Terrorizing Aid to Somalia

The United States is willfully letting millions of Somalis go hungry in its drive to hunt down terrorists.

BY NATALIE PARKE | OCTOBER 30, 2009

There is a new humanitarian crisis unfolding in Somalia, and the United States is partly to blame. Despite sending $2 million and 40 tons of arms and ammunition to the country's Transitional Federal Government (TFG) earlier this year, now, the United States is withholding humanitarian aid until relief agencies agree to comply with strict, game-stopping conditions.

The decision to abruptly halt assistance came following suspicions that U.S. aid might be ending up with Somali "terrorists." The main worry is an al Qaeda-linked group called al-Shabab, the leading Islamic militant group fighting against the feeble but internationally backed government. Al-Shabab controls most of south-central Somalia, while the TFG controls only a few areas of the capital, Mogadishu. The south-central region is home to 2.7 million of the 3.63 million Somalis in need of emergency assistance. So, reaching many of Somalia's people with aid would likely entail operating on al-Shabab's turf and interacting with elements of the group to facilitate logistics.

U.S. Treasury Department sanctions strictly prohibit any financial transactions or dealings with al-Shabab and other Somali groups labeled as "terrorists."  Yet clearly the concern is not absolute; the U.S. government seems less concerned that the guns and ammo sent as military assistance, intended to prop up the fragile government and keep control of a country brimming with violence, are allegedly being resold on the streets of Mogadishu.

The halt in humanitarian assistance will cripple the work of relief organizations and, as a consequence, hurt their Somali beneficiaries. U.S. officials justifiably fear that they and their partners could be held responsible, even prosecuted, for supporting terrorists if relief funds ended up in the hands of al-Shabab. At first, the U.S. government reviewed the situation and "delayed" funding. Subsequently, Washington issued conditions with which aid agencies must comply to legally operate in Somalia. But the conditions are so restrictive that it would be virtually impossible for operating agencies to meet them. (To preserve the security of those groups on the ground, specific conditions cannot be stated here.)

The damage is not just temporary. The new, politically charged rules would destroy relief organizations' neutrality in Somalia. Humanitarian aid derives its legitimacy from impartiality -- the notion that aid is provisioned on need alone, rather than politics. In Somalia, where the U.S. government is often viewed unfavorably, political impartiality is a practical consideration as well; it is central to the ability of relief agencies to function safely and effectively. The new U.S. conditions would undermine this core principle by making it nearly impossible for relief agencies to legally operate in al-Shabab-run territory, including many of the most desperate regions of Somalia. The country is already one of the most dangerous for humanitarian workers, so the United States' attempt to bring relief workers under its purview will only increase Somali suspicion toward them and make the environment more precarious.

On top of this policy disaster, money for relief in Somalia is running out. The U.N. World Food Program estimates that its coffers will be empty within the next few weeks. Even if more funds were pledged today, it could require as many as four months for the money to reach beneficiaries on the ground. There will be an inevitable gap in assistance to Somalis. 

The timing could not be worse. The country's already catastrophic humanitarian crisis is being compounded by a drought that has struck much of the Horn of Africa. Nearly half the population is estimated to urgently need aid -- some 3.63 million people.

The U.S. government is holding the Somalia relief enterprise and its beneficiaries hostage to its counterterrorism policy. Agencies have resolutely upheld their commitment to humanitarian impartiality and refused to be shut down by unreasonable conditions. Unfortunately, that precludes them from accepting U.S. funds -- normally half of all aid to Somalia. Until Washington lets agencies fulfill their mission unhindered, the U.S. mission to win "hearts and minds" in Somalia, a feared up-and-coming stronghold of terrorism, will be completely undermined. Knowingly allowing millions of people to suffer is no way to win friends.

ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images

 

Natalie Parke is a research associate at the Century Foundation.

Facebook|Twitter|Digg

GUYVER

4:32 PM ET

October 31, 2009

Al-Jazeera

Al-Jazeera Arabic did a report on this a few weeks ago.

 

MOHAIR.SAM

12:28 PM ET

November 1, 2009

... and who is "Washington"?

I'm no fan of GW Bush, but were he still in power, his name would be peppered all through this article, with all manner of blame assigned. I didn't see Obama's name mentioned once -- and he's the point man on U.S. foreign policy, yes?

While I agree with the author's main points, her curious dance around our current president is rather amusing.

 

FREEDA2

10:08 PM ET

November 1, 2009

huh

do u mean, instead of saying "washington", articles would have "bush" in it?

i can't see how ur comparing like with like. which article are u refering to? u mean in general?

anyway, would u say bush made mistakes (i assume with good intentions). i remember democrats sayin it was good john kerry lost 2004, because it meant gw bush would have to clean up his own mess.

 

DESI4EVA

5:19 PM ET

November 1, 2009

I think instead of attacking

I think instead of attacking Iran > the Nato Allies should try tackling Somalia as Al Queda look like they are running the place and not to mention the piracy on the high seas!
Ingrown Hair Removal

 

BDL2010

12:33 AM ET

November 2, 2009

you are kidding me right?

I served in Somalia 92/93 and I distinctly remember the American public wanting us to withdraw immediately. We did and look where it got us. Once I returned home I wanted ot learn how and why Somalia turned into hell on earth.
During Kennedy's time in office he propped up a dictator named Siad Barr. We then started sending in aid, lots of it. Barr used the aid as power, and he removed those that were not of his tribe from their land giving it to members of his tribe. Years of gracious US Aid destroyed that country. The people became reliant on it and industries evolved around the aid. This all evolved out of a cold war framework. The Ethiopians were backed by the Russians so we backed the Somalis.
Fast forward to the collapse of the Soviet union. Somalia no longer remains of interest since the cold war is over. As a reslt Aideed, Morgan, and a few other members of the government overthrow the dictator Barr. Then they turn to fighting one another and guess what they use as power, US Aid.
US Aid destroyed this country and no one Administration is solely to blame. So far only one tried to fix the problem and one had us run away with our pants down. Now we are to blame for not providing more handouts? Please.
The only way to fix Somalia is to let the people tire of the oppression and war. As long as the aid continues that will never occur.
And DESI4EVA, I suggest you take the next plane over to Mogadishu and fight the war yourself. You are in the cheap seats and have no business trying to call the game from there.

 

DAVID LAOSHI

12:35 PM ET

November 2, 2009

Humanitarian aid isn't all we've been giving Somalia

As the article mentions, it's military too.

But even better, we've been giving them our "help" fighting Islamic extremists. In '07, we let Ethiopia overthrow the Islamic Courts Union, for political reasons - plunging the country back into war, and probably radicalizing the extremists too.

So not giving them aid is one thing, not actively making the situation worse is another.

 

JOSIE

12:25 PM ET

November 2, 2009

Terrorizing aid to Somalia

BDL2010 is right on the mark. The rest of the comments are idiotic. I speak as an anthropologist.

We need to leave the Afghans to running THEIR show too, because neither WE nor the PAKISTANIS have a clue, and even if we all did have a clue, the Afghans would thwart us. It is only when we get out of these areas that they will eventually tire of killing one another, as well as losing the wherewithall to do it, and settle down to some kind of stability.

Of course the weapons industries won't like this as a policy.

 

ZACHARY KECK

10:11 PM ET

November 2, 2009

response

While I'm no Somalian expert, I have been making an attempt to study Africa generally and Somalia specifically because I think that's one of the main places we are going to find AQ in the upcoming decades especially if we deny them Afghanistan. It would seem to me that it would be in our interest for the people under al-Shabab controlled territory to not get aid. If the militants control an area, the better the conditions of that area are for the people, the more support there will be for al-Shabab. Vice versa, the worst the conditions are the more resistance to al-Shabab. The author is probably right that this will not make us popular with the Somalian people (has aid made us friends among any Somalians besides the ones using aid to maintain power?) but it will also create more enemies for al-Shabeb. As the old sang goes, the enemies of my enemies are my friends.

 
January/February 2010