Why Somalia is a failed state

I got an e-mail the other day advertising an event titled "Why States Fail." I immediately thought maybe, just maybe, this lecture could give me some insight on the case of Somalia. In the end, it actually did clarify a few things- sort of. It's expalantion was a theory based on political economies.

The lecturer was Daron Acemoglu from MIT. His thesis is that states fail when they do not have inclusive political and economic instititutions. Hence, to prevent states from failing, make sure these institutions are strong and inclusive, rather than extractive.

Inclusive institution allow for a more level playing field, rule of law and a broader coaltition of leaders, while extractive institutions have barriers to economic and political advancement for most of the population, except for the few that extract their money and power from the rest.

When a state has inclusive institutions, according to Acemoglu, a sufficient amount of the population has their interests met, and feel as though there is space for them in the current system to improve their condition, either financially or politically. Further, there is room for growth and development when institutions are inclusive because it enables the reallocation of benefits and creative destruction- changing those institutions or practices that are no longer moving the nation forward. When institutions are extractive, the amount of freedom to allow for creative destruction no longer exists, and nations are stagnant wherever the elite believe they can benefit and extract the most from the population. Inclusive institutions are therefore more favorable to growth and development.

How does this apply to Somalia?

Somalia, with its zero-sum political climate, certainly doesnt have inclusive political institutions. According to Acemoglu, however, nations that adopt inclusive economic institutions will more likely move in the direction of inclusive political instutions as more of the population is financially empowered. There are many factors that are invovled in this transition, and Acemoglu says a "lucky confluence of factors" must occur to enable nations to make such a transformative transition. I'd sure like to hear more about what that confluence entails.

Somalia has one of the worlds most open markets, and is therefore largely economically inclusive. The problem, however, is that there is insufficient rule of law and property rights that would enable more effective economic institutions and growth. Nevertheless, this research suggests that if the transitional Somali government increases the robustness of the already largely inclusive economic institutions, then the inclusive political instutions will more likely follow.

I'm not sure of the predictive power of this theory, but it certainly is a strategy the Somali government should look into as a means of stabilizing the country and enabling development in the long-term.

Somalia and DR Congo

I just attended a highly informative talk today on the DR Congo. I walked away feeling angered by the situation in the DRC, and really hoping the Congolese people would mobilize to force change and claim peace.

What struck me was the similarities between the conflicts in Somalia and the DRC:

1- Both DRC and Somalia are considered failed states. Their central governments are largely seen as illegitimate and incapable of governing effectively.

2- Both countries were colonized by Europeans, although the genocide of King Leopolds Congo "Free" State was surely more devastating than the random assortment of Somali colonizers.

3- Both nations had nationalist post-independent leaders who were soon after replaced by dictators (Mobutu and Barre). After decades in power, these dictators were overthrown by popular uprising.

4- Both populations now feel the dictators weren't so bad after all, considering the chaos that has resulted.

5- Both nations are rich in natural resources (Somalia's have yet to be really exploited).

6- Neighboring nations and the international community play a heavy role in the conflicts, and their differing agendas exacerbate tensions.

7- The discourse about how to resolve the troubles in these countries always involves a role for outside actors, when in fact it will take the people themselves to advocate on their own behalf, and bring about positive change.

God bless both countries, the people have suffered long enough.

Do humans deserve to Starve for living near Bad guys?

The U.S. reduced its funding to Somalia last year [2009] after its Office of Foreign Assets Control expressed fear that the extended supply line and insurgent-heavy areas where aid agencies were operating meant aid could be diverted to a group with links to al-Qaida. Associated Press


In response to this step by the U.S., the WFP has dramatically downsized its food distribution in some regions of Somalia- regions holding some of the most at-risk and vulnerable populations in the nation.  


This situation is outrageous. How can food aid be denied to a population in desperate need, simply because the aid "could be diverted" to groups with alleged links to al-Qaida? Since we could be feeding a few enemies, we should therefore stop delivering food and leave the entire populations of those regions to suffer. I respect Obama tremendously but this is one of the most unethical decisions taken by his administration, and I'd urge his government and all others to lobby to overturn this tragically misguided policy. 

What Kind of Leader Does Somalia Need

Joseph Nye describes in his book The Powers to Lead that there are two kinds of leaders; transformational and transactional. A transformational leader has the ability to unite divided groups with a shared goal and transform the direction and condition of a nation. Transactional leaders unite populations gradually through existing institutions and checks. There can be a combination of transactional style with transformational objectives and vice versa. Why am I mentioning this on a blog about Somalia?

Somalia needs a Transformational Leader


The nation needs a transformational leader who can show the Somali people- who have suffered for far too long- that they CAN move forward, CAN live in a peaceful nation and CAN have stable and productive lives. What is needed is a leader to inspire trust and rally followers towards an objective of rebuilding Somalia to the beautiful, safe and prosperous nation it ought to be. A leader who moves beyond narrow divisions of clan or ideology, and shows Somalis that they have so much in common that makes them great. A leader that is willing to sacrifice and work tirelessly for the ultimate goal of guiding his or her people towards positive change. The leader cannot just preach this vision, but must educate the population so that they believe in it and develop a broader sense of identity and shared goals. The transactional style of warlords and the current government cannot work. The institutions simply aren’t in place to allow for transactional changes, and the longer the nation waits the more generations will be lost.

Machiavelli once wrote that its important for leaders to seem to be moral. I think there is some value in Machiavelli’s writings but this one I disagree with completely. Certainly in the case of Somalia, it is necessary to move beyond a leader who seems to be moral, and seems to care about the needs and aspirations of the people. Somalia- first and foremost- needs a leader who is deeply moral, and cares sincerely about rebuilding the nation and helping the population. Lastly, this leader must truly understand and empathize with the needs of the Somali people, and cannot be an opportunist, divisive figure or disconnected Diaspora member.

That is what is needed today but unfortunately there doesn’t appear to be anyone who fits the bill rising from amongst the Somali people. There must be a Somali Barack Obama or Nelson Mandela- I refuse to believe there are none. 

Suicide Attack at Graduation Ceremony

On Thursday December 3, 2009, a massive bomb blast went off in a crowded Mogadishu hotel where hundreds had gathered to watch a graduation ceremony for medical students. These were not your typical college students, they were extraordinary young people who dodged bullets and risked their lives every day to go to university for the past few years in hopes of becoming doctors- one of the most desperately needed professions in Somalia today. And on the day that undoubtedly started off with joy and celebration, a 'national disaster' (in the words of President Sheikh Sharif) occurred. A suicide bomber entered the hotel and detonated a devastating bomb. 22 people died and 60 were injured in this callous attack. 3 cabinet level ministers who had come to honor the graduates were among the dead.

This tragedy must serve as a wake up call. The nation has dealt with suicide bombings in the past, but this one is particularly tragic. It is a tragedy because it reveals the utter pointlessness of where the conflict has gone. Whoever is behind this attack somehow found it in their interest to attack an institution of hope. They saw benefit in killing innocent people who had gathered to celebrate a bright future for Somali students and for the nation. They found it justifiable to kill students who aspired to help heal their fellow countrymen and women. Such violent distorted logic must be understood and confronted.

Somalis need to rally in opposition to this attack and turn this into an opportunity to change direction, reject violence and begin reconciliation.

State Building in Somalia

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.

Empathy: A lesson from McNamara

I recently watched 'The Fog of War', a documentary in which former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara shares candidly his recollections and personal thoughts on episodes in his life. I truly believe an understanding and application of his lessons would greatly improve US policy towards Somalia and around the world, and would decrease the incidence of war.

Most people associate McNamara with the atrocities of the Vietnam war, and cold-calculations that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese. In his life McNamara was also an associate professor at Harvard, president of Ford Motor company, and president of the World Bank.

In the film McNamara offers several lessons that he learned in his years, and one was particularly striking to me.

Lesson 1: "Empathize with your enemies"

This is a very valuable lesson but unfortunately many policy makers are not sufficiently empathetic to their enemies. To be sure, empathy is not sympathy. To empathize with an opponent is to step into their shoes and try to see the world as they see it. Empathizing is valuable because it allows you to understand your opponent, the way they see the world or a particular conflict, and the way they rationalize decisions.

During the Cuban Missile crisis, McNamara said one of the reasons the crisis was averted was because Llewellyn Johnson, one of JFK's advisers, had lived in Russia and knew the culture and people relatively well. When JFK received the infamous two letters from Khrushchev, Johnson encouraged the President to ignore the public (more angry) letter, and only respond to the private letter. This was the right move.

McNamara admitted that no one in LBJ's circle had experience or knowledge of Vietnamese culture or a strong sense of the history. They were unable to empathize or understand Vietnamese motivations and strategies during the war. Consequently, the US's overtures to reach a treaty with the Vietcong were often ignored, to the bewilderment of the government. Vietnamese officials later stated that they could not go to a negotiating table with the US while bombs fell regularly on their villages and the US was engaging in "genocide" against its people. The continued bombing suggested to the Vietnamese that the US wanted to completely destroy the North and all opposition, and dominate the land the way the Chinese and French had tried to do historically. It wouldn't take a tremendous amount of empathy to realize that this would be the perception on the Vietnamese side, and the US could have taken tangible steps to quell that perception and move towards an agreement.

Applying this lesson to Somalia

Empathy is needed today just as much as ever. Bush's 'global war on terror' desperately lacked empathy, as it lumped together as "terrorists" diverse groups of people with very different motivations and conflicts.  In the case of Somalia, their is so little understanding of the country by actors around the world that the policies towards the country are often misguided and more harmful than beneficial.

Take for example what I consider to be one of the worst policy decisions by the Bush administration- the support for the Ethiopian occupation that forced out the Islamic Courts Union. There was such an utter lack of empathy on the part of those who made the decision. They made exaggerated (and largely un-proven) claims about the ICU's connections to al-Qaeda and the danger the government posed to the region. It was a policy that considered all Islamist governments to be the same, regardless of where they are located and how they came to power.

The US ignored the popularity of the ICU, their success at establishing stability in a war-torn country and their moderate approach. Instead the US supported the ouster of the ICU, and this directly lead to the Ethiopian occupation, the rise of the radicalized al-Shabab insurgency, and the subsequent abyss that Somalia is in today. The US realized this 'mistake' by the time Obama came to office, and is now trying desperately to reinstall the former head of the ICU- Sheikh Sharif- into power. The entire situation and context in Somalia has drastically changed, so no one should expect Sheikh Sharif to re-create what the ICU was able to do a few years ago.

The failure to empathize- to really understand the perspective and motivations of the ICU when it first came to power- led the US to make one of the worst foreign policy blunders ever. A blunder that has resulted in dire consequences for Somalia today, and can lead to instability around the globe if the conflict is not resolved soon. Hopefully the US will learn from this mistake- learn from McNamara's first lesson- and be sure to really know its opponent before subscribing value judgements that can turn out to be false. When its war, peace and human lives we are dealing with, policy makers cannot afford to make mistakes.