Can There be an Inclusive Peace Process in Somalia?

David Cortright, Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame and Chair of the Board of the Fourth Freedom Forum, addresses the room during SFCG's March Conflict Prevention and Reconciliation Forum on the Future of Building Peace in Somalia

By Chris White

Last week we hosted the latest Conflict Prevention & Resolution Forum at the Johns Hopkins Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. The forum, “Somalia: Creating Space for Fresh Approaches to Peacebuilding,” brought together scholar-practitioners to discuss alternatives to the current militarized approach to conflict in Somalia. Michele Cesari joined us from the Life & Peace Institute in Nairobi, where he is Resident Representative and leads both the Somalia Programme as well as the Peacebuilding with Regional Partners Programme. Shamsia W. Ramadhan, also from the Life & Peace Institute, is their Programmes and Communications Advisor and the editor of the Horn of Africa Bulletin. David Cortright is the Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame and Chair of the Board of the Fourth Freedom Forum. The fourth panelist, Laura Weis, is a Ph.D. candidate in history and peace studies at the Kroc Institute.

David opened the forum by discussing John Paul Lederach’s recent article about developing a theory of change approach to terrorism. Two approaches are commonly discussed when talking about combating terrorism: isolation and engagement. Officials often prefer the isolation approach in which groups that are designated as foreign terrorist organizations are targeted in order to limit their economic and military capacity and hive them off from the rest of the population. David noted that this strategy has the negative impact of closing off access to information on the ground, stifling objective analysis, and allowing extremist voices to go unchecked. Lederach argues that this approach can be helpful in stopping short-term threats, but the engagement approach is better suited to long-term political solutions to terrorism.

Michele Cesari Resident Representative of the Life & Peace Institute in Nairobi weighs in on the topic.

Speaking to the local context of Somalia, Michele discussed Al Shabaab (Arabic for “The Youth”), a group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States that rose to prominence after the fall of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) in 2006. The decentralized nature of Al Shabaab makes the organization very effective at communicating with the people where the state’s presence is not always felt. Al Shabaab’s capacity to frame social problems in the minds of the population makes Michele regard this group as central to any possible strategy of engagement. In isolation, Michele argued that Al Shabaab has been able to capitalize on the “War on Terror.” By developing their own discourse of social justice and mediation in opposition to what they see as a corrupt foreign imposition hostile to Islam, they have been able to fill a void left by a reticent international community.

While Michele seemed to emphasize the network approach in engaging with local populations, Shamsia, discussing articles by Ashley Lyn Greene and Shinkyu Lee, seemed more interested in a sovereign approach to inclusive engagement. Shamsia felt an overarching state was necessary to prevent a “vacuum” from being exploited by the particular interests of clans and rival religious groups. “Traditional structures” such as these are the driving force behind social and economic issues. Their inclusion in a process of state formation could establish better linkages between national and local levels of service delivery whereas their exclusion contributes to an atmosphere where interests are brokered through violence.

Shamsia W. Ramadhan, Programmes and Communications Advisor and Editor of the Horn of Africa Bulletin for the Life & Peace Institute.

Shamsia also noted that a sense of nationhood only existed in Somalia when it was perceived that a neighboring state constituted a threat. Such instances of nationalism were fleeting and Shamsia argued that it may be possible to engender a sense of national unity based on shared elements of ethnicity such as language, ancestry, religion and narrative. This idea seemed to be the most controversial.

One gentleman from the audience remarked that, as no nationalism has been able to thrive in Somalia without a perceived threat to unify the people, engineering nationalism could cause Somalis to see the international community itself as the enemy. Another gentleman raised the interesting objection that, rather than focus on elements of ideology, perhaps it would be more helpful to focus on establishing the material conditions for an integrative peace process. He cited “localized commercial deals” which brought regional actors together in Kenya as an example where this approach has worked.

Laura Weis, a Ph.D. candidate in history and peace studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

Finally, Laura wrapped up the discussion with an analysis of U.S. activity in Somalia thus far. The government of President Barre had based its distribution of aid on clan affiliation and identity and this arrangement set the stage for what would occur after the fall of his government. The late 1980s provided an opportunity for the U.S. to recast its relationship with Somalia as the Cold War ended, but Somalia fell off the radar of the international community until the humanitarian crisis of the early 90s.

With the advent of the “Global War on Terror,” however, groups that delivered basic services faced the prospect of being labeled supporters of terrorism if they did not curtail some of their efforts. In addition, covert actions were taken to eliminate figures seen as threats while the U.S. supported Ethiopia’s invasion in 2006. Laura regarded these tactics as contrary to the ethic of counterinsurgency: win the people to win the war. If, as Michele noted, Al Shabaab was able to gain territorial control with minimal violence by providing basic services, Laura felt that a “human-centered” approach based on the well-being of the population would be necessary. The violent tactics that come from viewing the region solely through the lens of terror have achieved little in Somalia. Perhaps engagement towards the common goal of meeting the people’s everyday needs could achieve better results.

Chris White, a student of philosophy and international politics, received his M.A. in Ethics, Peace, and Global Affairs from American University. He is currently an intern with SFCG’s Communications Department in Washington, DC.