It has been days after the death attack on 17 peace-keepers of the African Union force in Somalia but the impact has left
the question – is peace achievable in Somalia?
Al-Shaba, the militia group that claimed responsibility for the suicide attack said it is another warning to all foreigners
that they must leave Somalia.
It calls the African peacekeepers and other allied groups, “invaders” and vowed that whosoever stays in the troubled country
now risks suicidal deaths. It is apparent that al-Shabab is sticking to its guns to strike fear and security among the
peacekeepers and forcing governments contributing troops to the mission to abort their commitment.
What is emerging out of the current messy situation is that a sustainable peace in Somalia would remain dodgy if not elusive
for the foreseeable future. It is not the first time that al-Shabab has been in an angry mood.
The group claimed responsibility for the suicidal death attack on 11 Burundian troops in the African Union peacekeeping
outfit some months ago. And the recent killings to it all, it tells a rather pathetic story that those out to bring peace and
making a nation to bury the hatchet and live together should be targets.
The recent incident had the frills of a carefully calculated act to kill or at the very least to harm. Hijacked UN vehicles
were used to give the semblance that there was nothing amiss. They gave access for freewheeling into otherwise international
territory.
That the suicidal attack hot at the topmost value of the mission itself should send the signal of insecurity everywhere in
the patchy country. Who then is safe? The baffling question is – why are the peacekeepers precluded from the right of hot
pursuit- a diplomatic euphemism for not retaliating even though that attacker is known.
Many say this is a handicap, not only in the Somalia situation but of other areas where international peace-keeping
operations are visible. It remains difficult as to where to draw the line that under the present situation, the African Union
peacekeepers are not merely sitting ducks, to take pot shots at.
In the first place, it is outnumbered and lack arms and ammunition to even protect itself. Secondly, it is supporting a frail
government whose “territorial integrity” could be said to be at arms length or better still, as far as the eyes could see.
Al-Shaba remains better coordinated to whack cracks into this fusion giving the peacekeepers a daily reminder that they are
operating in hostile country.
One result of the current uncertainty as Somalia continues to swim in chaos is that other African troops contributing
countries are either re-examining their stance or holding back from sending additional forces to beef up the present
strength. As one military strategist puts it – once your troops are in, it’s difficult to detach as you would be seemed to be
broking ranks.
Pulling your troops out would also portray a loss of face and damage the posture of the peacekeeping operations you may be
supporting. These are sensible conclusions which fit squarely into al-Shabab’s thinking.
One country trapped by the current uncertainty in Somalia is Sierra Leone which is said to be fitting out a mission to join
the African Union troopers. Thoughts vary as to whether the build up should be put on hold as Ghana had done and play events
by the ear and not by mind.
In the quest of proving that Sierra Leone is eager to put its war past behind and rebrand that it can take place in peace
building, putting troops at risk could be another matter. In a situation where there is little peace to keep – as in the
Somalia situation its about 10 percent – any troops sent would only be window dressing.
For now, the peacekeepers in Somalia are not intermediaries to keep the two sides at bay. In such an underlying situation it
would be idlers dream to forecast an outcome.
The difficulty remains as to how to reach out to al-Shabab to end the impasse. So military policy planners in Sierra Leone
should start mapping out a plan B reaction to the African Union request for troops.
One cannot say it’s like one sparrow does not make a summer. In the Somalia case, it’s enough deterrent for a wait-and-see
situation until the weather is no longer inclement.
Going ahead would have its adherent risk proving that penny wise pound foolish is an option. The Ethiopians have had their
fingers scorched in it all but in the world of diplomacy; it is difficult to publicly admit that a goal has not been reached.
All things considered, Somalia is far from being considered for re-branding. It remains on a collusion course, sometimes on
life support, other times, on a dare devil exploits. Those in the minority are in charge backed by arms, threats and twisting
tactics while the majority remain subdued, embattled from day-to-day by a situation they hardly understand and how it could
be ended.
By Rod Mac-Johnson
the question – is peace achievable in Somalia?
Al-Shaba, the militia group that claimed responsibility for the suicide attack said it is another warning to all foreigners
that they must leave Somalia.
It calls the African peacekeepers and other allied groups, “invaders” and vowed that whosoever stays in the troubled country
now risks suicidal deaths. It is apparent that al-Shabab is sticking to its guns to strike fear and security among the
peacekeepers and forcing governments contributing troops to the mission to abort their commitment.
What is emerging out of the current messy situation is that a sustainable peace in Somalia would remain dodgy if not elusive
for the foreseeable future. It is not the first time that al-Shabab has been in an angry mood.
The group claimed responsibility for the suicidal death attack on 11 Burundian troops in the African Union peacekeeping
outfit some months ago. And the recent killings to it all, it tells a rather pathetic story that those out to bring peace and
making a nation to bury the hatchet and live together should be targets.
The recent incident had the frills of a carefully calculated act to kill or at the very least to harm. Hijacked UN vehicles
were used to give the semblance that there was nothing amiss. They gave access for freewheeling into otherwise international
territory.
That the suicidal attack hot at the topmost value of the mission itself should send the signal of insecurity everywhere in
the patchy country. Who then is safe? The baffling question is – why are the peacekeepers precluded from the right of hot
pursuit- a diplomatic euphemism for not retaliating even though that attacker is known.
Many say this is a handicap, not only in the Somalia situation but of other areas where international peace-keeping
operations are visible. It remains difficult as to where to draw the line that under the present situation, the African Union
peacekeepers are not merely sitting ducks, to take pot shots at.
In the first place, it is outnumbered and lack arms and ammunition to even protect itself. Secondly, it is supporting a frail
government whose “territorial integrity” could be said to be at arms length or better still, as far as the eyes could see.
Al-Shaba remains better coordinated to whack cracks into this fusion giving the peacekeepers a daily reminder that they are
operating in hostile country.
One result of the current uncertainty as Somalia continues to swim in chaos is that other African troops contributing
countries are either re-examining their stance or holding back from sending additional forces to beef up the present
strength. As one military strategist puts it – once your troops are in, it’s difficult to detach as you would be seemed to be
broking ranks.
Pulling your troops out would also portray a loss of face and damage the posture of the peacekeeping operations you may be
supporting. These are sensible conclusions which fit squarely into al-Shabab’s thinking.
One country trapped by the current uncertainty in Somalia is Sierra Leone which is said to be fitting out a mission to join
the African Union troopers. Thoughts vary as to whether the build up should be put on hold as Ghana had done and play events
by the ear and not by mind.
In the quest of proving that Sierra Leone is eager to put its war past behind and rebrand that it can take place in peace
building, putting troops at risk could be another matter. In a situation where there is little peace to keep – as in the
Somalia situation its about 10 percent – any troops sent would only be window dressing.
For now, the peacekeepers in Somalia are not intermediaries to keep the two sides at bay. In such an underlying situation it
would be idlers dream to forecast an outcome.
The difficulty remains as to how to reach out to al-Shabab to end the impasse. So military policy planners in Sierra Leone
should start mapping out a plan B reaction to the African Union request for troops.
One cannot say it’s like one sparrow does not make a summer. In the Somalia case, it’s enough deterrent for a wait-and-see
situation until the weather is no longer inclement.
Going ahead would have its adherent risk proving that penny wise pound foolish is an option. The Ethiopians have had their
fingers scorched in it all but in the world of diplomacy; it is difficult to publicly admit that a goal has not been reached.
All things considered, Somalia is far from being considered for re-branding. It remains on a collusion course, sometimes on
life support, other times, on a dare devil exploits. Those in the minority are in charge backed by arms, threats and twisting
tactics while the majority remain subdued, embattled from day-to-day by a situation they hardly understand and how it could
be ended.
By Rod Mac-Johnson