Shattering Somalia: An Analysis of Western Exploitation of a Failed State
Joanna Carson
IDP 4UI
17 December 2009
Mr. Cotey
Imagine you woke up this morning to the hard sun piercing through the array of
bullet holes in the flimsy cardboard wall of your bedroom. Imagine you got up from your
sleeping place on the hard ground, dusted yourself off, and made your way to the market
to find something cheap enough for breakfast. On the way you drink from mud puddles,
letting the filth roll down your tongue to the empty depths of your stomach. You pass by
a jihadi gathering, the desperation in their furious chants echoing in your ears hours after,
“Death to America!” You pass by a rusty tin ship crowded with pirates, dollar signs
flashing in their eyes. They are not the type of pirates you know from your childhood
games; they carry guns instead of swords, and no ticking crocodile will ever distract them
from their quest for money. On your walk you duck casually every so often to avoid the
bullets that whiz past your ears, and remain curiously nonchalant to the fact that you are
permanently walking in No Man’s Land. These bullets aren’t the only thing you have to
watch out for—suicide bombs, white phosphorus bombs, beheadings, medieval-style
stonings, teenage troops high on the local drug called khat blasting away at each other
and anything in between1. You pass by the ruins that were once buildings acclaimed for
their magnificent architecture, buildings whose remains now lay broken and fragmented
from machine guns and U.S. cruise missiles. Worst of all, you know thesebuldings will
never be rebuilt. For countries that could help, because the complete anarchy has made it
unsafe for international intervention, will ignore these ruins that carried the bodies of
your brothers. You know once you get to the market there will be no food; the only thing
cheap enough for you to buy will be another gun. And you know you will buy it, this time
and every time after, because it is the only way you know how to survive.
1 Jeffrey Gettleman, “The Most Dangerous Place in the World,” Foreign Policy http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4682 (March/April 2009)
2
For almost every Somali, this does not take much imagination; it is reality.
Somalia is a country that has been named “the most dangerous place in the world” by
Foreign Policy Magazine for three years running, with absolutely no sign of relinquishing
its title. The complete and utter anarchy and chaos in Somalia is unimaginable for
anyone, especially those who live in stable countries such as Canada and the United
States. Even their fairytales reflect the constant terror in Somalia. The most widespread
Somali legend, Dhegdheer 2 , describes the tale of an ailing widow and her son who are
constantly running from a monstrous creature whose only goal is to cause destruction to
everything that gets in her path. If you replace the character of Dhegdheer in this story
with the warlords, pirates, kidnappers, bomb makers, fanatical Islamist insurgents,
freelance gunmen, and idle, angry youth with no education and way too many bullets,
then you have a complete picture of the Somali lifestyle.
The future of Somalia looks grim, even with the recent election of President Sheik
Sharif Sheik, a leader who has great support from the United States. The chaos and
instability is so intense that he cannot even govern his own country, for if he leaves his
property he will be shot in an instant. He remains holed up in his hilltop palace, with
millions of his people on the brink of starvation because of drought and grenades
exploding just outside the palace gates, as it is not yet safe for him to come out. Many of
his commanders still have ties to the Shabab, the Islamist insurgents working with Al
Qaeda to overthrow Sheik Sharif’s government, and several government officers
conceded that a large share of the American weapons quickly slipped into Shabab hands.
The hope for American aid also proved to be false. The millions of dollars in aid are
2 Hassan, Marian. Dhegdheer. (Minneapolis: Minnesota Humanities Commision, 2006).
3
delayed indefinitely, as Americans are afraid their money will be going directly into the
hands of terrorists, pirates, and warlords.
Somalia is seen as a kind of political paradox, unified on the surface, and
dangerously divided underneath. It is one of the world’s most homogeneous nation-states,
with nearly all of its estimated 9 to 10 million people sharing the same language
(Somali), the same religion (Sunni Islam), the same culture, and the same ethnicity. But
in Somalia, it is all about clans. Somalis divide themselves into a dizzying number of
clans, subclans, sub-subclans, and so on, with shifting allegiances and knotty backstories
that have bedeviled outsiders for years. When Somalia won its independence from Italy
in 1960, it had very little chance of developing into a strong African country due to its
strategic location on the Horn of Africa. The Soviets and Americans used this as a Cold
War pawn; they pumped millions of weapons and ammunition into Somalia, and did not
remove them because of the cost. This excess of weapons, once paired with the brewing
conflicts between Somali clans, resulted in the ousting of Major General Mohamed
SiadBarre, the capricious dictator who ruled from 1969 to 1991, by clan warlords; an
event that finally resulted in complete anarchy. Since the implosion of the central
government in 1991, Somalia has had fourteen failed attempts at a government. The only
government that ever had a chance was the Islamic Courts Union, who brought six
months of peace to the country in 2006. After the invasion of the Ethiopians (who
brought Somalia to its fourteenth failed government), Somalia was again engulfed in
absolute anarchy.
The sad fact is Somalia never stood a chance. These violent clan disputes, this
plethora of weaponry and ammunitions, and the intense conflict with neighboring states
4
are all results of foreign policy blunders that have left Somalia to its state of chaos. The
current state of chaos in Somalia can be attributed to over-exploitation through European
colonialism, World War II, and the Cold War.
The opinions on this matter are varying, depending on the individual’s influence
by the countries involved, such as the United States, Britain, Russia, and Italy. These
countries have a strong bias towards the fact that their nations did not have a significant
effect on Somalia’s instability, and that the true reason for Somalia’s chaos lies in the
disputes between Somali clans. According to Robert Draper, freelance writer and
contributor to the New York Times:
What drove Somalia apart was its elaborate clan system. The five principal clan families, Darod, Dir, Issaq (sometimes considered a Dir subclan), Hawiye, and Rahanweyn, have long dominated particular expanses of territory. Within these clans are various subclans and sub-subclans-some cohabiting peacefully and even intermarrying, but most sporadically hostile.”3
At the same time, Dr. Ali AbdullahiBarkhadle, Consultant with Amsas
Consulting, reaffirms the belief that clan disputes have resulted in the current anarchy in
Somalia, and puts all blame on the Somali government. He states, “The clan system was
used cleverly by the dictatorial regime of SiadBarre in pitting clan against clan that has
resulted in genocide in parts of Somalia and enmity and mistrust is rife in the clans.” It is
also his opinion that Somalia’s chaos is the product of a faulty government, claiming that:
[…] the root cause of Somalia’s woes is lack of skilled political leadership, most of the leaders that have been put in place were either propped up by a corrupt and untransparent patronage system, the average leader or warlord has never gone
3 Robert Draper, “Shattered Somalia,” National Geographic http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/somalia/draper-text/1 (September 2009)
5
beyond primary school. Brutality and the propensity to cause death and chaos is the most sought after trait.4
This opinion is contrasted with that of Andre LeSage of the National Defense
University in Washington, D.C. He states:
You’ve always had conflict-prone nomadic society in Somalia, going back to pre-colonial times. There was tribal raiding of livestock, but it happened between organized young groups under the authority of a clan elder. They’d say, ‘Now is the time this can be done,’ and some were killed in pitch battles. But women and children’s lives were generally spared, and villages weren’t razed. Female genital mutilation was prevalent, and obviously society lacked the benefits of modern health care. But it wasn’t anarchy at all. It was highly regulated.5
He insists that clan division was forced to the extreme because of colonial rule,
claiming that, “In 1960 the colonial powers departed, and a dreamy nationalism seized
the Somali people. With visions of a unified country, Somaliland and Somalia
confederated. But nationalism was soon thwarted by clan divisions that had been
aggravated during colonial rule. The knotty hostilities left a power void.”6
In Jeffrey Gettleman’s article, The Most Dangerous Place in the World, he
supports Andre LeSage’s argument while using the United States as an example. He
states:
Past interventions have been so cursed that no one wants to get burned again. The United States has been among the worst of the meddlers: U.S. forces fought predacious warlords at the wrong time, backed some of the same predacious warlords at the wrong time, and consistently failed to appreciate the twin pulls of
4 Ali Abdullahi Barkadle, “Somalia: Salvaging a Failed State”, Global Policy http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/173/30459.html (August 2002)5 Robert Draper, “Shattered Somalia,” National Geographic http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/somalia/draper-text/1 (September 2009)
6 Ibid.
6
clan and religion. As a result, Somalia has become a graveyard of foreign-policy blunders that have radicalized the population, deepened insecurity, and pushed millions to the brink of starvation.”7
Firstly, European colonialism resulted in the heightening of clan disputes and
division of the country, fueling the chaos that is currently flooding the streets of Somalia.
The first bought of instability within Somalia arrived with Britain’s occupation of the
country in 1887. Britain became concerned with keeping the route to India open through
the Suez Canal, which was opened in 1869, and as a result Britain proclaimed Somalia as
a British protectorate and named it British Somaliland.By the end of the century, the
Somali people were living under the rule of four foreign powers: the British (in north
central Somalia and in northeast Kenya), the Italians (in southern Somalia), the French
(in the northwest, in what is now Djibouti), and the Ethiopians (in the Ogaden region).
These countries were set on using Somalia for their political means, and the results were
disastrous. A Somali poet, FarrahNuur, wrote the following about the hardships of living
in colonized Somalia:
The British, the Ethiopians, and the Italians are squabbling,the country is snatched and divided by whosoever is stronger.The country is sold piece by piece without our knowledge.And for me, all this is the Teeth of the Last Days!8
Little did he know his poem was a true prophecy of the future of his country.
7 Jeffrey Gettleman, “The Most Dangerous Place in the World,” Foreign Policy http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4682 (March/April 2009) 8 “Somalis”, Cultural Orientation http://www.cal.org/CO/somali/shist.html (February 2004)
7
As their interests in Somalia were mainly strategic instead of economic, all four
colonial powers were able to exploit the land without giving the Somalis means to
produce enough resources to sustain themselves as well as these powers.9 Only the
Italians attempted a program for economic development, creating sugar cane and banana
plantations in the South. However, these actions were only to help them win in the
resource race, as Somalia was one of the only countries Italy was able to colonize. Thus,
under Italian rule, Somalia became a “banana republic,” soon losing the worth of their
resources because of over-exploitation of the land. The effects of this, like in most other
“banana republic” countries, can still be seen to this day in the hollow eyes of the hungry.
In addition, the Somali people were also involved only at the lowest levels of the
government, giving them absolutely no say in the future of the country their ancestors
helped flourish. This spawned disharmony and distrust of government by the population,
which can be argued to still be present to this day.
The result of these grievances, fueled by the colonial powers’ over-exploitation of
the country, led to a rebellion much like the very one that ousted Maj. Gen. Mohamed
SiadBarre in 1991. Except for this time, there was an authority figure to prevent the
country from spiraling into chaos prematurely. In 1899, Mohammed ibn Abdullah
Hassan, called the "Mad Mullah" by the British and known as "the Sayyid" by Somalis,
launched a 20-year insurrection against colonial occupation. His movement controlled a
large part of inland British Somaliland and initially enjoyed strong support among
Somalis in the Ogaden and Italian Somalia.Hassan issued a religious ordinance
stipulating that any Somali national who did not accept the goal of unity of Somalia and
9 Ibid.
8
would not fight under his leadership would be considered as kafir, or a non-believer. He
soon acquired weapons from Turkey, Sudan, and other Islamic and/or Arabian countries,
and appointed ministers and advisers to administer different areas or sectors of Somalia.
All Dervish territory collapsed under intense bombardment from the British.10 His actions
were unsuccessful, and only managed to further divide the clans. However, he was only
exacerbating what the British and Italians had already started.
In his article for National Geographic, Robert Draper examines the effects of both
British and Italian rule on Somalia, and how the difference between both colony rulings
created a divide between Somalis that will never be healed. He states:
The clan-based checks and balances began to crumble with the arrival of the Europeans. The British in Somaliland ruled with a lighter hand than did the Italians in the south. Though Mogadishu, under Italian rule, became a city of cosmopolitan amenities, the Italians politicized Somali clan hierarchy by rewarding loyal elders, punishing the less loyal, and controlling commerce. Local mechanisms for conflict resolution were badly damaged.”11
In contrast to the achievements of the Italian colony, British Somaliland stayed a
neglected backwater. Daunted by the diversion of substantial development funds to the
suppression of the dervish insurrection and by the "wild" character of the anarchic Somali
pastoralists, Britain used its colony as little more than a supplier of meat products to
Aden. This policy had a tragic effect on the future unity and stability of independent
Somalia. When the two former colonies merged to form the Somali Republic in 1960, the
north lagged far behind the south in economic infrastructure and skilled labor. As a result, 10 Said Samatar. In the Shadow of Conquest: Islam in Colonial Northeast Africa. (Trenton: The Red Sea Press, 1992) 46.11 Robert Draper, “Shattered Somalia,” National Geographic http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/somalia/draper-text/1 (September 2009)
9
southerners gradually came to dominate the new state's economic and political life--a
hegemony that bred a sense of betrayal and bitterness among Northerners.12In addition to
this, to the extent that Italy held the territory by UN mandate, the trusteeship provisions
gave the Somalis the opportunity to gain experience in political education and self-
government. These were advantages that British Somaliland, which was to be
incorporated into the new Somali state, did not have. Although in the 1950s British
colonial officials attempted, through various development efforts, to make up for past
neglect, the protectorate stagnated. The disparity between the two territories in economic
development and political experience would cause serious difficulties when it came time
to integrate the two parts.
A common misconception is that colonizing Somalia was necessary for the
Italians to maintain their power; therefore they are not at fault for creating the issues in
Somalia that continueto this day. JoakimGundel states in his book, Somalia Diaspora and
State Reconstruction of the Horn of Africa, that:
Italy is not at fault for the faulty colonization of Somalia. Imperialism in Africa was so competitive that if Italy had not taken what they could get, even if that meant splitting a country with France and Britain, they would have been at a great disadvantage in the Rush for Africa and the resource wars of the early nineteenth century.13
However, the fact of the matter is that Somalia was a greater hindrance on Italy
than a necessity. Britain was able to take Somalia from the British in the 1941 because
12 Helen Chapin Metz, ed. “Somalia: A Country Study”, (Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1992)13 Joakim Gundel. Somalia Diaspora and State Reconstitution in the Horn of Africa . (New York: Adonis & Abbey Ltd, 2007) 132.
10
Mussolini was unable to maintain both Somalia and Italy during the war.14 At the same
time, the amount of resources that Italy took were so immense that, paired with the
destruction of Somaliland, has resulted in present day Somalia lacking in natural
resources.15
Thus, the effects of colonialism fueled Somalia’s current state of chaos, creating
the initial division between clans, depleting the country’s resources for selfish gain, and
creating political strife within Somalis that carries on to this day. The “Race for Africa”
may have destroyed many countries, however only Somalia was divided between four
different colonial powers, all because they wished to exploit its land and resources.
Colonialism exemplified the fact that in the early nineteenth century, the white European
man took precedence over any other human being, and he had the power to do whatever
he wished with the land of those “beneath him,” at any cost. However, two centuries
later, Somalia is still suffering from the negative impact of colonialism, and it is now the
responsibility of these former colonial powers to mend it back together.
Secondly, Mussolini’s over-exploitation of Somalia in his pursuit of Ethiopia
during World War II brought the country into chaos and instilled further distrust in the
Italian rule. The onslaught of the Second World War resulted in the two remaining
colonial powers of Somalia to be on opposite sides; Britain was part of the Triple
Alliance, consisting of Britain, Russia and America, while Italy was part of the Axis,
which consisted of Germany, Italy and Japan. In 1941, Britain was able to reconquer
Somalia, however the plethora of Italian settlers led to further disruption of the Somali
14 Robert Rinehart, “Countries of the World: Somalia”, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2863.htm (1999) 15 Ibid.
11
people. During the war, Somalia was directly ruled by British military administration and
martial law was in place, policies that encouraged the Italians to fight the battles of the
World War in Somalia, using the Somali people as their soldiers. The irregular bandits
and militias of the Somali outback received a windfall in weaponry, thanks to the
worldwide surge in arms production from the war. The Italian settlers and other anti-
British elements made sure the rebels got as many guns as they needed to cause
trouble.16It was said that 90% of Italians residing in Somalia were only there to spy on the
British for Mussolini, and to arm the Somalis and manipulate them into rebellion.
In addition, the build up to World War II had Mussolini going to great lengths to
enforce greater rule over the Somalis in order to have an upper hand over the British,
suppressing the Somali people in the process. During the 1930s the fascists adopted racial
legislation intended toensure, in theory as well as in fact, the superior status of the
Italiancolonists and the subject status of the Somalis, who sometimes were made
toendure brutal treatment at the hands of officials17. The distrust in Italian rule resulting
from this harsh treatment would carry on until the Italians took over Somalia once again
from the British, and the Somalis banded together to expel the colonial rule. This was the
first preview of an unstable Somali government.
It was Mussolini’s wish to conquer Ethiopia during the Second World War, and he
exploited Somalia in order to achieve this. On May 9, 1936, Italian dictator Benito
Mussolini proclaimed his "Italian East African Empire". This was formed from the newly
occupied Ethiopia and the Italian colonies of Eritrea and Italian Somalia. On August 3,
16 “History of Somalia”, http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Hsitory_of_Somalia_-_World_War_II/id/5132614 (2008) 17 Robert Rinehart, “Countries of the World: Somalia”, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2863.htm (1999)
12
1940, approximately 25,000 Italian troops invaded British Somaliland, commanded by
General GuglielmoNasi. The Italians were opposed by a British contingent, commanded
by Brigadier Arthur Reginald Chater, of about four-thousand men. Chater used his Camel
Corps to skirmish with and screen against the advancing Italians as the other British and
Commonwealth forces pulled back towards Tug Argan, to form defensive positions in the
rugged Assa Hills overlooking the main road to the capital, Berbera.18 It was there that
the British were defeated.
Nearly 40,000 Somalis hadbeen mobilized for service in the war with Ethiopia in
combat, support, andlabor units-6,000 of them in the CorpoZaptie.British forces
capturednearly 200,000 Italian prisoners, including Somali troops, during the
campaign, in addition to large quantities of war materiel19. These Somalis were taken
against their will to fight for a cause they did not believe in, and in process were
murdered and maimed.
In Robert Rinehart’s report on Somalia, he attempts to convince the reader of the
fact that Italy’s war on Ethiopia did not have a large impact on Somalia, and that Italy did
not suppress the Somalis but help them flourish. He states:
Despite these difficulties, agricultural production in the colonyincreased at a good rate. In some measure this was due to the initiative of amember of the Italian royal family, Prince Luigi Amedeo of Savoy, duke ofAbruzzi, who in 1940 found the Italo-Somali Agricultural Society (SocietaAgricola Italo-Somala-SAIS) to develop about 200,000 hectares of concessionaryland in the Shabeelle valley for mechanized commercial agriculture. Exportcrops intended for the Italian market included bananas, sugarcane, and cotton.The colony's only other significant products were livestock, hides, skins,
18 "Story of a Siege", Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,790256,00.html (October 1941)19 Ibid.
13
and salt from an Italian plant begun at Ras Hafun in 1940.20
This may be true, but the fact of the matter is that the Italians only promoted
agricultural production of Somalia in order to sustain their own economic needs, and this
over-exploitation of Somalia’s resources during the war resulted in a split between British
controlled Somalia and Italian controlled Somalia that caused a great divide when
Somalia gained its independence, as previously stated.
Thus, Mussolini’s over-exploitation of Somalia during and building up to the
Second World War led to the political grievances and deeper clan separation that carries
on to this day. It also fueled the future uprisings against any political leader who dares to
mistreat the Somalis. Mussolini planted that seed of distrust into the minds of the
Somalis; he showed them that if they do not stand up for themselves their land will be
used as battlefields, and their bodies as shields. However, due to the fact that British and
Italian rule split the people up so severely, every clan has a different conception of what
is right for the Somalis and what is wrong. This disagreement has led to Somali once
more becoming a battlefield, but this time they are aiming the guns at each other.
Thirdly, American and Soviet over-exploitation of Somalia during the Cold War
resulted in the support of different coups and regime changes, and the overwhelming
amount of weaponry that is still used there today. Somalia’s strategic position on the
Horn of Africa and along oil routes leading out of the Persian Gulf made it a much
desired land by both the United States and the Soviet Union. Although Major General
Mohamed SiadBarre began his reign by cozying up to the Soviets in order to shake the
Western world’s hold on his country, he ended up going to the Americans as the Soviets
20 Robert Rinehart, “Countries of the World: Somalia”, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2863.htm (1999)
14
were uncomfortable supporting a country that was fighting one of its allies (Ethiopia at
the time).21This was another open door for the Americans.
Following the humiliation of defeat in Vietnam in the mid-1970s, America, under
President Jimmy Carter, launched what came to be known as the ‘Second Cold War’ –
where rather than committing troops to bolster its authority in the Third World it sought
instead to weaken Soviet influence by sponsoring and arming various different regimes.
This was the exact case with Somalia. Journalist Brendan O’Neill outlines the events that
resulted in Somalia becoming another proxy war in his article, Somalia: Killed by
‘Kindness.’ He states:
In order to win Barre over, the Carter administration cut off all its aid to Ethiopia and encouraged Barre to invade the Ogaden region – that land of a million Somalis that had been handed by the British to the Ethiopians. When Barre’s forces duly stormed Ogaden, the Soviet Union denounced him, switched its support from Somalia to Ethiopia, and backed Ethiopian efforts – which were also assisted by Soviet-friendly Cuban forces – to expel the Somalis from Ogaden.22
Somalia was defeated and withdrew the last of its military forces from the Ogaden Desert
in March of 1978. Estimates are that the war cost Somalia one-third of its army, three-
eighths of its armored units and half of its air force.23 In addition, an article published by
the Economist at the time of this conflict states that, “the Somalis lost, and 800,000
impoverished Ogaden refugees stayed in Somalia, adding to the country's economic
21 Brendan O’Neill, “Somalia: killed by ‘kindness’” Spiked http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/439/ (Friday 23 June 2006)
22 Ibid.23 Rick Rozoff, “Cold War Origins of the Somalia Crisis and Control of the Indian Ocean” Global Policy Forum http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/153-expansion-a-intervention/47824-cold-war-origins-of-the-somalia-crisis-and-control-of-the-indian-ocean-.html (May 3, 2009)
15
burdens.”24 However, to the United States this seemed like a necessary sacrifice in order
for them to achieve their objectives: Military bases and forces astride many of the world's
most strategic shipping lanes and chokepoints in an area encompassing the Suez Canal
and the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. In the
mind of Jimmy Carter, exploiting Somalia’s land and people was a small price to pay for
American dominance of the land. However, the United States did not stop there.
After Jimmy Carter, both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. unwittingly set the
scene for the chaos and destruction that would take place in 1991 by backing and
supporting Maj. Gen. Mohamed SiadBarre’s dictatorship and fueling his corruption. By
the early 1980s the U.S. had replaced the Soviet Union as Somalia’s military patron. U.S.
military aid to Somalia during the 1980s totaled more than $200 million, with hundreds
of millions more in economic aid.25 The U.S. sought to maintain its influence in this
volatile area, and to counter the Soviet presence in Ethiopia. However, the majority of
this money never even reached the Somali people, but fell into the corrupt and greedy
government. Barre used this American money to buy allies and American weapons to
punish enemies.26He was able to divert much of the international and American assistance
away from clans in areas of Somalia that were not supportive of his administration.27In
order to further exploit Somalia, the United States turned a blind eye to the misuse of
24 “Not a Nice Way to Come Home”, The Economist http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast- africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13761890 (July 9th 1988) 25 Emira Woods, “Somalia,” Foreign Policy in Focus, http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n19som.html , (29 October 2009)
26 Clarke, Walter, and Jeffrey Herbst. "Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention." Foreign Affairs 75.2 (1996): 70. Print.
27 Stanley B. Andrews, “Reconstructing a Shattered Somalia”, Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0891/9108047.htm ( August/September 1991), Page 47
16
their aid, as Barre was rewarding them. In August of 1980, Barre signed a defense pact
with the Carter administration, giving U.S. troops access to the air and naval facilities at
the Soviet-built port of Berbera. The port became a key base for America’s ‘Rapid
Deployment Force’, the massive military forces set up by Carter in 1979 and posted
around the world to protect America’s interests, especially in Korea, the Persian Gulf and
the Middle East.28
The United States also supported ethnic fragmentation in order to keep Barre in
power. The following is a map of Somalia’s ethnic groups in 199229:
The Marehan sub-clan was one of the most powerful clans in Somalia- bordering
on Kenya and Ethiopia and creating alliances with most other clans. However, Soviet
support changed this by straining their relations with other clans. During the 21 years of
his regime, Barre consolidated power by appointment of his minorityMarehan clan
members from the South to key government posts and by using the National Security
2828Ibid.
29 Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection “Somalia Ethnic Groups”, University of Texas at Austin http://lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/somalia_ethnic92.jpg (1992)
17
Service (a KGB type service implemented by the U.S.S.R.) to further fragment traditional
clan alliances. The United States promoted clan fragmentation in a more violent manner.
In 1981, Issak clan leaders and soldiers organized the Somali National Movement
(SNM), whose guerrillas attacked the northern Somali towns of Hargeisa, Burao,
Erigabo, and Berbera. Government troops moved to retake territory and Barre requested
U.S. military aid. The United States airlifter military supplies to government troops, who
not only attempted to retake the territory, but bombarded civilian areas of their
enemies.An estimated 50,000 persons—many of whom were women and children—were
killed, and 450,000 refugees fled to Ethiopia. During the hostilities which followed,
government troops gradually lost control of the countryside. In 1989, clashes intensified
as the military fired upon civilians leaving a mosque in Mogadishu, resulting in 450
persons dead. Hostilities accelerated as other clans in the south and the Hawiye clan in
the Mogadishu area joined the growing opposition.30 They did not recognize that Barre
was exploiting clan rivalries in order to maintain his power.31 Again, the United States
turned a blind eye in order to maintain support for Barre. They so desperately needed a
Somali leader that would succumb to their demands like Barre that they would do
anything to keep him in power, even disturb clan alliances and promote the murders of
the innocent. These clan rivalries, promoted by the United States in order to exploit the
land, continue to invoke violence to this day.
In addition to all of this, the weapons that the United States and the Soviets
pumped into Somalia are the main reason that chaos erupted and continues in the state.
30 Stanley B. Andrews, “Reconstructing a Shattered Somalia”, Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0891/9108047.htm ( August/September 1991), Page 4731 “Somalis”, Cultural Orientation http://www.cal.org/CO/somali/shist.html (February 2004)
18
Jeffrey Gettleman states in his Foreign Policy Article, The Most Dangerous Place in the
World, “First it was the Soviets who pumped in weapons, then the United States. A poor,
mostly illiterate, mainly nomadic country became a towering ammunition dump primed
to explode.”32As the Cold War came to a close, it proved too costly and uneconomic for
all the built up weapons and ammo to be shipped home, so both nations left their
warehouses stocked with military supplies there. As Jeffrey Gettleman explains further in
the article, the results of this decision were, and still remain to be, the fuel for Somalia’s
fire. He states:
When clan warlords finally ousted [SiadBarre] in 1991, it wasn’t much of a surprise what happened next. The warlords unleashed all that military-grade weaponry on each other, and every port, airstrip, fishing pier, telephone pole—anything that could turn a profit—was fought over. People were killed for a few pennies. Women were raped with impunity. The chaos gave rise to a new class of parasitic war profiteers—gunrunners, drug smugglers, importers of expired (and often sickening) baby formula—people with a vested interest in the chaos continuing. Somalia became the modern world’s closest approximation of Hobbes’s state of nature, where life was indeed nasty, brutish, and short.33
Therefore, both the United States and the Soviet Union over-exploited Somalia
during the Cold War in order to pursue their political objectives, and ended up creating a
monster. The United States promoted the leadership of Maj. Gen. Mohamed SiadBarre in
order to gain more power in Somalia than the Soviet Union, however in this action they
also supported every single one of his corrupted decisions that broke Somalia down piece
by piece. In the span of twelve years, both superpowers managed to carry out the murders
of hundreds of thousands of innocent Somalis, rip the clan alliances apart, and fill the
country to its brim with weapons that would remain there out of pure laziness, and be
32 Jeffrey Gettleman, “The Most Dangerous Place in the World,” Foreign Policy http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4682 (March/April 2009) 33 Ibid.
19
used as tools of self-destruction.
To conclude, the Western powers’ over-exploitation of Somalia through
colonialism, the Second World War, and the Cold War, resulted in the clan
fragmentation, excess of weapons, and government distrust that plagues the chaotic
country today. Through multi-power colonialism, Somalia was split between the Italians,
British, French, and Ethiopians, and became a land whose main purpose was to fulfill the
needs of foreigners. The British and Italians were so preoccupied with maintaining their
position as hegemonic powers through taking part in the “Race for Africa,” they were
unable to see that by disturbing clan boundaries and depleting Somalia of its natural
resources, they would be responsible for over one million deaths in the long run. Their
over-exploitation of the land took away any hope for Somalia’s economic stability, as the
repercussions of the famine and war they promoted are still highly visible today.
During the Second World War, the conflict between the Italians and the British
came to play not only in the Western theatre, but also on the already bloody Somali soil.
Mussolini was able to use Somali soldiers in his plan to conquer British Somaliland and
Ethiopia, and pit clan against clan in order to win the war. Nearly 4000 Somali people
were taken from their homes, taken from everything they knew, in order to fight a foreign
war between two countries who both wished to exploit the land. This all proved to be for
naught, as Britain reconquered Somalia in 1941. The conflict between these two countries
during the war resulted in a severe division between their colonies, as Italian Somalia was
far more economically stable than British Somaliland. This over-exploitation of the
Somali people resulted in a distrustful sentiment of the government, which has
contributed to the lack of support for any kind of government structure in today’s
20
Somalia.
During the Cold War, the Soviets and Americans claimed Somali as another
proxy war, and exacerbated colonial clan divisions by supporting regimes in which their
influence would be most heavily weighted. The United States supported the corrupt
dictator Maj. Gen. SiadBarre in order to gain power and takeover Soviet military
structures and organizations. They were fully aware that Barre was manipulating clan
alliances in order to maintain his power and that he was ensuing violence against his
enemies, however they continued to support him because he gave them what they
wanted. In addition to this, both Americans and Soviets continuously pumped weapons
into Somalia, and left them there because the cost of removal was too high. This over-
exploitation of the already weakened state gave the Somali people a reason to initiate
violent clan disputes, and gave them the guns with which to do it.
After examining the endless exploitation of Somalia throughout these time
periods, we are left with a shocking revelation: despite numerous breakthroughs in the
issue of racism in Western countries, they still carry the idea of “The White Man’s
Burden,” and see these developing African countries as disposable land in which they can
dominate and utilize for the political objectives of their own governments. This idea is
not only contributing to the extreme chaos in Somalia, but to the destruction in many
other African countries due to Western influence. Neither Italy nor Britain nor America
even attempted to understand the incredibly complex clan system in Somalia before
trying to change it, and this only resulted in the heightening of clan disputes. A clear
example of how this is still going on in Somalia is with America’s ousting of the only
government that was able to be maintained in the country in 2006, just because it was
21
radically Muslim. Despite the Islamic Courts Union bringing hope of peace and stability
to Somalia, the United States decided that an Islamic government would not positively
affect their own country. Somalia is a microcosm of the possible future of developing
African countries as a whole if global powers continue to exploit them; the entire
continent will be a landmass of violence and destruction.
Nicholas Haan once stated, “While Somalia is normally one of the poorest and
most food insecure countries in the world, current conditions are dire and way beyond the
typically resilient Somali peoples’ capacity to cope. The window of opportunity to avert
disaster is quickly closing.”34It is so difficult to understand how countries responsible for
the current state of chaos in Somalia can just sit idly by and watch innocent men, women,
and children die each day because of what they have done. It is time they take action and
realize that it is not too late to repair the problems they have created; it is time they stitch
back up the rips and tears they maneuvered into the country for their own political gain. It
is time for them to use their power and influence for the good of humanity, so that the
next time a Somali boy goes to the market, he will see rows and rows of the food that has
haunted his dreams for his entire life, and absolutely no guns in sight.
34 Nicholas Haan, “While Somalia is normally…”, QuoteSea http://www.quotesea.com/Quote.aspx?q=WhileSomaliaisnormallyoneofthepoorestand, (2009)
22
Works Cited
Andrews, Stanley B. "Reconstructing a Shattered Somalia." Washington Report on
Middle Eastern Affairs (1991): 47. Aug. &sept. 1991. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0891/9108047.htm>.
Barkadle, Ali Abdullahi M. "Somalia: Salvaging a Failed State." Global Policy (2002).
24 Aug. 2002. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/173/30459.html>.
23
Clarke, Walter, and Jeffrey Herbst. "Somalia and the future of humanitarian
intervention." Foreign Affairs 75.2 (1996): 70. Print.
Draper, Robert. "Shattered Somalia." National Geographic (2009): 1-14. Sept. 2009.
Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/somalia/draper-text/1>.
Emira Woods, “Somalia,” Foreign Policy in Focus,
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n19som.html, 29 October 2009.
Gettleman, Jeffrey. "The Most Dangerous Place on Earth." Foreign Policy (2009): 1-5.
March & April 2009. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4682>.
Gundel, Joakim. Somalia Diaspora and State Reconstitution in the Horn of Africa. New
York: Adonis & Abbey Ltd, 2007. Print.
Hassan, Marian A. Dhegdheer, A Scary Somali Folktale. Minneapolis: Minnesota
Humanities Commission, 2006. Print.
Helen Chapin Metz, ed. Somalia: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of
Congress, 1992.
"History of Somalia." The Experience Festival. 2008. Web. 17 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Hsitory_of_Somalia__World_War_II/
id/5132614>.
"Not a Nice Way to Come Home." The Economist (1988). 9 July 1988. Web. 16 Dec.
2009. <http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displaystory.cfm?
story_id=13761890%20>.
O'Neill, Brendan. "Somalia: Killed by 'Kindness'" Spiked Magazine. 23 June 2006. Web.
24
16 Dec. 2009. <http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/439/>.
Petrie, Charles, "The Price of Failure," paper presented at the conference,
"Learning from Operation Restore Hope: Somalia Revisited," Princeton
University, April 21-22, 1995, p.10.
Rinehart, Robert. "Countries of the World: Somalia." U.S. Department of State. 1999.
Web. 17 Dec. 2009. <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2863.htm>.
Rozoff, Rick. "Cold War Origins of the Somalia Crisis and Control of the Indian Ocean."
Global Policy Forum. 3 May 2009. Web. 17 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/153-expansion-a-
intervention/47824-cold-war-origins-of-the-somalia-crisis-and-control-of-the-
indian-ocean-.html>.
Samatar, Said. In the shadow of conquest Islam in colonial Northeast Africa. Trenton, N.J: Red Sea, 1992. Print.
"Somalia Quotes." Quotesea. Web. 17 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.quotesea.com/Quote.aspx?
q=WhileSomaliaisnormallyoneofthepoorestand>.
"Somalis." Cultural Orientation. 18 Feb. 2004. Web. 17 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.cal.org/CO/somali/shist.html>.
"The Story of a Siege." Time Magazine (1941). 6 Oct. 1941. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,790256,00.html>.
25