Can Somalia’s president solve the problem of al-Shabaab?

As each successive Somali president has come to power, they have doen so promising to bring an end to jihadist group which has been a thorn in the government's side for over ten years now. But can the latest leader follow through?

Several days ago, fighters from al-Shabaab, a jihadist group in southern Somalia, seized the town of Kalabeyr from Somali military and African Union forces. This incident is the latest in a string of victories for the group, which has experienced a resurgence this year. 

The militants, who claim allegiance to al-Qaeda, have been plaguing the Somali government for almost a decade, whilst also executing multiple attacks in Uganda and Kenya. Successive Somali presidents have come to power promising to defeat al-Shabaab but none has succeeded. In February, Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed Farmajo won the latest presidential election, pledging to put an end to the jihadists. But can he have any more success than his predecessors?

Who are al-Shabaab?

al-Shabaab, which means ‘The Youth’, emerged as the radical wing of the Union of Islamic Courts, a group of Sharia courts, which controlled much of the country, including the capital Mogadishu. The Courts were overthrown in 2006, when Ethiopian forces invaded, supposedly in support of the Western-backed Federal government although this was probably more for their own geopolitical reasons, than for the benefit of their neighbours.

The remnants became al-Shabaab, whose fighters began an insurgency against the government and their allies: a conglomerate of troops deployed to Somalia as part of the AU mission (AMISOM). The militants quickly took control of much of the lower half of the country, as well as parts of Mogadishu. 

But when Kenyan forces began attacking from the south, they lost control of crucial territory, including the port of Kismayo, which served as an important source of revenue for them. However, a corrupt and ineffective government failed to take advantage of a weakened al-Shabaab and the group is now back on the front foot, gaining territory once more.

The two pronged approach

To defeat al-Shabaab, President Farmajo’s strategy relies on two approaches: first, he has promised an amnesty, aimed mostly at the low-level fighters, many of whom are Somali youths whose main motivations for fighting are money and food. 

The second approach seeks to bolster the military with trained, armed and most importantly, paid soldiers, who will be strong enough to defeat the jihadists. But this military strategy has many flaws, primarily that the army is weak, divided by clan politics and corrupt. Added to this, it is not enough to simply regain territory; to hold it, one must follow up military victories with effective political control, something the government has failed to do.

The long road ahead...

The amnesty, which has supposedly expired, has experienced minor success, with a few fighters surrendering. Alongside this, Farmajo has begun the process of strengthening the Somali military and has asked the international community, which is assisting with training, to lift an arms embargo. 

However, with AMISOM troops set to begin withdrawing next year, he has a major challenge ahead. With the help of disgruntled clans, al-Shabaab has put an ineffective Somali military on the retreat. As they grow bolder, the jihadists have struck as far north as Puntland, whilst at the same time Mogadishu is wracked with bombings. 

If they can regain control of Kismayo, it would likely ensure the war continues for some years yet. And there are other challenges facing Farmajo: a worsening famine, lingering clan conflicts and a fragmented administration. To win, he will have to get the clans on his side and create an effective and motivated fighting force. With international support it is possible, but he faces a long road ahead.

Kenya’s slippery slope towards authoritarianism

With a contested election followed by repressive actions against civil society, are we witnessing the first major signs of an authoritarian Kenya?

These past two weeks in August, Kenya has dominated headlines coming out of Africa for two major reasons. One: the general election, which saw a tense few days, with accusations of rigging and fraud loudly versed by the opposition, but with a result that saw the incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta emerge victorious. Two: Almost immediately after the result was announced, a move by the ruling government to dismantle two of Kenya’s leading and most active civil organisations, the Africa Centre for Open Governance (AfriCOG) and the Kenya National Human Rights Commission (KHRC).

What is crucial in understanding both of these headlines is the speed with which the second came after the first and what that might mean for Kenya’s future. With regard to Kenyatta’s election win, it is hard to make any real judgement based on what evidence we have. 

The build-up to the election was one fraught with tension that threatened to boil over into violence, such as that which took place in 2007, after elections resulted in post-election violence that killed over 1000 people. And so, the world watched expectantly as Kenyan electoral officials assured the public that vote rigging, under the new electronic system was not possible, even as the body of the electoral board IT chief was found dead with signs of torture. Nevertheless, voters took to the streets in largely peaceful lines to make their voices heard.

The result was one that international observers say was legitimate with few signs of credible fraud. Almost immediately, the opposition claimed to have such evidence and is now seeking to challenge the government victory in the Supreme Court. 

What is crucial is that legal processes are being observed (so far) by the opposition, although this same route brought them only more defeat after the 2013 elections. Whether fraud took place or not, government moves following the election give cause for concern.

The first steps: an end to civil society

Thus, we come to the second headline: the government’s attempt to deregister two leading civil society organisations. Earlier this week, the NGO Coordination Board advised the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to shut down the organisations, freeze their assets and arrest their directors over allegations that they were operating illegally.

The move immediately sparked backlash from civil society and NGOs, Kenyans and the international community. Yesterday, police raided the offices of AfriCOG in a move that was allegedly without legal justification.

The bottom line of such actions is extremely worrying: unlike neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda and South Sudan, Kenya has always represented a progressive stance in East Africa. Yes, in more recent years, there have been curbs to press and political freedoms, but nowhere near the scale of say, Burundi and Ethiopia.

Yet this audacious move, so soon after a general election that is still being contested, is perhaps a prediction of what moves the ruling administration may take over the course of the next term of office (should the opposition challenge fail, of course). 

Similar situations in repressive countries usually start with the suppression of civil society and political opposition. Next comes the press. And finally, there is virtually no one left to openly criticise an elected government. From there, it’s a slippery slope in which the word elected usually disappears quickly. And it is nothing new for Kenya, having suffered through over two decades of authoritarian rule by Daniel Arap Moi in the 80’s and 90’s.

For now, these moves have been halted by a judiciary that is showing it can still exercise some power independent of the government. But for how long, no one knows. And whether worse is to come, we can only wait and watch.

The ICC is at the precipice - it is Africa that will decide which way it goes

 As South Africa backs down from its threat to leave the ICC, what does this mean for the future of the Court?

It's been a hard-last year for the International Criminal Court as a coalition of nations, nominally led by South Africa have announced their withdrawal from the court, leaving it on shaky ground. That could all be about change however, as South Africa recently halted all moves to leave, giving the Court some breathing room. But it will have to work hard to shore itself up.

In the 15 years since its inception, 2017 is arguably the most crucial year for the International Criminal Court. It is in this year that its fate will really be decided. Whether that is to continue its mission to gather more states behind the Rome Statute and fight the good fight of international justice, or to fall in with the legacy of the League of Nations, that remains to be seen.

What is clear, is that if it wants to be the former, the Court needs to make a decisive demonstration that it can evolve from only tackling African problems to tackling global ones. It needs to show that it can be a force for global justice. Needless to say, it requires the member states support to do this, but with South Africa now having backed down from their bluff on withdrawing, perhaps we can start to see a shifting attitude in the commitment that states show to the ICC. At the very least, a recommitment is a sign of unity, something that everyone can get behind.

In the hands of Africa

It is interesting that the future of the Court lies in the hands of Africa. Certainly, a mass African exodus would at the least shake the foundations of the court, and at the most, crumble it all together, especially considering that, since its beginnings, it has only prosecuted Africans.

Therein lies the problem. On the one hand, it is easy to see why the ICC goes after African war criminals. The continent is sporadically ravaged by civil war and stability in the last 15 years has been rare. This perpetual state of war that many African nations such as the DRC, Sudan and CAR seem to find themselves in is a breeding ground for those characters that adhere to the perfect stereotype of the war criminal. Furthermore, it is the lack of, or failings of legal infrastructure and transparency, and a malignant problem with corruption that means that many of these states must turn to the ICC to deal with these war criminals. In short, it instigates the perfect environment for the Court’s purposes.

However, on the other hand it is easy to see this from an African perspective. Although Africa has its fair share of brutal war lords who commit crimes against humanity on a daily basis, so does the rest of the world. There are plenty of other conflicts going on in countries that are member states.

But it is not just about the lack of focus on other regional areas of the world. There are other reasons for why some (I'm not only referring to the greedy African dictators who see the ICC's ability to prosecute them as a threat) might feel that the ICC is not for Africa.

African solutions

There is a saying in Africa that is catching on: African solutions for African problems. The problem is not just a court situated in Europe that until recently solely targeted Africa. It is that sometimes the western models of the ICC clash with the culture systems of Africa. From that perspective, it’s easy to see why the proposed Malabo Protocol, which ventures the idea of combining the two current African courts into an African version of the ICC, is popular with some, and not just with the sitting heads of state who, under the current proposal, have immunity from prosecution.

It would provide a court that caters to African needs, customs and culture and provides African justice. Its sole ‘one continent’ jurisdiction would give it the focus to concentrate on African cases, and this, combined with other factors like location (not having to travel to a whole other continent), language and concentration of members might help it to save on costs or increase funding.

In a perfect Africa, the Malabo Protocol, with some tweaking (i.e. removal of the immunity clause), could be a good solution. But, in a perfect Africa, there would be no war criminals. Alas, as it stands, many, including Africans, are skeptical about the effectiveness of an African court. How could it function free of corruption when corruption reigns in so many other sections of African politics? How would it rid itself of the agonising pace that bureaucracy in many parts of Africa seems to move at today? It would certainly be an uphill battle to make a success.

A global perspective

The concept of the ICC is sound, and it has shown itself to be effective in the past. But in the face of its latest challenges, it will need to do everything it can to survive. This includes demonstrating to Africa that it is prepared to see out war criminals in other parts of the world, something it took a step towards doing when it opened a preliminary investigation in Georgia relating to war crimes in the 2008 South Ossetia conflict.

With South Africa stepping back from its campaign to leave the ICC, and taking a few African nations with it, things are looking up. If 2017 goes its way, it can get back to trying to recruit more states to get behind the Rome Statute. But it must be ready to evolve, to look to new horizons and to expand how it can deal with different cases from different cultures all over the world. It must also look to new methods to enforce help from member states, be it for obligations or funding. If it can show that it is setting these goals, then it might just evolve into a global force for justice. 

Democracy or Stability: A Choice in Africa?

In a continent where contested elections often lead to violence, can the two go together or is stability, at the sacrifice of democracy, more important to African development right now?

Earlier this year, Equatorial Guinea's long standing president announced he will be joining a number of other African presidents who are seeking a further term in office. Whilst others appear to be trying a more legal way, if it can even be called that, by changing the constitution, President Teodoro Obiang Nguema announced that he has won party support to run again, despite having been in power for 36 years. In April, President Nguema won the vote and although controversial, stability has triumphed.

Meanwhile next door in the Congo, President Denis Sassou Nguesso won a bid in July to change the constitution to allow him to extend his 31 year rule. Similar things are happening in the DRC (President Joseph Kabila, 14 years), Rwanda (President Paul Kagame, 14 years), and Burundi (President Pierre Nkurunziza, 10 years) with varying levels of opposition.

Whilst many are not happy about the situation, it does beg the question of what is more necessary in a continent where conflict is regularly seen as a go to option: democracy or stability. As history shows, when a president decides that he is not ready to leave office, against the will of the people, it usually does not bode well for the country. Violence almost always follows, plunging the nation into years of civil war that sets it back decades.

Of course, democracy is a key factor in any nation and citizens have every right to be outraged when a president twists the constitution to suit his own needs so that he might run again. However, in cases when a country is progressive under a specific leader, perhaps even just peaceful, maybe stability is better than true democracy.

The Kenyan Example

Although he was only running for his second term, President Mwai Kibaki won the Kenyan election in 2007 in what was a questionable poll. The opposition, under Raila Odinga, boycotted the result and called on Kenyans to take to the streets to protest. What followed was three months of ethnic violence sparked by the Kibaki's win, leading to over 2000 deaths. Fast forward to 2013, and Kenyans once more went to the polls. Uhuru Kenyatta, of the same tribe as Kibaki, won in what again was a questionable election. This time, however, there were no protests. The extent of opposition was limited to Odinga’s appeal in the courts which failed. Kenyatta was declared president and a wary Kenya moved on. A common statement at the time was that they had sacrificed democracy for peace and stability.

It does, of course, depend on the president. When they are a brutal, murdering, genocidal, country destroying, corrupt despot, there can be no room for question: they have to go. Yet when they have produced some kind of progress for the country, or at least stability that allows people to develop, then perhaps there is an argument for allowing them to stay.

Rwandan 'Democracy'

This might just be the case for Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda. A Rwandan referendum recently passed a constitutional amendment that will make an exception for Kagame and allow him to run for a third term, .  With Kagame at the helm, Rwanda has come a long way since the 1994 genocide that rocked the country. The Global Competitive Report, when ranking the most efficient governments, put Rwanda 1st in Africa and 7th globally. According to the World Bank, its life expectancy has risen dramatically in the last ten years and huge improvements have been made in education, economics and infrastructure.

On the other hand, Kagame is not the biggest supporter of press freedom and there is certainly not a lot of room for government criticism in Rwanda. As for the legitimacy of his electoral victories, there is clearly some doubt and there have been allegations of government harassment of opposition. And his attempts to create an air of reconciliation between the two ethnic groups involved in the 1994 genocide have been moderate to say the least.

Overall, he’s a controversial character. Yet there is no denying that he has done a lot for Rwandan development and could possibly do a lot more. But could a challenge to his third term bid result in a similar scenario to 1994 and plunge Rwanda back twenty years? It’s possible which is why one might be inclined to choose stability over democracy.

As to the other African dictators, none have nearly as good a record for development as Kagame. But again, could a challenge to their leadership only lead to conflict? Perhaps some leaders aren't as progressive or inspirational as we hope but as long as they promote stability and peace, then there is certainly room for development, even if it is only at a grassroots level. Not democratic development of course, but perhaps peace and stability are more important in Africa right now.

What once was to idolise is now to debate

The changing concept of statues and their place in our society

It is important to remember that as times change, so the outlooks and meanings change with them.

The ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ debate has captured the attention of the world because it has a raised a controversial argument over the role of once celebrated figures and their places in history today. Cecil John Rhodes, a victorian empire builder who made his fortune in Africa, has been at the centre of this debate. A campaign, which began at the University of Cape Town to see the iconic statue of him there removed, has now spread closer to Rhode’s own home, as protesters seek the removal of another statue of Rhodes at the University of Oxford.

The movement is growing, however, and is spreading beyond Rhodes to other controversial figures who also hold legacies bound in the university such as Christopher Codrington, a seventeenth century West Indies plantation owner and notable slaver who also holds a statue in All Souls College at Oxford.

Whilst I do not in any way condone the awful and unsympathetic actions of historical figures who have achieved fame and fortune through the brutalisation and subjugation of others, I think it is important to understand how the concept of statues and legacies, and their meaning and use has changed dramatically through the ages.

Whilst studying History at the University of Manchester, I took a module that looked at the concepts of heroism and how the way we not only celebrate heroes has changed, but also the way we look to so called heroes of the past has changed. Whilst the idea of raising statues of figures was, at point, simply to celebrate their deeds, triumphs and accomplishments, nowadays they serve an entirely different purpose in society, namely to remind and create debate over how and why those supposed accomplishments were earned and what legacy they leave behind, be it bad or good.

In Rhodes’ case, it is obvious that statues of him were created to celebrate the triumphs of one of Britain's most successful empire builders. Today, however, those statues of him exist to serve purposes on several levels. On a more simple level, they remind us of a controversial colonial legacy that was built through the subjugation of others and the pillaging of resources and cultures of societies all over the globe, a legacy that is it important not to forget.

With regard to this first purpose, to remove a statue is an attempt in itself to sweep away a nation’s history and has dangerous implications, for that history, however uncomfortable it may be to remember, is a glue that shapes the culture of a particular nation. It is more important to remember and ask why then it is to forget and not ask at all, for in doing so, you risk repeating history.

On a more complicated level, however, statues serve to create debate over the roles, controversial or otherwise, of people like Rhodes and their contributions to the legacy of a nation, however uncomfortable that may be, and to understand how the ideas of hero-worship are constantly changing through the years, as is so much in society.

So to the protestors of the movement I say that we do not look upon Rhodes and other statues with awe and inspiration. We look instead to be reminded of how the concepts surrounding the uses of statues and of the worship of public figures in general have and will continue to change. For if that is not true, and we set a dangerous precedent by removing his statue, then we’d all better put our notepads away and get our hammer and chisels out, for we have a lot of work to do, the world over.

A Protest For Life

Why the South African student protests are the perfect spark for students around the world.

In the last week, the world has witnessed South African university students stand together to say that they will not accept the proposed fee increases. For those in the UK, these protests hark back to British students own days of protests when, in 2010, they also stood together to fight the fee rise. They were, however, unsuccessful. But maybe with South Africa’s stand taking the world by storm, it’s the perfect opportunity to do the same elsewhere.

The question over whether tertiary education should be a right or a privilege is one that has been asked frequently as universities the world over impose higher fees. Students in Britain, Chile, Hong Kong, Quebec and others have taken to the streets to demand subsidized, cheaper and even free tertiary education. And now South Africa has joined them.

Just as they did in London 2010, things have turned violent. Police clashing with student protesters, tear gas and rubber bullets fired and journalists flocking to hear the stories. And yet, the situation seems more positive in South Africa than it ever did in the UK.  Pressure is mounting on the South African government, from within and without, to propose a solution that would help to subsidize fees.

I spent 3 years at the University of Manchester and witnessed calls for students to rally against fees and proposed hikes. But the response was limited: compared to South Africa, it was like a village protest against a proposed change to the church roof. Certainly in 2010, things were much grander as over 30 000 students marched through London’s streets, but London was the focal point, whereas in South Africa, the protests are spread through various cities, and are having a much larger impact.

Perhaps it is because things are so much more desperate for South African students, for whom the cycle of poverty is more familiar than it is for those students in Britain, who have the comfort of benefits to cushion their fall. In a country where over 12 million people live in extreme poverty and many more in some form of poverty, the proposed fee increases on 10% to 12% mean that many poorer black students will be excluded from tertiary education, a tool so important in pulling people out of poverty. Another factor lies in student loans which are not as widely accessible to students in South Africa as they are in the UK, where most British students are entitled to a loan. In South Africa, it is not so much a protest for lower fees as it is a protest for life.

So with more on the line, maybe South Africa is the perfect environment for students to stand up and say enough is enough. If the value of tertiary education is greater to poverty stricken students there, perhaps the impact can be much larger. But more importantly what can success in the South African protests mean for the rest of the world?

Maybe this is just the perfect spark students worldwide need, to make them to go back to their governments with an answer to that heavily debated question: that answer being that tertiary education is not a privilege but a right.

The Migrant Crisis: a gigantic solution for a gigantic problem

They are calling it the largest mass migration of people since the Second World War and it is without the doubt, the biggest issue currently facing Europe. The apparent solution: to allow each European country to take a specific number of refugees.

Of course, we cannot sit back, close the borders and ignore the plight of these thousands. From countries such as Syria, Libya, Sudan, Eritrea and more, many of these people have left conflict-ridden zones in search of peace. Turning them away would be tantamount to executing them ourselves.

Yet at the same time, Europe cannot support the weight of the millions who will come if they know they can find a better, safer life there. For now, each country is prepared to take a specific amount but how many can Europe really support? Taking these refugees is humane, and it's a solution, but it's a short term one. Europe cannot take the whole world.

What is the long-term answer then? How can Europe help these people and at the same time turn them away? The answer surely lies at the source of the problem: the places that they are fleeing from.

There are two major reasons why people are heading to Europe. Security and economics, and sometimes both. Europe offers stability and prosperity. And yet the migrants undertake a treacherous and frequently fatal journey to reach the supposed Nirvana that is Europe. With this in mind, if the potential migrants were offered some form of peace and economic prosperity in their own land, it seems likely that they would not leave.

The solution then is to create both practical and economic stability and safety. Easier said than done. But with Europe’s resources, it is possible. I call it country twinning. For now, let us limit this to Africa.

The idea would be that each European country would be twinned with a specific African country and challenged, with that country, to create infrastructure, peace and economic safety that would encourage the citizens of the African country to stay. They would aim to create a peaceful and stable environment, and economically, to develop infrastructure and a basic welfare system based upon those that exist in Europe today which provide subsidised healthcare, education etc.

This idea could take place on various levels: at the top, the specific European government would work with the specific African government to reach these goals, helping financially and practically. At the bottom, citizens of the European country could be encouraged to spend one year in the twinned nation helping to build the infrastructure, develop the local inhabitants skills, and to use their own, for example, medical staff/students to work in hospitals etc.

The danger of this idea is obvious. Too strict on the part of the European country and it looks like neo-colonialism. Not strict enough and the endemic of corruption may prevent progress. For example, Germany gives Chad money to build infrastructure and it disappears down the pipeline of corruption. But if Germany takes that money and directs every part of the development, then it looks colonialist. The answer lies in cooperation and transparency. For example, Chad knows how many hospitals it wants but Germany can offer guidance on how best to run those hospitals. Furthermore, as part of the deal, every penny given by Germany and spent must be accounted for by Germany.

Yes, this scheme is filled with more challenges than can be imagined, and yes, maybe it is a complicated form of babysitting. But the important aspect is that there is something in it for all involved: a long-term solution to the migrant crisis for Europe and development for Africa. And that's just for one continent. Imagine if you could apply this around the world- ‘More Economically Developed Countries’ twinned with ‘Less Economically Developed Countries’.

Is it naive to imagine such vast, global cooperation? Perhaps. But in a world slowly spinning out of control, growing more divided and selfish and creating even bigger and crazier problems, maybe what’s needed is an even bigger and crazier solution. Country twinning may not sound catchy or impressive but maybe, just maybe, with a little imagination, it’s not only plausible but also possible.