History repeats itself in Somalia

From a tragedy to a bloody farce.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foreign Secretary William Hague are publicly optimistic that Somalia’s transition is going well. Having just returned from Mogadishu, I can say that the reality on the ground does not meet this optimism. At best, Western powers have a naïve vision of political developments within Somalia, at worst they are showing a wilful misunderstanding of current dynamics and ignoring problems which are being created for the future. International players need to radically reassess their analysis if they do not want Somalia to slide into a new wave of conflict.

Directed by its fight against a Jihadi organisation, al-Shabaab, the "international community" – basically Western States led by the USA and UK – emphasize military successes over the last year against that movement and the timely implementation of a political roadmap that, it argues, provides Somalia with permanent institutions, a better qualified Parliament and a new leadership to move the country into a period of recovery.

Formally, the political roadmap (the process to end the prolonged transition and bring in a more permanent government) is being implemented successfully. 135 elders were appointed and selected a Constitutional Assembly who subsequently adopted a new constitution, while a new Parliament should be appointed by mid August. Yet, there should be no illusion about the many flaws of this apparent success.

One of the strategic weaknesses of the outgoing transitional Parliament and Government (TFG), set up in 2004, was its lack of popular legitimacy. The new institutions are likely to have no more legitimacy since the whole roadmap process appears to be overly-influenced by foreigners, especially through the United Nations Political Office for Somalia, and by corruption. Shockingly, MP seats can be bought for a few thousand US dollars.

Though the country is still at war and public debates are nearly impossible, the USA and UK pushed for a new constitution to be endorsed. The Constitutional Assembly was left with no choice but to endorse a draft constitution (at a cost of $13m) since it would be implemented anyway as a new Provisional Constitution. Many elders saw that debate on the Constitution as very divisive and the whole exercise illegitimate, rather than being a basis to express shared values.

Military successes are not deniable and more are expected in coming weeks. But Britain and the US have fallen for their own propaganda. For months it was announced that al-Shabaab was going to split. Nothing of the sort happened - the current restructuring of al-Shabaab aims at minimising infiltration, not dividing the spoils. For more than a year they have been getting ready to wage an asymmetrical war by securing sanctuaries in the countryside, building supply lines and setting up clandestine terrorist cells in major cities. Support provided by al-Qaeda has helped contain internal dissent and prepare for a new war extending beyond Somalia’s borders.

Most of the military victories to date were obtained by the African Union force AMISOM, not the TFG army. AMISOM have no knowledge of the areas they are capturing and rely on TFG forces or ‘allies’ to take over after the battle is won. But the incompetence, and often criminality (Human Rights Watch has documented the abuses of the TFG army and its allies), of the TFG means that these military victories are hollow.  

This appalling behaviour means that increasingly AMISOM is forced to get involved in local politics and so is seen as a foreign force supporting some against others, which was not the case previously. Lip service is paid to the reconciliation with clans and communities that supported al-Shabaab but nothing concrete is happening on the ground.

From the international community a more realistic frame of mind will allow them to craft an approach that seeks incremental improvements and manages the expectations of Somali people and their international partners. Otherwise we may see a repeat of Afghan history in Somalia. By 2013, we may find the end of the transition has not provided any renewed legitimacy to central institutions and has transformed al-Shabaab from a Somalia centred Jihadi movement into a regional terrorist group with connections in the Sahel and the Gulf and corruption leading all political developments at the centre while new military actors emerge in the regions.

Dr Roland Marchal is a Senior Research Fellow at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), based at Sciences-Po in Paris. He is a specialist on the economics and politics of conflict in sub-Saharan Africa.

A member of the Somali National Army during a passing-out parade at an African Union Mission in Mogadishu. Photograph: Getty Images

Dr Roland Marchal is a Senior Research Fellow at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), based at Sciences-Po in Paris. He is a specialist on the economics and politics of conflict in sub-Saharan Africa.

Show Hide image

Will Euroscepticism prove an unbeatable advantage in the Conservative leadership race?

Conservative members who are eager for Brexit are still searching for a heavyweight champion - and they could yet inherit the earth.

Put your money on Liam Fox? The former Defence Secretary has been given a boost by the news that ConservativeHome’s rolling survey of party members preferences for the next Conservative leader. Jeremy Wilson at BusinessInsider and James Millar at the Sunday Post have both tipped Fox for the top job.

Are they right? The expectation among Conservative MPs is that there will be several candidates from the Tory right: Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and potentially Owen Paterson could all be candidates, while Boris Johnson, in the words of one: “rides both horses – is he the candidate of the left, of the right, or both?”

MPs will whittle down the field of candidates to a top two, who will then be voted on by the membership.  (As Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee, notes in his interview with my colleague George Eaton, Conservative MPs could choose to offer a wider field if they so desired, but would be unlikely to surrender more power to party activists.)

The extreme likelihood is that that contest will be between two candidates: George Osborne and not-George Osborne.  “We know that the Chancellor has a bye to the final,” one minister observes, “But once you’re in the final – well, then it’s anyone’s game.”

Could “not-George Osborne” be Liam Fox? Well, the difficulty, as one MP observes, is we don’t really know what the Conservative leadership election is about:

“We don’t even know what the questions are to which the candidates will attempt to present themselves as the answer. Usually, that question would be: who can win us the election? But now that Labour have Corbyn, that question is taken care of.”

So what’s the question that MPs will be asking? We simply don’t know – and it may be that they come to a very different conclusion to their members, just as in 2001, when Ken Clarke won among MPs – before being defeated in a landslide by Conservative activists.

Much depends not only on the outcome of the European referendum, but also on its conduct. If the contest is particularly bruising, it may be that MPs are looking for a candidate who will “heal and settle”, in the words of one. That would disadvantage Fox, who will likely be a combative presence in the European referendum, and could benefit Boris Johnson, who, as one MP put it, “rides both horses” and will be less intimately linked with the referendum and its outcome than Osborne.

But equally, it could be that Euroscepticism proves to be a less powerful card than we currently expect. Ignoring the not inconsiderable organisational hurdles that have to be cleared to beat Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and potentially any or all of the “next generation” of Sajid Javid, Nicky Morgan or Stephen Crabb, we simply don’t know what the reaction of Conservative members to the In-Out referendum will be.

Firstly, there’s a non-trivial possibility that Leave could still win, despite its difficulties at centre-forward. The incentive to “reward” an Outer will be smaller. But if Britain votes to Remain – and if that vote is seen by Conservative members as the result of “dirty tricks” by the Conservative leadership – it could be that many members, far from sticking around for another three to four years to vote in the election, simply decide to leave. The last time that Cameron went against the dearest instincts of many of his party grassroots, the result was victory for the Prime Minister – and an activist base that, as the result of defections to Ukip and cancelled membership fees, is more socially liberal and more sympathetic to Cameron than it was before. Don’t forget that, for all the worry about “entryism” in the Labour leadership, it was “exitism” – of Labour members who supported David Miliband and liked the New Labour years  - that shifted that party towards Jeremy Corbyn.

It could be that if – as Brady predicts in this week’s New Statesman – the final two is an Inner and an Outer, the Eurosceptic candidate finds that the members who might have backed them are simply no longer around.

It comes back to the biggest known unknown in the race to succeed Cameron: Conservative members. For the first time in British political history, a Prime Minister will be chosen, not by MPs with an electoral mandate of their own or by voters at a general election but by an entirelyself-selecting group: party members. And we simply don't know enough about what they feel - yet. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.