This week in class we are discussing civil war and its relevancy for war, peace, and strategic defense. I thought a good and proper topic to bring up is the issue of Somalia. Somalia has long been a "country" of severe turmoil and has been the topic of heated debate in many aspects particularly those regarding state sovereignty and the definition of a failed state. So where does the line between state sovereignty end and other state's interests begin? According to Merriam-Webster, sovereignty is defined as a country's independent authority and right to govern oneself. Unfortunately for Somalia, civil war, genocide, and a complete and utter lack of economic activity has left this nation without a central government. This has given rise to numerous issues, the most famous of which being the Somali pirates. These pirates have for years been attacking unarmed vessels located in international waters creating issues of jurisdiction and prosecution/counter-piracy measures.
Along with piracy, Somalia is now becoming a hotbed for terrorist activities. The recent hostage crisis in Kenya leaving at least 67 people dead on 21 September 2013 has left the international community feeling frustrated, distraught, and down right angry. Recently, the US launched a raid in Somalia in an attempt to capture a HVT (High Value Target) associated with the Kenya hostage crisis. Though the US navy seals were unsuccessful, what is important here is the issue of whether or not a country like the US should be deploying troops into another country's borders without any declaration of war or diplomatic discussions. The counter-argument can of course be raised that Somalia has no diplomats with whom to speak with which therefore leaves only military action as a suitable means of resolving such threats. Indeed, in a globalizing world where countries are becoming more and more intertwined with one another, the line needs to be drawn where a state's sovereignty stops and the international community's best interests begin, starting with Somalia.
This is a really interesting post and I do believe that there is controversy between the US getting involved versus Somalia just working out its own issues. BUT, with that being said, although Somalia does not have currently a strong central government, the pirates of Somalia are threatening the global security of the rest of the world. At what point does a country's civil war start to have adverse affects on the international system? I think stepping in to help Somalia would be the wrong motivation, but stepping in to help secure the American people would be the right motivation. Also, I think that the Kenya mall attack suspects are still on the outs, but a few of them were reported to have been American. So with that being said, whether this rumor is true or not, America should get involved and investigate whether its citizens loyalty is being compromised or whether this was just a random isolated incident.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there tends to be controversy with the United States getting involved in any countries business when it does not effect us. I agree that the pirates of Somalia do seem to be threatening the global security of the world, so US intervention could be warranted, however, it makes me wonder why other large institutions never seem to get involved and make a difference in these types of situations. I think Somalia needs to figure things out on their own, especially if it is sovereignty that is at stake. However, some kind of action needs to take place to make sure the people of Somalia, and the people of the rest of the world, have their interests taken into account and are kept safe.
ReplyDeleteI agree that military action will probably be the only solution to a civil war state, such as Somalia, with no diplomats to work things out. I don't believe the U.S. needs police this situation, however, I understand U.S trade is being effected by the Somalian pirates so intervention isn't just a power stance. If Somalia can't figure things out for themselves, then there needs to be some international intervention to keep the well-being of surrounding states. I wonder how the rest of the world will react if the U.S. intervenes in Somalia?
ReplyDeleteIt is countries like Somalia that beg the question, do "failed states" have the same rights as a functioning state? How do we quantify whether or not a state is functioning? In a case like Somalia where the actual government barely has control of its own capital, I think it is safe to say that so called "police actions" are acceptable especially when the volatility of a country causes harm to other states.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post and I personally would defend the United States in their recent raid. As you mention, normal avenues of diplomatic interaction with Somalia are not available due to the lack of central government as a result of an awful economy and lack of order. Somalia is a prime candidate to be considered a "failed state" in the international community, and I would defend the action taken by the US to neutralize HVT's in this country because other means of diplomacy are non - existent. Furthermore, these targets not only threaten the security of the United States, but the livelihood and wellbeing of innocent civilians around the world. It is interesting to note that the United States military is preparing for a transition from the Middle East to Africa, as it has been decided that Africa has become the new hotbed for terrorism in the world. For better or worse, US involvement in Africa is likely to be a recurring theme in the years to come.
ReplyDeleteIt would be optimistic to think that the US or other countries could establish some kind of diplomatic conversation with Somalia. I think that making a state like Somalia feel legitimate and included in international relations is important in deterring feelings of resentment and deprivation in comparison with other nations. However, as everyone else has said, we might not have much choice but to pursue military action if Somalia is incapable of functioning as a stable government.
ReplyDeleteThis post brings up an interesting issue on whether or not the US is warranted to engage in issues like this that do not directly effect them. I personally feel the US is right to step in where they feel they can help. I agree with Tawny that the pirates do impose a potential security risk. I think that Somalia is so far gone that it needs all the help it can get to establish a central government. Therefore, I feel the US is right to get involved.
ReplyDeleteModern Somalia is without a doubt a failed state. If the failure of their government to police borders and mitigate terrorism is affecting international security, then an outside force should, and will, take action. The idea of state sovereignty, which in this case is non-existent, should not impede international anti terrorism efforts. The spread of terrorism and growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Africa is a concern for international security-not just American security. Therefore, it should have international attention and preventative efforts.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I do not think it is necessary for our military to declare any sort of war or declaration on another state when sending quick response type teams into their boarders if the HVT is not a member of their society or governing power. If this were the case than terrorists and HVTs would be able to hide out and move from country to country attempting to both avoid capture and ensure the perusing state, in this case the US, would declare war on many states or unnecessarily establish sanctions on that state. We see a great example of this in regards to operation Neptune Spear (the kill/capture mission of Osama Bin Laden) where the US Navy Seals entered Pakistan under a stealth cover in order to be undetected. If the US government had been working the Pakistani government than it is likely that Bin Laden would have been tipped off. When concerning HVTs there is often no time to make the country aware of the intentions of the quick response team if the mission is to be successful, and often times I would see it as unnecessary. Only after the mission should the host country be aware and political negotiations to start.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this post, that Somalia has no diplomats to talk and in order to try and bring some type of enforcement to this state. As stated above the terrorist activity level is high because there is no one to stop them from training and growing in this area. Therefore the US has a good reason to be concerned with those types of activities going on there, the US feels they need to stop these terrorist in their planning stages and not as the terrorist's plan are being carried out. The US knows where they are hiding and now is just taking out the head of the operation in order to prevent fear and harm coming to US soil.
ReplyDeleteAlthough diplomatic talks between the US and Somalia are virtually impossible at this point, addressing the situation with Somali pirates needs to be a priority for the United States. As Ms. Strelic pointed out, the antagonistic actions taken by the pirates in the past against US and other international traveling ships have become increasingly problematic. When domestic issues turn into international issues that affect the global economy, the situation certainly needs to be addressed in a timely manner, whether it be addressed by an international institution or a regional institution.
ReplyDeleteInteresting topic, but I do not think that at this time Somalia should be looked at as anything other than a failed state. This calls into question whether their borders should be respected, seeing as the government cannot take care of their country let alone their capital. If wealthy nations had any right to interfere within a country I believe it should be ones like Somalia, so that we can protect regional stability.
ReplyDeleteI believe interventionism should only be warranted in cases that deal with offenses that take place outside of Somalia's borders. Specifically, this would be the attacks from Somali pirates in international water. The international community and U.S. should only be targeting these pirates and working towards establishing a safer travel zone in the waters near Somalia. When it comes to issues specific to Somalia, intervention should be avoided. We have learned through our reading and in class that third party pressure in resolving issues, whether it be between two states or groups withing a state, is typically ineffective and requires the third party to constantly apply that pressure for conformity among the parties involved. So when Somalian conflict extends outside its borders, there should definitely be some consideration of intervention. However, internal conflict of Somalia should be left for the Somalian people to resolve.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the case of Somalia it would very hard to warrant interventionism due to the fact that it is a failed state. With that said, the escalation of domestic issues to international acts of terror should allow for some sort of intervention. What's interesting is why is the US the only one rallying for such a cause when numerous other countries are being affected by it?
ReplyDelete