Like most Eritreans, we have a soft spot for Somalis.  Now, after a decade and half of lawlessness and anarchy, Somalis have an opportunity to place their house in order; but they are facing a long line of cynical foreigners, each trying to advance its interest by converting Somalia into a battle zone and the Somalis are not helping the situation either. Neighboring countries are supposed to provide their good offices to facilitate peace, but Somalia is not blessed with enlightened neighbors and, according to a UN report, the entire neighborhood is involved in facilitating war. If war breaks out in Somalia, it could have devastating ramifications for the entire Horn of Africa and now is the time for sober-minded people to find a peaceful outcome in Somalia.

All wars are terrible things; but some wars are worse than others.  If this was a war between two states, as was the case between Ethiopia and Somalia in 1977; or Ethiopia and Eritrea in 1998-00, it would be terrible enough; but at least it would be a contained war. What makes the advertised war so frightening is not the antagonists involved; i.e. the Union of Islamic Courts vs. the Transitional Federal Government but the fellow-travelers who have signed on to come to the defense of one side or the other or even to promote issues that have nothing to do with Somalia.

The UIC & Its Fellow Travelers

In nations without public opinion polls or elections, one should exercise caution in stating whether a certain group is supported or reviled by the people.  Nonetheless, anecdotal information seems to suggest that the UIC seems to enjoy the support of the Somali people who were tired of the warlords, the roadblocks, the extortion and the random violence. The UIC was initially bankrolled by the Somali business community to establish some semblance of stability and, like most people in the world who are exhausted by wars and chaos, Somalis seem to be willing to take a chance on people with questionable reputation; so long as they are able to deliver peace and stability.  This decision may be a mistake - even a big mistake- but it is a Somalian affair and the Somalis should be allowed to make their own mistakes. 

Moreover, nations should not feel threatened by Islamism per se, and they should view it as another ideology for governing nation states.  Generally speaking, Islamists (including Eritrean Islamists) believe that in majority-Muslim nations, the people should be governed by Shariah; and where Muslims are a plurality, there should be a federal system that allows them to practice Shariah in their geographical domain.  As with every ideology, Islamism brings with it its liberals, moderates and conservatives and the attempt to use its extreme variation to damn all of it is counter-productive.

In some states, like Turkey and Palestine, the Islamists came to power via democratic elections; and in other states, like Iran, they came via coups; but the same can be said of virtually every ideology the world knows.

Spontaneous revolutions -and the uprising of the UIC in Somalia can be characterized as a revolution- carry the good and the bad, the peaceful and the violent.  The Somalis' UIC is no exception and the danger is that the fellow-travelers (the militant, the violent, the extremists) within the coalition will prevail.  A group of the fellow-travelers include the extremists who have been very quick to play the religious card, explaining all opponents as tools of Ethiopia or crusaders deserving of Jihad.  The fellow-travelers also include people who have resurrected issues long-settled by the OAU about the sanctity of colonial borders and have expressed their intention to annex ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti.

Moreover, there have also been troubling incidents, which are alien to East Africa and a direct import from the Middle East: suicide bombings. Car bombings, invented in Ireland and perfected in the Middle East, have also been introduced to the region.

So far, these incidents have been Muslim-on-Muslim crimes but the moment there is even one incident of Christian-on-Muslim or Muslim-on-Christian violation, it could easily get out of hand and could involve other nations.

The UIC has disavowed any involvement with the suicide bombings; but it needs to state it more unequivocally, and it must reassure its neighbors that once it comes to power it has every intention of respecting the sanctity of colonial borders and will be governed by the rules of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations.

The TFG and Its Fellow Travelers

The shortcomings of the TFG are well known and this website had a feature entitled "Nations in the Hood" where we regularly skewered Somalia's parliament of clans. 

Still, they are Somalis entitled to present their views of how Somalis should be governed. If Somalis prefer a parliament of clans to Islamist rule, it is up to the Somalis to decide- and the TFG, which was blessed by all stakeholders, is a product of the coming together of all Somali tribes and clans. The TFG, after all, was the result of two years of negotiation.  Even if the individuals the system produced are rejected, it does not automatically follow that this is a rejection of the system.

The claim that Islamism is the only solution for Somalia is belied by the Somaliland experiment: although the world community refuses to recognize Somaliland, it has an assembly of elders, a functioning police force, has had several presidential elections and carries out considerable trade with Ethiopia, Djibouti and the Arabian Peninsula.

The danger, here again, is from the TFG's fellow-travelers: Ethiopia, the United States and African states who had long ignored the Somalis. Ethiopia, or more accurately, the pro-government opinion-makers are contributing to framing this conflict as a religious war. Two examples will suffice.

The first one is the case as advanced by Meles Zenawi. Unlike English-speakers, Amharic-speakers have not yet developed the appropriate translation for the word "Islamist."  Absent this word, Meles Zenawi has been substituting it for "Jihadists."  But Jihad, according to Islam, is legitimate in self-defense so when Melles Zenawi uses the word "Jihadists", some hear what he intends by its use (violent extremists) but others hear, "people engaged in self-defense."  And since the Islamists have framed the issue as a struggle between a group trying to invade them and group trying to defend themselves, the "jihadists" description does nothing but exacerbate religious tension.

Meles Zenawi is also quick to use the "terrorist" appellation -a curious phenomenon coming for a man who was called one during his years as a self-identified freedom fighter.

When the Somalis describe their mission as that of Muslims trying to bring Islamic rule to a Muslim nation, and the TFG is describing its mission as one trying to bring about clan-based democracy, some Ethiopians mimic the Somali Islamists and describe their nation, Ethiopia, as a Christian nation facing an attack by Muslims.

The most regrettable example of this was the one that the Deutsche Presse-Agentur attributed to Abraham Kinfe, who heads the Ethiopian International Institute for Peace and Development, which it described as "a think tank with close ties to the government". According to Abraham Kinfe, Ethiopia is "traditionally a Christian country, but Muslims have lived here since the start of the spread of Islam in the seventh century."

This is like saying Saudi Arabia was traditionally a pagan country, but Muslims have lived there since the seventh century.  Or, Ethiopia traditionally practiced indigenous religions until Christianity moved in there in the 4th century. 

The language regresses further into dangerous religious-baiting as you go down the food chain and read the popular Ethiopian blogs and websites.  We do not monitor the Kenyan and Ugandan websites but it is probably just as bad.

As for the other fellow-travelers of the TFG, the United States, it is quite puzzling to what level the daunted US diplomacy and intelligence has fallen ever since the US lost its groove.  As recently as 1993, there were more Somalis fond of the US as those who were hostile to it: most Americans know the story of "Black hawk down" of 1993; what they don't know is that simultaneous with the downing of the black hawk, there were multiple pro-US demonstration occurring in Somalia. By all indications, the War Against Extremists is probably going to last as long as the Cold War and, for the sake of moderates all over the world, the United States needs to regain its footing and its competence. It cannot jump from supporting hated warlords to individuals with questionable legitimacy; and then use the one nation, Ethiopia, that is viewed most suspiciously even by Somalis who would be most sympathetic to and fond of the United States, to attack them. 

The Wild Card: Isaias Afwerki

If Isaias Afwerki had convinced the United States to establish a base in Massawa in 2002-2004 when he was lobbying hard ("our landscape looks like the one in Afghanistan", "there is no limit to the help we will provide the United States"), whose side would he be on now in the UIC-TFG conflict?  Exactly.  There are several reasons why Isaias Afwerki is in Somalia, beyond his obvious habit of showing up to any war party, whether he is invited or not. 

At the macro level, he wants to Bagdhadize Moghadishu: help to create so much chaos, that it is only a matter of time that the experts will call for a "comprehensive" solution.  In Baghdad, "comprehensive" is euphemism for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; in Moghadishu, it will be euphemism for the Eritrea-Ethiopia border demarcation.

At the micro level, the motivation is cruder: it is to avenge for the hurt feelings; he is nurturing feelings caused by his feud with Meles Zenawi (for refusing to comply with the border ruling) and with America (for its refusal to compel Ethiopians to demarcate the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea.)  

At the domestic level, involvement in Somalia achieves two goals: it distracts Eritreans from their own miserable affairs while exploiting Eritreans' genuine desire to help out the Somalis return a debt for their long service to Eritreans. (This is a debt he had somehow managed to ignore for a dozen years)  

The Somalis should exercise maximum caution in their dealings with Isaias, for several reasons.  First of all, there has not been a single party or country that has been a friend of Isaias which has not suddenly found itself a foe, or vice versa: 

• The Arab nations which supported the Eritrean revolution for decades were insulted and their contributions belittled;

• The contribution of religious NGOs that helped to sustain the Eritrean revolution was also denied and they have been branded enemies;  

• Wars were declared on Sudan, Yemen, and Ethiopia.

• Djibouti was the subject of a negative media onslaught.

• The US, formerly an ally, is now branded the enemy

There is simply no predictability nor a limit to the man's behavior: he was recently photographed holding hands with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, a man who is hosting the genocidal Mengistu Hailemariam, the former Ethiopian president who has never been held to account for his barbarism against Eritreans.

Secondly, he harbors nothing but hostility to Islamists.  His career was launched by waging a war against an imaginary Jihadist group in Eritrea--in 1970! His history includes fabricating the existence of Jihadists just so he can successfully market himself as a bulwark against Jihadists. (His encore attempt at reinventing this character, this time with "terrorism" as the scourge of East Africa, was not quite successful in 2001-2004.)  He is a dragon-slayer in search of dragons. The Somalis should remember that a man who does not seek a mandate from the Eritrean people to help them will not seek one when he decides to attack them. 

The Gates Of Hell

In 2002, when the United States was getting ready to invade Iraq, Mr. Amer Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League warned that with the invasion "the gates of hell will open."  Given the brutality of Saddam Hussein, many, including The Pencil, argued that it was not a bad thing for the gates of hell to open in Iraq, because that would allow the Iraqis the reprieve of living in Saddam's hell. Our argument was that whatever "hell" the involvement of the United States would cause, it would pale in comparison to the hell Saddam had created with his deliberate chemical bombing and raping and killing of civilians, including children, mostly targeting the Kurds and then the Shiaas.  In any event, given the incompetent execution of the war and America's series of blunders, honest people could disagree on whether Iraq was a bigger hell in the era of Saddam or the first three years of American occupation.

If war breaks out in Somalia -particularly one between the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) and Ethiopia- then the other gates of hell will really open and this time, there can be no debate as to whether the war caused it to open.

What the UIC and the TFG (and Ethiopia) need to do is to step back from the brink. For once, we would like to hear of a war that was averted before it started; of a mediation effort that replaces war, instead of following it. We hope they will reject the appeal of the Hundred Percenters: those who insist on speaking the language of ultimatums, deadlines and threats and those who insist on getting their way or no way. We appeal to them to reject the call of the absolutists and those who insist in sharpening differences and creating an us-vs-them environment. The outlines of the deal that will be offered after a disastrous war are the same ones that can be negotiated before the war. We hope our Somali and Ethiopian brothers will skip the war and go straight to mediation.    

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it