From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: U.S. Is Not Going to War in Somalia for any Good Reasons
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.150034.27323@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.230509.15328@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.ed
>u (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>[..]
>>Yeah, but the UN so far has not had the means to do peacekeeping in,
>>say, Angola: the guys in the blue hats didn't have the means to disarm
>>one of the rival factions.  When they left, and the elections went
>>against this faction, it simply re-armed.  Similarly, the UN doesn't
>>have the strength to keep the Khmer Rouge from straying from its
>>agreements in Cambodia.  Same thing may happen in Somalia in 6 months
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^
>>or so, once the US leaves.
>
>In fact the same thing _will_ happen in Somalia if the UN presence isn't
>strong enough.  If there's no true motivation for peace between the
>parties of a conflict, probably its best for the UN to stay out.  It just
>can't help, unless one foresees a single super super power in place.
>I don't think that would be particularly desirable.  The ageold problem
>basically is not that the UN isn't strong enough, but that the large
>majority of people are dumb enough to find it easier to make war than peace.
>

My impression is that the actual number of Somalis under the command
of the warlords was relatively small.  The majority of the men under arms
have indulged on banditry and clan warfare, in the best Hobbesian tradition.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but a strong UN force would be able to hold the chaos
down while building up civil society.  If the latter is not attempted,
any application of force would eventually be futile.  I'm not sure if we
even should be there if we do not intend to give civil society a chance
to be built.  Of course, we now have the squabbling between Bush
and the UN Secretary General :-(

>
>In the case of Somalia, the problem isn't that the Somalies aren't smart
>enough to grow crops but simply war.  Its just that popular media doesn't
>focus attention on problems before they arise (forget the CIA supplying
>high levels of intelligence to the policy makers :-).  Political pressure
>from a large and powerful country like the US goes long ways towards bringing
>warring factions to the negotiating table (Ex., South Africa).
>

Quite true, though political pressure from the US may at times smacks of
old-fashioned imperialism.  The US cannot act alone, and it would be better
to use international organizations to apply pressure.  For that, these
organizations have to have more credibility, in part through military force
(diplomacy has been defined as saying, "Nice doggie," while reaching for a
rock).  The UN has no such crediblity in Somalia because it has not been
able to enforce its resolutions.  Also, the UN would not be dictated by
the vagaries of American media and popular opinion.

>>Actually, there's an interesting article in the January issue of the
>>Atlantic Monthly.  The Pentagon is of two minds about its future
>>[...]
>
>The semi-conspiracy makes even more sense when one considers that Bush
>acted only after having lost the election!  Needless to say, Clinton
>will have some decision making to do :-(.

Quite true.




_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton