Since 9/11, US foreign policy has increasingly focused on international terrorism, and Somalia has been impacted by this shift because of allegations of "terrorists" hiding in the country, and the fear that any failed state has the potential to turn into a terrorist safe-haven. US government officials have even called the Horn of Africa a "front line in the war on terror."
The US has largely followed a strategy of state-building as its major tactic in counter-terrorism in Somalia. Consequently, it supported the 2006 Ethiopian occupation to overthrow the Union of Islamic Courts and install Abdullahi Yusuf's Transitional Federal Government. This was a major policy mistake, and has resulted in political developments that move counter to US objectives: Social and economic collapse, humanitarian crisis, growth in piracy and extremism and the creation and growing strength of al-Shabab. Nevertheless, it was a sincere effort to put in place a more 'amenable' government from the perspective of Western governments.
Dangers
State-building attempts in Somalia have been a failure. Policy makers clearly did not understand the extremely fragile nature of the process and the dangers that can result if it's not done carefully. There are several theoretical frameworks that describe the violence inherent in state formation, but lessons from Somali history alone could have provided evidence enough of the precariousness of such an endeavor. Since European colonization's divide and rule tactics, Somalis have perceived control of central government as a zero-sum game. Thus any attempt to establish a central authority will place rival groups at odds, and lead to conflict. If an outside military force is brought in to prop up a government, without fail, Somalis put aside their differences and fight the occupying force with a (usually) unexpected ferocity.
Another danger in state-buildling is the narrow western definition of a state tha is often forced on developing countries, including Somalia. This influenced the perception that the TFG, as a western secular model, was more legitimate than the UIC, a Somali-style Islamic model, regardless of the popularity and success that the UIC had in the country. Western countries including the US put pressure on developing nations to modernize, liberalize and create western-style Westphalian governments. It is important to note, however, that European states had over four centuries to create their modern state structures, and it is unreasonable to expect developing countries to successfully adopt heir styles of government in a short period of time, and more importantly, in such a different socio-cultural context. It is further questionable why such models out to be imported, displacing traditional models, and whether such importation leads to greater upheaval. This foreign pressure on Somalia has eased in recent years, for example the acceptance of Sheikh Sharif's Islamic-based government. But here is still the gap between the governments recognized as legitimate within Somalia, verses those recognized internationally.
A Vision for Building a Somali State
Nevertheless, the only way of bringing stability to Somalia and countering criminal forces within the country is through the creation of a stable government. Establishing that government must be a Somali-led effort, and the US and international community can support this effort by engaging diplomatically, not militarily. Further there must be a more historic, cultural and linguistic expertise among policymakers determining how the state building process should look like. Understanding the xeer for example, a customary code that organized nomadic Somali communities for centuries, can help in envisioning a Somalicized governance structure.
On a positive note, Somalia was the first post-independence African nation to have a successful democratic transition of power when in 1967 the government of Aden Abdulle Osman voluntarily passed power after free and fair elections onto the government of Abdirashid Ali Shermarke. Although this historical fact demonstrates the success of a democratic government, since then the leaders have represented narrow clan interests and this has solidified clan distrust and enmity.
Most importantly, the popular will of the Somali people is critical to any successful government. John Stuart Mill wrote "The people for whom the form of government is intended must be willing to accept it; or at least not so unwilling as to oppose an insurmountable obstacle to its establishment." The voise of the people is critical in state formation and history has show that Somalis clearly refuse to allow their voices to be ignored. The attempts at government in the past few years have failed because the population did not buy into the regimes, although the ICU had the most buy-in of any recent regime. The Somali people will support a leader who has a positive impact on their lives- whether by bringing security, providing jobs or developing local economies. Making tangible progress in livelihoods is the surest way for a leader to earn support enough to lead such a scarred and fragmented country.
