right ones.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the blog post that Somalia is in desperate need of reform and international assistance. But is that really possible? There has been previous attempts that have been very costly for states that have intervened and I can see how that would cause states to be hesitant states to intervene again. Carving up the country is a tactic to stabilize the country is an approach that I have not heard before. It seems like a good idea, but do the states that surround Somalia have the capability to support more territory that is extremely violent and unstable? And if, say the United States, were to provide assistance in this, would these African states be willing to give up sovereignty to support this new territory?
ReplyDeleteAs has been stated before, foreign intervention or "assistance" would not be a useful or productive method of establishing peace and security in Somalia. I personally believe that if there is no threat of the Somalian rebels acquiring or producing nuclear weapons then the United States has no legitimate right to intervene and meddle in their affairs. I would be willing to buy the argument of the necessity of foreign intervention if international security as a whole were at stake. However, given the current situation, no country has the authority to forcefully reinstate and establish a government in the area.
ReplyDeleteThere certainly should be some assistance sent to Somalia, even though there are many risks to be involved and that should be considered. Somalia has been in need of assistance for a long time and the UN has attempted to provide assistance with no prevail. This is something that needs to be addressed quickly and swiftly, but i don't see that happening. This is an example of a state in need of assistance from within and from people who know the system backwards and forwards.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Somalia needs assistance, however I disagree that the US needs to get involved. Just as Jerica said, the US should not be "the world police". Somalia is experiencing very complex economic, political and cultural changes that cannot be fixed easily, and the international community needs to act all together. Unfortunately Somalia does not represent a very strategically or economically important region, that would spur interest of world powers.
ReplyDeleteThe situation in Somalia is currently too complicated to stage an effective intervention, yet an intervention will eventually be necessary. Currently, the United States is one of the few powers with the ability to make a difference in the Somalian conflict, but there is such a lack of support for military engagement that a strike would be politically poisonous. In theory, Somalia could be absorbed by the surrounding countries, but that requires the neighboring nations to be willing to accept the risk of partisan violence, which is highly unlikely.Ultimately, the United States should be the power to intervene in Somalia because, more so than other nations, the United States is capable of instilling democracy in a region previously considered hostile towards the west.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but I'm unsure if diffusing territories to bordering nations will possibly lead to regional stability. Instead, even done carefully it might not work effectively because having the international community divide and reestablish regions within Somalia, might not be effective if other states do not accept the conditions under the reorganization of the region. As stated in Werner and Yuen, making and keeping peace is determined by both long run and short run perceptions of equity and power. Thus, one state within the region may feel they were unfairly given a region that didn't contain an equivalent amount of resources, or possibly better yet, one state may receive a region that is has a greater chance of instability then another region. As a result, this would increase the cost of security and stability within the state or even decrease relations between bordering states. Therefore, although international intervention could be a possible solution, it might lead to long run disputes and tension if areas prove to have greater costs or benefits in comparison to other territories.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe something should be done to help stabilize Somalia, I think it's far from recoverable and therefor the best option is for no one to intervene. Having the United States or UN intervene would result in human casualties and a lot of money which is something we cannot afford. I also don't believe that redrawing territorial lines would benefit the conflict either. This would cause greater unrest and instability in my opinion. The United States and UN have attempted to fix problems like these in the past and failed miserably. With all the problem of its own, the United States needs to fix its issues and stop worrying about fixing other state's problems.
ReplyDeleteThird party intervention in Somalia is unlikely to be effective. An intervention would require a long term commitment which would prove to be extremely costly and most likely not in the third party's interests. As Rebecca said above, change needs to come from within Somalia. If an intervening country were to try and force a system upon Somalia, it is very doubtful that it would be widely accepted or influential. Look at the U.S. intervention in the Middle East, for example. For now, the international community needs to focus on limiting the Somali conflict to its own borders.
ReplyDeleteI agree that given the continued violence in the area and the fact that this attack was not an isolated incident, international intervention is in the best interest of the civilians and innocent people in Somalia and Kenya. However, I also agree with the comments here that do not think this action needs to be a sole effort of the United States. The most important thing for now is to ensure that violence does not transcend borders and threaten the sovereignty of neighboring countries. It is clear that this is a complicated and messy situation that has no obvious solution, but something like a UN peacekeeping force to suppress rebel groups from attacking targets outside of Somalia seems like a logical approach.
ReplyDeleteI think that even though it might make better strategic sense to intervene in some way in Somalia and prevent instability in the region, I believe the US public has (at least for now) lost its appetite for international conflict. We just recently ended combat operations in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan is continuing, some 13 years later. It would be almost hard to imagine the US placing itself in the middle of another international conflict. I think public opinion over the question of Syrian intervention clearly demonstrated this non-interventionist sentiment, even with civilians in harm's way. One solution could be an international coalition leading the charge into Somalia with the US taking a supporting role. However, as things usually go, it would most likely be the US who would be expected to take a leading role.
ReplyDeletein situations like this I believe a country needs to be able to handle internal conflict within itself. It is the only way that they will be able to successfully move on from the issues and form a new government that will be able to work functionally and not cause more issues
ReplyDelete