1 | P a g e

Outline

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Backgrounda. Levels of Analysisb. Theories of World Politicsc. Actors

3. Case study - “Humanitarian Intervention in Somalia”

A- Humanitarian Intervention

4. Conclusion remarks and Future suggestions

“Somalia is considered a “uniquely unique” case in context of humanitarian intervention”

2 | P a g e

Aim of this paper is to analyze the Humanitarian Intervention in Somalia.

In the beginning of this century, humanitarian interventions and terrorism became the hot political and military concerns.

By ending of 1990, Somalia was going to a chaotic situation ,it was down economically and politically too. It was completely involved in

internal conflicts. People could not even ensure food to survive, they were starving therefore there were deaths on massive scale.

It was Post Cold War era and Somalia was not considered anymore as strategic position to Soviets or Americans which previously propped up Siad Barre ,the coming dictator to rule after.

No country or International Organizations made diplomatic efforts to prohibit warring Somali factions or offer economic aid to guarantee people’s lives, to save them from famine , except the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and some valiant NGO’s. The proceedings of United Nations at a chaotic period on Somalia, attracted the attention of different experts of international relations also as that of the domestic public, but in the beginning the taken measures were modest and lacked efficacy on the ground.

Then as situation was becoming horrorific and overwhelming ,due to some individuals on U.S Administrations and after Congress had discussed ,United States started acting , initially it was gradually then boldly. The intervention consisted on airlifts also on ground forces, an enormous number of 30,000 US and allied troops.

Then , after the immediate operation the US troops departed and UN returned being the official international regulator of the Somali community then enlarged by helping nation building, although US had an influential role as well.US went on attempt of having political negotiations after the loss of 18 US soldiers lives trying to capture General Mohamed Farah Aidid .Later on mid 1994, the food situation was normalized ,although the factions and banditry clans were again fully active.

[The Somalia crisis is an example that indicates the need of well managed and balance between political, and military and humanitarian approaches in those situations where these elements are present.While the military response in Somalia clearly helped meet the short-term humanitarian needs, its very massiveness seemed to distract attention from the root political causes of the problem, without whose resolution the country would (and did) relapse into warfare.]1

- Level of Analysis

1 [Hope Restored? Humanitarian aid in Somalia 1990-1994, John G Sommer , page 7]

3 | P a g e

Theoretical

Background

Politics is dynamic, and its always in motion. There happen many events in the world and they definitely need an explanation . In social sciences is difficult to make everyone agree to same concepts and same endpoints but political scientists seemed to have accepted widely six levels of analysis.

They are ; Individual decision making, role of decision maker, governmental structure, characteristics of society, international relations and world system.

World events are generally interpreted according to these level of analysis. Starting from the characteristics of leaders and going up to world system ,is an entire process of evaluation of distinct happenings from different perspectives.

Individual Decision Making : People with strong personality and highlighted characteristics often they change things. They are very effective on decision making process.

Except the politics they are forced to follow they may hold specific attitudes and take specific decisions according to their personal beliefs and ideology. So we may see different leaders of same kind regime have different behavior ,we can mention Nikita Hrushev and Gorbachev who were more liberal and collaborative then Stalin or Brezhnev, even they all were communists and leaders of USSR.

Role of decision makers : When you act and take decisions you should remind what and whom you are representing ,your role. Why ?

Because you are under pressure and constraints of what you are representing. You have to look after the interests of the institution you are in charge of. Results should not be controversy of what you represent.

Governmental structure : Structure of the government in which decision makers operate represents another set of the influence on decisions.

Structure of government effects directly on people’s way of living and shaping their daily life. For instance , in a democratic system of government ,with holds free elections and based on rule of law with independent and well functioning institutions helps the free environment of individual which in contrast with communist ,where there is no free and equal elections,

4 | P a g e

no independent institution and governmental decisions are based on only one hand restricts the freedom of individuals so it become the main factor on shaping their lives.

It is important who builds the governmental structure, people who vote or people who are chosen to govern. In case that people who are elected to form a government change their ideology and drive out of their promises governmental structure becomes fragile and always open to threats of riots and revolts.

Characteristics of society : This is a non governmental set of influence.

Depending on society characteristics, on national resources we realize that states are different to this point. If we compare large states with the smaller one we see the importance of such characteristics which effect on the economic conditions or other necessary features of a state.

Large territory is a crucial element, because of great national resources it holds and for offering more chances on developing nuclear centrals or whatever.

Culture is another important characteristic because people’s way of political perception effects on decision making. So, if U.S uses as argument the spread of democracy or upholding democracy to persuade people, when it intervenes in a specific region it can not be the same with Russia, which mostly uses the national threat cause to gain political suport. Because of different mentalities, different policies are made.

International relations : The relations established between two states are determined by different aspects; according to their characteristics , by their common interests or by strategic perspectives.

Small and weak countries which feel unsafe and threatened usually try to obtain security or chances of survival by seeking good relations with a state of great power. But this relationship makes them dependent on the greater state.

International system is also used for arrangement of power. Countries try to dominate other states to gain an important role ,regional or global.

World System : It is essential to consider the global system in which a decision maker must operate.

World system can be unipolar, bipolar or multi-polar .

5 | P a g e

In a unipolar system in which a country has emerged as super power dominating world system, makes less effective the military alliances and concentrates state’s attention to seek a linkage with the supreme power. We can say that, post-Cold war came up with U.S as a super power.

In a bi-polar system, and we can refer the during Cold war era, the two big power try to form coalitions in order to balance powers.

Nowdays we can talk about a multi-power system with power shared among Great powers, economically and militarily. Rapid economic growth of China and India, and historical positions of France and Britain has made the world system multi-polar.

6 | P a g e

- Theories of World Politics

In world politics there are three main theories, Realism ,Liberalism and Radicalism.

Realism : Main focus of realism is state security and power as primary realists such as E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau stated that states are self-interested, power-seeking rational actors. Realist are also opposers of idealism, by considering power as the main influential tool.

Realists believe that political realism is governed by objcetives laws which are based in human nature. Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Theodore Roosevelt are considered as founding fathers . Realism has an competitive nature.

Also we can mention Otto von Bismarck as a representator of Realpolitik.

Liberalism : Is based on equality ,liberty and democracy.

Liberalism consits on freedom of the individs , on a fair and free elections and capitalism.Nature of liberalism is collaborative and accepts states and international organizations as main actors.International Orhanizations play a monitoring role and helps on consolidation of democracy.

An early liberal messenger, we can mention John Locke but the main ideologists developer are Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant.

Radicalism : Is focused on denoting social structures.

By its economic and sociopolitics perspectives, radicalism main concern is a common property owned by working class.Radicalism is mostly related with class struggle. The political ideology that radicalists offer is communism, which opposes the liberal democratic principles.

Main developers of this theory are Karl Marx and Engels.

7 | P a g e

-ActorsPolitics is made by different individuals , groups ,elites , states ect. All of them have different roles and we try to define them by analyzing each actor through six levels of analyzes.

We can identify actors and their effect on decision making by role they play.

Certainly, the most signifanct actors in world politics are states themselves but nowdays we can realize different type of actors since the Westphalian nation state system.

Non nation state actors are categorized as entities. We can mention , private International organizations ,International Governmental Organizations or Inter Governmental Organizations such UN or NATO .But an important role on economic aspects play the Multinational Co-operations entities.

Intra governmental organizations are especially very important on peace keeping over the world.

Usually , International organizations play an monitoring role over the states, but they can not be more influential than their members want them to be.

Within a nation there exist numerous actors or agents that have a defined role, which can be listed as regional , racial ,ethnical ect.

Individual actors can be ranked as important actors too.At a different time, different individual actor may be responsible of specific policies under taken ,they may be very influential on people ,on motivating them.

8 | P a g e

Somalia was politically , economically and socially under repression of Siad Biarre regime who had taken government control since 1969.Arrival of Siad Biarre in power, at his initial taking over has been

judged positively ,contributing in constructing a modernized country leaving traditional clanism on past and advancing on political and financial stability.

But he, subsequently, started making policies which were in favor of some specific clans at the expense of the others.Then groups of people were organized to resist the regime and its way of human rights abuses.

On late 1970’s , Ogadeni ,the ethnic Somali , were escaping from Ethiopia and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) provided help but Siad Barre declared war against Ethiopia in 1997 , aiming to annex areas which were populated by Somalis.[ For this reason Barre won large support but his popularity started decreasing when Somalia began to face very problematic issues such enormous number of refugee flows , economic downgrading which led to war loss. Barre was looking at refugee aid programs to ask for resources in order to cover the minimal needs of refugees (he claimed to be 1.2 million) but the number estimated by UNHCR was 300,000.]2

Barre was able to extract donors from Italy, and the two protagonists of Cold War ,mostly from its principal benefactor , The Soviets during 1969-77, then it shifted to US assistance from1978 to ’88 , which had deep interests because of Somalia’s strategic position ,being located at Middle East oil suppliers.United States made sure to have military access to the capital city of Somalia , and the second important city Berbera’s port countering the Soviets influence and presence in Ethiopia and it provided economic aid to Somalia’s government in large amount of dollars.The problem was that most of direct economic was going to maintain Siad Barre’s forces rather than being used for economic development and income level improvement.

But what was going wrong with international assistance?

Military weapons were used against the government’s opposition groups , so the whole society started to get militarized .Oppressed groups and liberal groups seeking democracy and the end of human rights abuses , saw as the only way to use same means , to use force in order to end the despotic regime of Siad Barre.3

2 [Interview with Amy Nelson of the State Department's Bureau for RefugeePrograms, Office of African Refugee Assistance, 6/3/94, Washington, D.C.]3 [Charles L. Geshekter, "The Death of Somalia in Historical Perspective," draftchapter for Unity vs. Separatism in the Middle East]

9 | P a g e

- Civil War Starts

By the end of the Cold war , strategic asset of Somalia’s role to U.S ended too, and Somalia remained without a outside contributor and full of weapon of different sources. But the hot peak was reached when Barre decided to bomb Hargeisa and Burao ,two cities in north Somalia in 1988, it was a cause of warfare outbreak. Barre regime started punishing dissidents and the result was the increase of refugee flows and violation of human rights which made international donators cut off their aid programs and US reduce the military equipment aid.

But the bombing irritated people in northwestern ,who were seeking for revenge and the consequence was the split of the region by declaring their independence.

[As war gradually was infecting all areas of the country in 1989-90, in same time it was paralyzing agricultural sectors, food production decreased and the state could not fulfill anymore population food requirements , importing 50 % of the needs.]4

Events happening in Somalia could not attract International community’s attention which was focused elsewhere , like Iraq and Kuwait , eastern and central Europe also central America.

On December 1990 – January 1991 , Somalia was on a chaotic situation , totally in crises ,which was going worse and worse , therefore UN diplomatic troops and other different NGO’s staff as well as American Embassy personal saw it necessary to retire from Somalia.

On January 26 , Siad Barre regime had fallen and all administration collapsed. We realize the return of International Organizations such ICRC and MSF ,as situation during ’91 was more tranquil but new security threats and civil disorder emerged.

Banditry was seen as the easiest way to ensure food ,so stealing become familiary to ordinary life ,and new political rivalry started among groups which defeated Barre’s forces. General Mohamed Farah Aidid and Ali Mahdi Mohamed , were two persons leading their factions to gain political ascendancy and pretending to come in power , were direct threat to a peaceful Somalia in a post-Barre time.

During 1991 you could notice frightening statistics of people suffering from famine, as production of food was in its minimal productive conditions.

4 [Alex de Waal and Rakiye Omaar, "Sowing the Seeds of War and Famine,"GreenNet wire dispatch, February 25, 1994.]

10 | P a g e

In may 1991 , American Senate felt obligated to pass a bill calling on president Bush to take immediately measures and look toward humanitarian efforts to conduct peace negotiations, as earlier the Congress had reduced military aid at Barre regime time.

The intervention: Necessary or not ?

I totally agree that it was indispensable intervention in order to “restore hope”.I see no other way that could have solve out the crisis in Somalia. And according to me the right questions that should be quests is “If the intervention was in time or U.S should had intervened before?”

Also we must agree that intervention was necessary and prominent, because the crisis could be overwhelming the whole sotheastern African region.

Tragic number of lives were lost, and somehow it is a failure of International Community that didn’t take immediate steps in order to have prevented the catastrophic situation. A precise action , on time , would minimize the deaths and destructions.

Letting aside the sovereignty constrains, we could list different reasons why it was necessary to respond by a military intervention to the situation ,having in mind the incapability of United Nation to take military actions because of its limited sources ,which make U.S morally legal to intervene.

Firstly, it was a war and people were being killed.The government was not accountable and it was a hursh regime which was taking people’s lives.(At Siad Barre time)

Secondly, the ongoing war was destroying at the large scale productive lands of food, and whole population was starving , suffering from famine.The lack of the basic needs to live was a loud outcall for intervention.

Thirdly , the new militia leaders fighting for political power can be considered the same as previous deficient ruler , Barre , and it would be a disaster if country would walk on same dictatorial path.

Then we can mention the role of military airlifts ,in delivering the foods to people ,which was the solely manner to distribute the goods to the people in need because roads were not safe by the guerrilla threat.

What is not be neglected is the role of U.S in post Cold War era and post Gulf War.It was a dominating power , now posing as a world regulator ,would be important on convincing the people to disarm.

11 | P a g e

And disbarment had to be equally done between factions, leaving no side stronger than other, to make sure the conflict did not rise again.

What kind of intervention was, and what happened?

It was a military intervention , by airlifts and ground forces. Firstly ,acting gradually then being concrete and acting boldly.

In April 1992 ,after the ceasefire agreed on 3 March between two militia leaders of Mogadishu , Former UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali ,intended to built peace mechanisms through a technical team sent by him in Somalia who would negotiate with both part’s representatives ,from Aidid and Ali Mahdi , leading to formation of UNOSOM I.

The agreement failed as it lacked an enforcement mechanism.

[US initial involvement started On March 25, 1991, when Assistant Secretary of State Herman Cohen declared Somalia a civil strife disaster, the official step needed to activate the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) to respond.]5

Information flowing into US Department of State was unprecedented ,which distracted US attention. But President Bush’s national security advisor and other counselors told US president to stay out of this case ,by opposing the scarce financial resources and considering US interests in area as peripheral.

Then under media and diplomatic pressure ,US administration through a long process of decision making decided to intervene military. On December 9 ,1992 about 1700 US Marines chosen for the Restore Hope operation reached seaside of Mogadishu.

the Unified Task Force (UNITAF troops ), mostly US troops speeded into Somalia .

Seeing no other choice , Aidid and Ali Mahdi signed a truce within the US troops arrival day.

The troops were controlling the most problematic key zones and trying to disarm the people. Establishing civil service centers ,US troops were operating in a normal way until 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by guerrilla people in Mogadishu, which somehow affected the U.S and made them to “change the mission.”

United Nations passed the 837 Resolution calling for capture of responsible of the Pakistani soldiers killers, and UNSC (United Nation Security Council) supported US Government.

5 [Hope Restored? Humanitarian aid in Somalia 1990-1994, John G Sommer , page 17]

12 | P a g e

On June 12 1993 , allied troops with U.S troops leading U.N. Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) counter attacked and began an war for fourth months .

U.S troops were fighting versus Aidid supporters (SNA) and offering a reward for his capture. The war was getting more serious as U.S thought of sending more specialized troops , Rangers .

But 18 of them were killed in Olympic Hotel , while were haunting for Aidid.

This made U.S shift its policies.

The new elected president, Bill Clinton , affected even by public doubt on intervention efficiency started looking more for diplomatic efforts , and US troops were reduced, now diplomatic representatives in Somalia were trying to negotiate with Aidid who refused.

But the ongoing situation was not anymore that emergent, on August 1993 Civil war was over , and the vacancies on food decreased. Also banditry was not anymore that much problematic.

Convincing Aidid to participate Addis Peace Conference , was the begging of US “departure plan” by handing over the situation to United Nations, and Somalis themselves.

Even that Somalian political future was put in question , US started withdrawing their troops , as well as NGO’s who were taking away their staff due to insecurity incidents relying more on local individuals.

On 1994 as U.S were leaving ,outbreak of cholera among people was a threating enemy which was taking many lives.

As one observer analyzed the Somalia scene in March 1994, "Fifteen months ago when George'Bush dispatched 25,000 U.S. Marines here, Somalia was a country with no government, no electricity, no telephones, only a few schools, and no security on the streets because of widespread banditry. Now, as the United States nears the end of its withdrawal, and after all the death and destruction by anti-tank missiles, Somalia is still a country with no government, no electricity, a few more schools, a few satellite telephones, but still no security because of widespread banditry in the streets."6

The main actors :

6 Richburg, op. cit.

13 | P a g e

At individual level we can notice charismatic persons like Siad Barre , General Mohamed Fatah Al Aidid , Al Mahdi , George Bush , Boutros Ghali .

They all had different role but which affected a lot on Somalia’s situation.

Siad Barre was a dictator ,while Al Aidid or Al Mahdi ,who together had overthrown Siad Barre now were fighting for the political gains.

Boutros Boutros Ghali , as UN Secretary general ,and being an African from Egypt , and who had a strong and independent character, was very sensitive to the case and was always calling for aid in United Nations conferences.

George Bush , being U.S president , and being a winner of Gulf War ,decided to consider Somalia’s situation as a humanitarian crisis and intervening there was way important.

International Organizations : There were several organizations assisting in Somalia to provide food for people but the most important we can mention are United Nations and Red Cross.

United Nations, as an International Governmental Organization was the main actor to deal with the crisis in Somalia.

Red Cross played an important role on providing the main needs of people to live.

States : Somalia , Ethiopia , United States.

These are three main state actors.

Somalia was the country in which crisis was occurring .Ethiopia was the country most affected by the state.

And U.S was the main state requiring to bring Somalia back to normality and stability.

14 | P a g e

The major conclusion is that military, political and humanitarian initiatives must be well coordinated in order to achieve successful ends.

Referring to the case , I think that U.S gave short shrift to political issues ,which was penalizing in resolving crisis in short period and putting in doubt the efficiency of the mission because its withdraw leaving Somalia without a legal government.

Rebuilding of the state had to be started politically.

If we ask if the intervention was legal or not, the most significant fact is the absence of legal and sovereign authorities in Somalia. Also we must agree that intervention was necessary and prominent, because the crisis could be overwhelming the whole southeastern African region.

And U.S was morally obligated because of earlier support given to Siad Barre, initiator of crisis.

I consider the intervention ethical rather than amoral to some extent ,because humanitarian violence is an unavoidable paradox ,and in order to intervene solving a civil war the intervention must have the behavioral features of an war .

To conclude I would state that Humanitarian Intervention in Somalia was necessary but not correctly done , and walking away when Somalia still needed help on recovering of wealth fare of the state which could have been the real achievement of the intervention ,was the negative prospect of the intervention.

But the world needs the human rights safeguards , the abusive and violation of them has to be stopped .

The crucial suggestion for Somalia case is to work to achieve political stability, because it is the source of all crisis.

Still now days Somalia is politically unstable and different groups pretend to govern the country.

Somalia needs observation of different International organizations because the situation is still fragile, and under observations of foreigners seems the only way to keep Somalia away from new humanitarian crisis.

15 | P a g e

Conclusion remarks and Future Resuggestions

[Hope Restored? Humanitarian aid in Somalia 1990-1994, John G Sommer , page 7]

2[Interview with Amy Nelson of the State Department's Bureau for RefugeePrograms, Office of African Refugee Assistance, 6/3/94, Washington, D.C.]

3[Charles L. Geshekter, "The Death of Somalia in Historical Perspective," draftchapter for Unity vs. Separatism in the Middle East]

4[Alex de Waal and Rakiye Omaar, "Sowing the Seeds of War and Famine,"GreenNet wire dispatch, February 25, 1994.]

5[Hope Restored? Humanitarian aid in Somalia 1990-1994, John G Sommer , page 17]

6 Richburg, op. cit.

16 | P a g e

References