| |
Contributions from
the Column
Monitor
Afghanistan: Drug economy increasingly mafia-like
Vietnam, a UN test case
UNDP focuses on Arab women
BMZ budget 2007
Financial markets: Sitting on a powder keg
Somalia: Experts fear escalation
Female genital multilation: Scarring body and soul
Informal institutions: sometimes good, sometimes bad
01/2007
|
|
[ Somalia ]
Experts fear escalation after UN resolution
A few days after the UN Security Council decided on deployment of a peace-keeping force in Somalia, militias of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) and Ethiopian troops engaged in violent battles. Observers fear that these fights may have been the prelude to a major war that might yet engulf the entire Horn of Africa. In Somalia, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), which was installed in late 2004, and the UIC, which has ruled large areas of the country since last spring, are competing for power. The TFG is based in Baidoa in the west of the country, protected by several thousand Ethiopian soldiers. The UIC enjoys the support of Ethiopia’s enemy Eritrea. A few days before Christmas EU Development Commissioner Louis Michel left to Somalia to mediate between both sides.
Observers fear that the Security Council resolution will further fuel the tensions that have built up for months. The resolution was introduced by the USA, toned down considerably in the course of negotiations, and adopted unanimously at the beginning of December. It authorises the East African Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to send a peace-keeping force to Somalia, in order to supervise negotiations between the TFG and UIC. However, the mandate also includes protecting members of the interim institutions (government and parliament), training their security forces, and contributing to building a Somali army. The transitional institutions and the transitional charter “offer the only route to achieving peace and stability in Somalia”, according to the resolution. Therefore, the resolution is indeed supportive of the TFG and its Ethiopian allies.
According to a UIC spokesman, the Security Council decision will destabilise Somalia, as Somalis would regard any foreign soldiers as invaders and fight them. On the other hand, Salad Ali Jelle, deputy Defence Minister for the TFG, thanked the Security Council. A few days before the UN resolution passed, the International Crisis Group (ICG) warned against one-sidedly supporting the TFG in the hope of stemming the Islamists. The ICG maintains the international community should instead prevail upon both sides to negotiate a ceasefire. Next, a UN mission acceptable to both sides could be deployed to monitor the agreement. “As so often in Somalia, the consequence of an ill-considered intervention is likely to be more conflict, not less,” reads the ICG statement.
However, it is doubtful that the UN resolution will ever be enforced. After all, the envisioned peace-keeping force is disputed even within the IGAD. Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda are in favour of intervening, whereas Djibouti, Eritrea and Sudan oppose doing so. According to the Security Council resolution, moreover, only IGAD countries that do not directly border on Somalia are allowed to send troops. Britain made approval of the resolution dependent on this condition. Accordingly, only Ugandan soldiers may be deployed in Somalia, possibly with support from troops from other African regions. Furthermore, the Security Council did not specify who should finance the peace-keeping mission. (ell)
|
