From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: Intervention in Somalia
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 08:20:14 GMT

In article <ARA.92Aug13232549@camelot.ai.mit.edu> ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>
>There has been considerable attention given in the news to the posssibility
>and difficulty of armed intervention in the former Yugoslavia. The concensus
>is that it would be quite difficult. On the other hand, there is a similar
>situation in Somalia, where many people are starving. For some reason one
>doesn't hear the same cries for intervention and one doesn't see interview
>with military experts on the difficulties of intervention.
>
>So I would be interested in hearing people's views on this matter, both in
>its own right and in contrast with the situation in Yugoslavia.
>
>Allan Adler
>ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu

Yugoslavia is in Europe front porch while Somolia is a long way away. There
is not much interest in the national governments because Somalia is not that
important economically. There is not much interest from the public for a
number of reasons. One reason is that many people are not willing to spend
the lives of their own people in Africa. This can be because of racism, the
reluctance to get involved in another war, dislike of 'colonialism' type
activities, or any of a number of reasons.
  I personnally think that a lot of calls for intervention come from people
who evaluate life from the perspective of the relatively wealthy western
cultures. They see how life here is and do not understand why other countries
do not follow our model. Quite often these countries have world views widely
vraying from the western model. They resist the changes. If you combine change,
the resistance to change, and the original misunderstandings between cultures,
you will lead to frustration in the western culture and a calcifying of its position. The west will then make change a condition of its involvement or aid to
that country. Often uncontrolled change or fast paced change can destabilize
a government. The government will do what is necessary to remain in control.
Often this translates into an attempt to slow or channel the cultural changes
occurring. This is in direct opposition to the western stance. The result a
country in dishevel and reggarded in the west as opposed to 'western interests'.
If the destabilization is large, many in the west will want to impose the
changes that they have been pushing thinking that the changes will restabilize the region.
  I have taken basically a prolocal governent stance basically because to some
extent I am an isolationist. I do not think the US should play policeman around
the world. The US should concentrate on restrucuring its economic and industrial
base at this time. Kuwait had a direct impact on the US and as such, from the
US government's view, warrented a response. Yugoslavia has less of an impact
but is closer in the US mind than Somalia. The reason Sarejevo keeps in the
news is the fact that many people are familiar with the town. People know where
it is. Soalia is more like Viet Nam in the US's 1960 world view (who?). Since
that time Americans are much less supportive of invasions to help the people
of a country they have never heard of. The wonder of Kuwait wasn't the 
strength of the counterstrike or the coalition, but Bush's ability to marshall
the US's support. It took everything he had to do it. The entire underpinning
of his arguments when you discarded the chaff was 'who controls the oil?' Such
is not he case in Yugoslavia or Somalia. The US may become a lukewarm partner 
in Yugoslavia, but it will not support any intervention into a country that it
has no economic, political, or social ties to.

Charles Buckley