ENOUGH's new strategy paper, Somalia: A Country in Peril, a Policy Nightmare by Ken Menkhaus is the kind of definitive work it would be a godsend to have to help one understand all complex crises.
Menkhaus calmly and succintly unravels the internal, regional and international machinations that have led to this tragedy. Noone escapes his clear and simply reasoned critique. I will not even attempt to summarise his arguments as to do them justice the summary would be almost as long as the original. I do have one question and one criticism.
My question: Is it not time to accept that the Transitional Federal Government is a spent force, an artificial construct that has become so divisive that it hinders any serious progress, and that, taking a long view, it would be better to scrap it now and go a step back to the drawing board?
My criticism: The western liberal idea that peace can only be brokered by a consensus of moderates is perhaps the greatest hindrance to the peace process. Menkhaus observes
The cornerstone of international policy in Somalia today is peace-building—specifically, the hope that moderates from the TFG and the opposition can be brought together in a new centrist coalition that will lead to a cease-fire, a power-sharing accord, and a unity government.
and then agrees that
a peace-building agenda that is built on a strategy of building up a centrist coalition of government and opposition leaders is unlikely to succeed if those moderates are far weaker than hardliners on both sides. The peace-building agenda needs to be linked to a robust strategy designed to strengthen the moderates and contain or marginalize the hardliners in both camps
This is unecessary ideological meddling, no different from the hypocritical US-led opposition to the democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine. Where would South Africa and Ireland be today if the 'hardliners' had been 'marginalised'?
