Intervention In Somalia Research Articles

Racialized and Geopolitically Charged Contexts of Reception in New Immigrant Destinations

We conceptualize racialized and geopolitical contexts of reception as a comprehensive framework for understanding the incorporation of recent immigrants in new destinations. Racialization is the fluid assignment of racial meanings to physical characteristics, religion, cultural presentation, and language. Geopolitics encompasses national boundaries, border security, regulation of border crossers, and populist–nativist anxieties about identity. We use data derived from a documentary film depicting the 2001 contact between Somali immigrants and a host community in Maine. The reception of these immigrants was profoundly racialized due to their sudden arrival and stark differences in phenotypic, cultural, religious, and linguistic characteristics, all of which were racialized by the host community. The context was geopolitically charged by local memories of the US intervention in Somalia and by the aftermath of 9/11. This study underscores the importance of racialization and geopolitics as intertwined factors that significantly shape immigrant contexts of reception.

Humanitarian Intervention, Support and Objection

The chief aim of this paper is evaluating the arguments that challenge the Humanitarian Intervention as an exception to the prohibition on the use of force. The Humanitarian Intervention still did not become an exception to the prohibition on the use of force, it can be traced back to the 19th and 20th centuries. The study examines the advantage of the Humanitarian Intervention in the first part. Comparative analyses were carried out between Tanzania used of force against Uganda and NATO’s intervention in Kosovo. The consequence of the precedents gives a great impact for the development of the regulations. In the second part, it shows that Humanitarian Intervention does not comply with international law. And the American’s intervention in Somalia provides support for Humanitarian Intervention fails to create lasting peace. And it will become a powerful tool for developed countries to intervene in the interests of developing countries. To sum up, there are so many controversial aspects of Humanitarian Intervention. It protects the human rights and ensure the region stability. However, it breaches the state sovereignty and disrupts the international orders. Many scholars do not recognize humanitarian intervention as an exception to the use of state use of force.

Health research prioritization in Somalia: setting the agenda for context specific knowledge to advance universal health coverage.

Despite recognition that health research is an imperative to progress toward universal health coverage, resources for health research are limited. Yet, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, more than 85% of the resources available for health research are spent on answering less relevant research questions. This misalignment is partially due to absence of locally determined health research priorities. In this study, we identified health research priorities which, if implemented, can inform local interventions required to accelerate progress toward universal health coverage in Somalia. We adapted the child health and nutrition research initiative method for research priority setting and applied it in 4 major phases: (1) establishment of an exercise management team, (2) a web-based survey among 84 respondents to identify health research questions; (3) categorization of identified health research questions; and (4) a workshop with 42 participants to score and rank the identified health research questions. Ethical approval was received from ethics review committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Ref:26524) and the Somali Research and Development Institute (Ref: EA0143). Two hundred and thirty-one unique health research questions were identified and categorized under health systems, services and social determinants (77), communicable diseases (54), non-communicable diseases (41) and reproductive, maternal, new-born, child, adolescent health and nutrition (59). A priority score ranging from 1 to 9 was assigned to each of the questions. For each category, a list of 10 questions with the highest priority scores was developed. Across the four categories, an overall list of 10 questions with the highest priority scores was also developed. These related to bottlenecks to accessing essential health services, use of evidence in decision making, antimicrobial resistance, distribution and risk factors for non-communicable diseases, post-traumatic stress disorder and factors associated with low antenatal care attendance among others. The developed priority research questions can be used to focus health research and to inform appropriation of health research resources to questions that contribute to generation of local health system knowledge which is required to accelerate progress toward universal health coverage in Somalia. The Somalia national institute of health should set up a consortium for provision of technical and financial support for research addressing the identified priority research questions, establish a mechanism to continuously monitor the extent to which new health interventions in Somalia are informed by knowledge generated through conducting prioritized health research and prioritize interventions aimed at strengthening the broader national health research system for Somalia.

Qatar's foreign aid and political strategies in the Horn of Africa: The case of Somalia

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to analyse the relationship between Qatar's foreign policy and foreign aid in the Horn of Africa (HoA), with a particular focus on Somalia. Since the 2017 blockade, the HoA has become increasingly important to Qatar's foreign policy and aid efforts, intensifying political and economic competition with other Gulf players. This research describes Qatar's foreign policy strategies and tools in the HoA from 2011 to 2021, observing the evolution of humanitarian aid interventions in Somalia and the impact of Gulf competition in the country. The research aims to combine neoclassical realism with small‐state theory in the analysis of foreign aid, examining Qatari foreign aid interventions in Somalia as a foreign policy tool for exercising autonomy and as an outcome of the Qatari elites' decision‐making process.

Prioritization of zoonoses for multisectoral, One Health collaboration in Somalia, 2023

BackgroundThe human population of Somalia is vulnerable to zoonoses due to a high reliance on animal husbandry. This disease risk is exacerbated by relatively low income (poverty) and weak state capacity for health service delivery in the country as well as climate extremes and geopolitical instability in the region. To address this threat to public health efficiently and effectively, it is essential that all sectors have a common understanding of the priority zoonotic diseases of greatest concern to the country. MethodsRepresentatives from human, animal (domestic and wildlife), agriculture, and environmental health sectors undertook a multisectoral prioritization exercise using the One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) tool developed by the United States CDC. The process involved: reviewing available literature and creating a longlist of zoonotic diseases for potential inclusion; developing and weighting criteria for establishing the importance of each zoonoses; formulating categorical questions (indicators) for each criteria; scoring each disease according to the criteria; and finally ranking the diseases based on the final score. Participants then brainstormed and suggested strategic action plans to prevent, and control prioritized zoonotic diseases. ResultsThirty-three zoonoses were initially considered for prioritization. Final criteria for ranking included: 1) socioeconomic impact (including sensitivity) in Somalia; 2) burden of disease in humans in Somalia); 3) availability of intervention in Somalia; 4) environmental factors/determinants; and 5) burden of disease in animals in Somalia. Following scoring of each zoonotic disease against these criteria, and further discussion of the OHZDP tool outputs, seven priority zoonoses were identified for Somalia: Rift Valley fever, Middle East respiratory syndrome, anthrax, trypanosomiasis, brucellosis, zoonotic enteric parasites (including Giardia and Cryptosporidium), and zoonotic influenza viruses. ConclusionsThe final list of seven priority zoonotic diseases will serve as a foundation for strengthening One Health approaches for disease prevention and control in Somalia. It will be used to: shape improved multisectoral linkages for integrated surveillance systems and laboratory networks for improved human, animal, and environmental health; establish multisectoral public health emergency preparedness and response plans using One Health approaches; and enhance workforce capacity to prevent, control and respond to priority zoonotic diseases.

Current guidelines for malaria treatment in Somalia: evidence-based recommendations

Case management – rapid diagnosis and prompt administration of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) – is a fundamental pillar of recommended malaria interventions in Somalia. Unfortunately, the emergence and spread of drug resistant falciparum parasites continues to pose a considerable threat to effective case management. With technical and financial support from WHO, the efficacy of recommended ACTs has been regularly monitored in sentinel sites since 2003. These studies provided evidence that supported the adoption of artesunate-sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine as first-line treatment in 2005 and artemether-lumefantrine as second-line treatment in 2011. Efficacy studies conducted between 2011 and 2015 showed high artesunate-sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine treatment failure rates of 12.3% - 22.2%, above the threshold (10%) for a change of treatment policy as recommended by WHO. This was also associated with high prevalence of quadruple and quintuple mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase (Pfdhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pfdhps) genes, which are associated with sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine resistance. Based on these findings, national malaria treatment guidelines were updated in 2016, with artesunate-sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine replaced by artemether-lumefantrine as first-line treatment and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine recommended as second-line treatment. Subsequent efficacy studies in 2016 and 2017 confirmed that both the current first- and second-line treatments remain highly efficacious (cure rate above 97%). Technical and financial support from WHO has been instrumental in generating evidence that informs malaria treatment policy and should therefore continue to ensure that effective treatments are available to malaria patients in the country.

State identity narratives and threat construction in the Horn of Africa: revisiting Ethiopia's 2006 intervention in Somalia

ABSTRACT The Ethiopian military intervention to remove the Union of Islamic Courts from Mogadishu in December 2006 has been interpreted in overlapping narratives of historical-religious conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia, proxy war with Eritrea, and counter-terrorism. This article adds another: the Ethiopian government's own dominant narrative of danger at the time. Based on a discourse analysis of materials generated during a year of fieldwork in Addis Ababa, the article explores how Ethiopia's political leadership constructed developments in Somalia as an existential threat to the Ethiopian state. It argues that the language and actions of specific actors were presented as threatening the idea of the post-1991 Ethiopian state and, more specifically, the foundational narrative with which the EPRDF-led Ethiopian government sought ontological security for Ethiopia as a distinct political community and international actor. By focusing on the relationship between processes of collective identity formation and perceptions of (in)security, this article highlights the role of state identity narratives for understanding evolving threat perceptions and their political implications in the Horn of Africa.

International Community Interventions in Somalia‟s Conflicts to Promote peace and Security: Amisom Case

International Community Interventions in Somalia‟s Conflicts to Promote peace and Security: Amisom Case

Governance, conflict and the United Nations interventions in Somalia

Governance, conflict and the United Nations interventions in Somalia

Turkey in Somalia: challenging North/Western interventionism?

Turkey’s humanitarian and development intervention in Somalia is unusually illuminating as a case study to investigate the relations between emerging and conventional interveners in conflict zones since, in this case, Turkey’s intervention carries adequate impetus to resist assimilation with conventional North/Western counterparts. Our starting point is the observation that Turkish and conventional humanitarian and development interveners have struggled to coordinate or cooperate in Somalia. This article investigates what this uncooperative and uncoordinated organisational behaviour means, and we root our investigation in 21 face-to-face interviews with officials working inside the Turkish and conventional intervention in Mogadishu and Nairobi to inquire about how they understand and theorise this discordant behaviour. We use a parsimonious analytical framework of trustworthiness that questions the ‘ability’ and ‘integrity’ of counterpart organisations to explore the intentions behind organisational behaviours. Our analysis of interview narratives evidences challenges to conventional methods of intervention by Turkish organisations and the protection of the same by North/Western organisations. Our concluding discussion interprets these findings in relation to consequences for the status quo hierarchy of global governance and its promotion of liberal intervention norms, and for the utilisation of securitised and remote-control intervention methodologies in conflict zones such as Somalia.

Fighting terrorism in the Horn of Africa: the role of ordinary Kenyans in Kenya’s military intervention in Somalia and the fight against al-Shabaab

Fighting terrorism in the Horn of Africa: the role of ordinary Kenyans in Kenya’s military intervention in Somalia and the fight against al-Shabaab

From Al-Itihaad to Al-Shabaab: how the Ethiopian intervention and the ‘War on Terror’ exacerbated the conflict in Somalia

External intervention has frustrated and continues to frustrate peace and stability in the Horn of Africa and Somalia, adding various adverse layers to an already complicated and complex conflict. The level of forceful military engagement intended for regional domination has profoundly affected negatively the efforts of peacebuilding and statebuilding in Somalia. This article examines how the earlier Ethiopian policies towards Somalia has reshaped the (post)-Cold War politics of the Horn. In doing so, it traces the roots of the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia vis-à-vis new non-state armed groups to chart the changing political dynamics of the conflict in Somalia. By using historical approach, the article argues that Ethiopia’s agenda is central to understanding why the ‘War on Terror’ has strengthened and subsequently midwifed armed militant movements (e.g. new insurgency groups) in Somalia, starting from Al-Itihaad to today’s Al-Shabaab. In focusing upon various regional actors and groups, the article moves from the emphasis of internal systems to external power structures, considering the wider historical and political factors in the region that must be closely examined if the regional and local conflicts are to be deeply understood. While it is a context-specific study, the article aims to contribute fresh perspectives and insights to ongoing discussions on the consequences of the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia.

Pragmatism over principle: US intervention and burden shifting in Somalia, 1992–1993

ABSTRACTThe conventional wisdom about the 1992 US intervention in Somalia is that it was a quintessentially humanitarian mission pushed by President George H. W. Bush. This article challenges that interpretation, drawing on newly declassified documents. The Somalia intervention, I argue, was largely a pragmatic response to concerns held by the US military. In late 1992, as the small UN mission in Somalia was collapsing, senior American generals worried about being drawn into the resulting vacuum. Hence they reluctantly recommended a robust US intervention, in the expectation that this would allow the UN to assemble a larger peacekeeping force that would take over within months. The intervention ultimately failed, but the military learned useful lessons from this experience on how to achieve smoother UN handoffs in the future and thus effectively shift longer-term stabilisation burdens to the international community.

Experimenting in Somalia: The new security empire

The past several decades of US intervention in Somalia produced violent destabilization, dysfunction, and uncertainty, creating refugee outflows and terrorist networks against which the US is currently tightening its security cordons. This paper argues that Somalia’s recent history as a stateless region offers a cautionary and tragic case study of the long-term damages that ensue when wealthy states that intervene in poorer states in the name of their own security instead cause insecurity and inequities that enable violence, and then in response to that violence enact further securitization to protect themselves against the consequences of that damage. But rather than focusing on the state as a site of securitization, I focus on those whose lives are made insecure by the retreat of their state government and the imposition in its place of security regimes that are not created by their own state government. Such security regimes overlap and compete, are instituted by different state and nonstate actors for different purposes, and by their incoherence and multiplicity raise questions about the definition, location, and relevance of the state in such regions. The paper explores the emergence of new, interlinked security regimes that are partially or wholly constituted through the logics of a new security empire designed to respond to US security concerns. By turning attention to the situations faced by those who live within the insecurities of stateless regions, the paper asks, what happens to the concept of securitization when the national-territorial state is not the entity that operates as a ‘state’ in the lives of people, even though their lives are overlain with multiple and overlapping regimes of securitization?

The Dilemma of Kenya's New Counterterrorism and Asymmetric Warfare

Kenya has, in the context of the “new wars” thesis, adopted a new form of warfare since the country's military intervention in Somalia on October 16, 2011. The counterterrorism and asymmetric warfa...

English

Ethiopia’s armed entry into Somalia in 2006 has been subjected to heated academic and policy debate. Some take it as part of the effort of Ethiopia’s aspiration to hegemony in the Horn of Africa region, while others link it to the old-fashioned thinking of Christian Ethiopia’s animosity to Islamic Somalia. The Ethiopian government defended it in terms of protecting its national interest. Ethiopia also justifies its intervention in Somalia as something that it did as per the will and the invitation of the Transitional Federal Government. This paper juxtaposed Ethiopia’s entry into Somalia in 2006 against theories of hegemony, and Ethiopia’s foreign policy. This piece used the foreign policy analysis of neoclassical realism and realist explanation of hegemony to see the situation all together and analyzed the data collected through document and text analysis and empirical literature review. This piece prefers to use realism because the paper is about what is called ‘intervention’ which includes, needless to say, conflict and elements of power which are currency to realist thought and narrative. Ethiopia in the process of protecting its national interest may have been involved into activities that deemed hegemonic. But given the policy direction and principles that concentrate on activities at home, it is difficult and beyond imagination to conclude that Ethiopia entered into Somalia aspiring for hegemony. It definitely went there only following line of its national interest as articulated in the policy document. So, Ethiopia ‘s entry into somalia in 2006, according to this paper’s reach, was projection of its foreign policy and indeed projection of its national security and survival. Key words: Hegemony, Ethiopia's Foreign policy, armed intervetion.

Foreign Policy and the Threat of Global Terrorism: Kenya�s Military Intervention in Somalia

Foreign Policy and the Threat of Global Terrorism: Kenya�s Military Intervention in Somalia

English

Using the concept of ‘strategies of extraversion’ as an analytical framework, this paper argues that governments in the developing world exploit Western concerns about security, especially US anti-terrorism policies, as a domestic policy instrument. The paper focuses on Ethiopia’s 2006 military intervention in Somalia to argue that Ethiopia’s active role in the fight against terrorism is centered on the regime’s domestic concerns. By successfully positioning itself as a key Western ally in the turbulent Horn of Africa, the Ethiopian Government has redefined external perception especially in the wake of the highly contested election of May 2005. The regime has managed to delegitimize internal opposition under the pretense of fighting terrorism; at the same time it became impervious to criticism from Western countries of its human rights records and democratic credentials. On the basis of the case study, the paper contributes to the analysis of Western/US relations with developing governments in the context of GWOT, and more broadly to the debate on the trade-off between security and the promotion of democracy in the third world. Key words: Ethiopia, horn of Africa, war on terror, 'extraversion', foreign aid.

Neutral in favour of whom? The UN intervention in Somalia and the Somaliland peace process

ABSTRACTTo what extent is making peace not a neutral or impartial exercise? By analysing the peace initiatives undertaken in Somalia and Somaliland (1991–95), this article questions the positionality and alignment of the actors involved, and claims that neither process has been an impartial exercise. To explore this argument the article first theoretically frames how supporters and critics of liberal peace elaborate on the dilemma of neutrality and impartiality. Departing from Lederach’s criticism of impartiality, I claim that the UN–US intervention in Somalia has been an instrument of division, as well as leverage for political and military advantage. External interveners have initially subverted the internal distribution of power, but they lacked the commitment and material capacity of sustaining the preferred ‘winning’ faction. By unpacking the category of ‘local’ I then map the protagonists of the Somaliland pacification, as well the mechanism of institution-building that enabled a multi-scale of stakeholders to sustain the conflict resolution. This analysis contributes to reconceptualise the political architecture of making peace. It also helps to disentangle the study of peace and violence from the myths of the liberal, neutral, intervention doctrine.

Two Generations, Two Interventions in One of the World’s Most-Failed States: The United States, Kenya and Ethiopia in Somalia

In 1992, more than 25,000 United States forces landed in Somalia as part of a 37,000-strong United Nations Task Force (UNITAF) operation. In 2011, a combined total of 8000+ Kenyan and Ethiopian forces were ordered into Somalia. This article demonstrates that American soldiers were deployed to Somalia in the early days of a post-Cold War world, largely as a foreign policy experiment about how to deal with the threats ‘small states’ posed in a new world order. It is maintained that Kenyan and Ethiopian soldiers were deployed to Somalia to deal with some of the very threats American foreign policymakers had identified almost two decades earlier, from refugees to terrorism. To conclude, the article uses public goods theory to contend that military interventions that are ostensibly peacekeeping in nature can be inherently inadequate because ‘self-interest works against the interests of the collective’ (Bobrow and Boyer, 1997: 726). Accordingly, America’s intervention in Somalia between 1992 and 1994 failed to remedy adequately the circumstances and concerns which spawned the perceived need for Kenyan and Ethiopian forces to intervene in Somalia a generation later, in 2011. Unfortunately for Kenyan and Ethiopian soldiers, Somalia’s politicians and political processes might relegate them to realizing little more success than their American predecessors.