Somalia and Institutions

Many of the nations in the continent of Africa have been in a state of war since their independence from their European colonial masters. One such nation is Somalia, a country situated on the Horn of Africa in the east of the continent. The history of the nation is peculiar; having for most of its existence has been ruled by two different parties. During colonial times, the northern section of the current day state was a British colony, while the south was a colony of Italy (Bruton). The two sections were finally united in 1960 when Somalia became an independent and sovereign state. Shortly after in 1969, the Somali military lead a coup d’état against the government, which lead to the establishment of communist rule until 1991. During this period, Somalia was united under one government, and all of the Somalia was included in it. After the ousting the communist government in 1991, the various tribes of Somalia reemerged and started fighting each other for power. After one group of tribes took over the capital of Mogadishu and started seizing international aid shipments, the United States and UN launched a campaign to dislodge the tribal control of the capital to allow the aid flow to the rest of Somalia (Bruton). This fighting would culminate into the event that we now know as “Black Hawk Down”, but the effort did manage to kill or capture a few ranking tribal militia members. However, both US military and UN peacekeeping personnel sustained substantial casualties and after the UN issued a declaration condemning the attacks, withdrew remaining peacekeeping forces (UN Security Council). Following the international withdrawal, an official government known as the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), was slowly being formed to retake control of Somalia, but at the same time Islamic fundamentalists were uniting clans and gaining more and more territory and power in the country (Bruton). The TFG would not be able to take on the various clans on their own, so they have been receiving international military support, most from the African Union (AU) (BBC).

The TFG and their allies have been fighting the various clans that claim control in Somalia for the past decade. And even today, AU member nations continue to pledge more and more of their own soldiers (particularly from Ethiopia, Uganda, and Burundi) to fight to establish the TFG’s control of Somalia and to increase Somalia’s security (BBC). Looking through the lens of a realist would make this situation seem absolutely bizarre. Nearby nations donated their own military assets to establish the security and power of another? Especially one strategically positioned on the coast with potential to become economically powerful through sea trade. By thinking as realists, this situation would be seen as these nations voluntarily decreasing their own security and power to enhance the security and power of another nation. And this view is because in the realm of realism, security and power are objects that are non-divisible. Despite all of this, the theory of Liberalism can explain the situation in Somalia.

The actions taken by the AU in Somalia can best be explained by Liberal Institutionalism. Action taken by Institutions, in the case the UN and AU, in Somalia are for the security of the region and the world and will create peace and stability. This is an example of collective security. The reasoning behind this would have to be that if Somalia is finally calmed down, then various problems of the lawlessness of country will also disappear. One of these problems is the Somali piracy. This applies especially to the AU, who would want to pacify the region to allow the establishment of a more fluid and free economy. The three most involved African nations in the Somali conflict are Uganda, Burundi, and Ethiopia. Now why would these nations want to create peace and stability in Somalia? The nation with the most obvious motive is Ethiopia. Ethiopia, which contains the seat of the AU in its capital of Addis-Ababa, is Somalia’s neighbor and receive the benefits of having a secure border plus a decline in refugees that have been steadily streaming across its borders since 1991 (Bruton). They are the most heavily invested in the international military effort (BBC). Burundi and Uganda however are not neighbors to Somalia, so why are they pledging more soldiers to be used to secure Mogadishu? Liberalism would explain that they are doing this to build bonds with the future Somali government as well as with the rest of the AU and UN. This way, the landlocked Uganda and Burundi will have a history with Somalia, which is has plentiful amounts of coastline. Potentially, Somalia could be a vital trading partner with these two nations when the political situation over there finally calms down. But the bottom line is clear, in Africa collective security is an important goal to achieve due to the close proximity the African nations have with each other.

But still, are the motives of the AU and Uganda and Burundi really this pure and good? Perhaps they actually are just involved in the Somalia conflict just to come out possibly come out with some ceded territory, instead of forging a diplomatic relation with the new Somali government. And would peace really come to Somalia if a democratic government was installed first before security was established? Especially with Islamic militant groups fighting for Sharia law in the country, would the Liberal formula for peace work in this situation? Personally I am doubtful any progress will occur in Somalia until the violent clans are suppressed and the TFG is firmly placed in power.

Works Cited

Bruton, Bronwyn. "Somalia A New Approach."Council Special Report 52 Mar 2010. n. pag.CIAO. Web. 29 Sep 2011.

BBC, . "African Union to get extra troops for Somalia mission." BBC News Africa. BBC, 27 Sep 2011. Web. 29 Sep 2011. .

"Resolution 837 (1993) Adopted by the Security Council at its 3229th meeting, on 6 June 1993." RefWorld. UN Security Concil, 06 Jun 1993. Web. 29 Sep 2011. .