... to think it's time the world sorted out Somalia?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Bandits, murderers, pirates, kidnappers, a hotbed for terrorism ... Somalia is like a vicious boil on the face of Africa. Where is the League of African Nations? The UN?

CES: remember Bosnia? You can't count on Europe or the UN to step in effectively anywhere.

I don't think it is simple to send in international forces (police or military) to a non-permissive environment, especially where there is no obvious successor regime.

For Somalia, who exactly within the country should we be supporting? Do we know of they want outside intervention? And if so, what type?

And al-Quaeda?

This is what has been happening in the Middle East - we did do something to keep Islamist militancy in abeyance and made bedfellows of some extremely revolting people in order to do so. Something was definitely done there.

Clearly 'nothing can be done' is not a phrase which makes us happy.

But it's clear that the somethings which have already been tried have spectacularly failed. Both within and without the EC.

Carrot and stick is way too simplistic for this sort of situation. These people are not naughty children. Though like parenting, carrot and stick only works if all parties (ie both parents - and children to an extent) are willing to co-operate. We cannot gain global co-operation and therefore any carrot and stick method will be undermined one way or another.

Basically what I'm saying is, the "something must be done"-ers are very often - in fact usually - the first people to shout "how dare we" when outsiders/our forces are actually in those countries "doing something".

Failed states are like smokers trying to quit. The state has got to really want to change. No amount of nagging by the international community will be effective unless that happens.

Only Africa can change Africa IMO.

Re Africa as a whole: the mosquito net example is a good one that illustrates the problem of aid (albeit simply). BUT it is not illustrative of much of the work that good development agencies do. For many years now the big agencies have realised that their work needs to be rights based. Action Aid and Oxfam have been at the forefront of this and now all the big agencies realise it. Rights-based work means facilitating active participation in projects; it means communities (the whole community including those often marginalised - eg women and the elderly) deciding themselves what they need; and it means projects where the outcome is not just the obvious concrete, short-term outcome but a community that has learned, that is better organised, that is ready to identify and take on the next challenge. If you look for them there are many fantastic, inspiring stories, where this kind of "intervention" has had a fantastic, lasting impact. This is why I give to the big, rights-based agencies (who complement such work with excellent research and campaigning to address the deep-rooted, local and global causes of poverty) and am sceptical of those that just distribute stuff. Don't get too depressed by the mosquito net scenario because there's great work going on.

Re Somalia: I have for many years been disgusted by the extent to which the West has just not given a shit about the fighting in Somalia and the horrific impact on thousands and thousands of civilians. Ever since the US' disastrous intervention Somalia and its people have been forgotten, by governments, the UN and - significantly imo - by the media (until a westerner gets kidnapped). Armed intervention is rarely the solution and often creates more problems than it solves, but there are other forms of pressure and assistance and as far as I can see there has been no real concerted effort on the part of the part of the international community to identify forms of pressure and ways of protecting the people of Somalia. I don't pretend to know what the "plan" should be, but the failure of the powerful to even come together to make an effort to formulate a plan appals me.

[point of information: the key regional grouping is the African Union - I don't think there is such a thing as the League of African Nations. AU troops are already in Somalia]

Of course I'm being simplistic because, as I said earlier, I'm not an expert. The answer will be complex, expensive, unpopular... and there is always the danger of the Law of Unintended Consequences. But at the moment, there appears to be this rogue state operating unchecked, wreaking havoc internally and externally and my feeling is that there must be more that could be done.

Hatwoman: the reason is surely an aboslute absence of national interest. If "our boys" are going to come home in body bags, if the people they are "helping" don't even appear to want to be helped, where is the point for any outside country to intervene? Aid agencies intervene in Somalia only with the help and permission of warlords and al Shebab. Any other kind of intervention on any scale requires armed support, and that's simply unacceptable both for the outside agency and the "receiving" nation. The US history in Somalia is no doubt too painful for Washington to have it on the agenda at all in any meaningful way.

Cogito: admitting being simplistic doesn't justify "something must be done". Ill thought out things have been done based on exactly such hand-wringing.

Yes, there is a rogue state. It's barely even a state. But we can't even "do" anything about trouble-making 14-year-olds. To shout "something must be done" about Somalia, you know, that's fine, it's a feeling, it's a guilt thing, it's awful seeing people suffering, but it's nothing to base a policy on. Something must also be done about child miners in Colombia and drug mafias in south America. Something must be done about the awful suffering of the people of North Korea. But yknow. Policies based on faces are never going to be that successful in the end.

Somalia is on our minds, but there are other more-or-less failed states with AQ pedigree, such as Yemen.

I really don't think saying "do more" is helpful, unless there is some idea of what "more" actually might mean and what the final wanted outcome is. When there is no viable indigenous alternative government, who is going invite in the international community? Or is invasion, with no clear post-conflict plan, a desirable option?

And - to put it bluntly - in the days of global economic strife, who will pay?

blueberties - the reason for what? Your post talks about armed intervention. I was specifically talking about other types of pressure - diplomatic, trade, arms, sanctions, criminal, and I was critical of the utter failure to really engage in formulating a plan to address the problems. I was clear in not advocating armed intervention. I wasn't talking about anything that would lead to UK soldiers being in the firing line. You assume there is nothing that can be done between NGO humanitarian aid and military intervention - not true.

On a different note - where do you get the idea that people appear to not want help? Do you think every Somali has the same opinion? Read some of the testimonies in Amnesty and Human Rights Watch reports.

sorry - bluebertie - ignore my last para - I see that your point was not that you think people appear to not want help; but that there is a wider-spread perception that this is the case - and that this undermines momentum for tackling the problem.

yy that's what I meant.

The reason for intervention of any kind. And I think it is more or less true. Any closed quarters intervention would require armed support. Look at even the NGOs, they teeter on the grace of Al Shebab and the warlords. In, out, shake it all about, they could turn at any time and individuals are at continual and unrelieved risk and again will be treating with really unpleasant people to be able to do their work.

The only realistic thing we can do is probably what we're already doing - watching and waiting until intelligence tells us there is a credible potential leader or leadership group that we might start to lend moral, financial, even public support to.

What do you suggest? I mean, by "other forms of pressure and assistance" what exactly do you mean?

As far as I'm aware, there are no Somali diplomats, no trade to sanction, no justice system to enforce criminal proceedings, no 'official' arms trade to work on.

Somalia, like Eritrea before it, is a black hole.

re criminal - I meant the ICC - INternational Criminal Court

by "other forms of pressure and assistance" - you mean the ICC?

sorry I don't understand that at all

diplomatic, sanctions, trade - but what? what do you mean? you are horrified by the lack of effort in these areas so you must have some idea of what you wanted to happen

Hmm. Another well thought through 'we must do something' bites the dust...

The EU has been doing some work on it, if you look at their website, and there is a transitional government in Somalia, but until you trace where the money is going, and stop it, then you won't get any results.

I don't think really there is a middle way available. Either you have to back up the transitional govt with force, or it will not cope. If it doesn't cope, then the problems in Somalia will spill over into neighbouring countries as they are already doing and the problem widens and worsens.

NATO are backing up the AU with airlift and experts, and the EU are running Op Atalanta and helping to train peacekeepers.

We could try withdrawing all the EU fishing boats from there and letting the Somalian fishing industry re-emerge, but I don't know that that would stop Al-Shabaab.