Female Somali Doctors

These women, Dr. Hawa Abdi and daughter Dr. Deqo Mohamed (and Abdi's other daughter, Dr. Amina Mohamed, who is not shown), devote their lives to helping other Somali women and children. Their 90,000 person refugee camp, which is 75% women and children, accepts everyone, given they follow their two rules:
1. No political divisions or social clans within the group
2. No physical abuse towards women

This society is built and operated solely by women; volunteers work at the hospital, the school, build the houses, get the food, etc. In addition, many charity foundations refuse to enter Somalia, due to its instability, so Abdi and her two daughters are often the only three people actually running the camp. Dr. Hawa Abdi, Dr. Deqo Mohamed, and Dr. Amina Mohamed were named "Women of the Year" in 2010 by Glamour magazine, and Nicholas Kristoff wrote "Heroic, Female, and Muslim" in their honor.

I found this video extremely inspiring and a helpful primary source for my topic.

TED Talk Video

Attack in Somalia

On August 24, 2010, a group of insurgents disguised as police officers raided a hotel that was generally labeled as a safer building of Mogadishu and of Somalia as a whole. This hotel was also known for housing lawmakers, four of whom died during the insurgents’ attack. According to Jeffrey Gettleman of The New York Times, the insurgents “burst in, shot at a number of people, and then a few of the attackers, who were apparently suicide bombers, blew themselves up.” The final death toll was not tallied, but it consists of at least thirty, four of whom were lawmakers as mentioned above.

Gettleman also interviewed J. Peter Pham, senior vice president at the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, who claimed the attacks showed that “operational momentum has shifted to the insurgents, who can go anywhere they want except where the African peacekeepers are deployed.” After this attack, hopeful prospects diminished, as the possibility of a completely vanished government grew immensely more conceivable.

A member of the Somali parliament (who was in Nairobi during the attack), stated that the Somali government “isn’t working towards security…it’s just the same old thing.” Most members of the Somali parliament don’t even reside in Somalia due to the daily dangers of the insurgents; most live in Kenya. However, she states that the African Union members and their 6,000 troops are not doing anything either, and questions, “if they are not protecting M.P.’s, then who are they protecting?”

A significant problem is that Al Shabab always seems to be “two steps ahead of Somalia’s transitional government,” even though the Somali government receives tens of millions of dollars in security aid from the United Nations and other Western countries. However, Al Shabab is, indubitably on the offensive, as the hotel raid followed the intense shelling against government positions that occurred the day before; this incident killed dozens of people and sent shells crashing into camps for “internally displaced people.”

Murder in Amsterdam by Ian Buruma

Buruma’s Murder in Amsterdam provides clarification and a unique perspective of Dutch politics and the limits of tolerance. Cultural conflicts have always, and continue to, hinder our abilities to globalize peacefully and to accept new policies and perceptions. Though many Americans—both left-winged and right-winged—rally for world peace, multiculturalism, and complete acceptance, Buruma emphasizes that the importance of the suppression of violence cannot be overlooked. The influx of immigrants in the Netherlands and the consequent violence that Buruma highlights, serves as a prime example of the many conflicts between tolerance, tradition, and democracy. Democracy, though many Americans disagree, is not universal, nor does it need to be for the progression of other nations.

To emphasize this idea, Buruma uses Ayan Hirsi Ali as a source. Ali, a radical feminist, an adversary of Islam, an advocator of freedom of speech, and an overall controversial character, creates a movie entitled Submission, which highlights the oppression of Muslim men towards women. Though the movie was obviously an expression of free speech and was clearly within the realm of “legal,” it provoked anger among many Muslims, especially Mohammed Bouyeri. Ultimately, Ali’s controversial decision led to the death of Theo van Gogh, the director of Submission, as Mohammed Bouyeri believed it was his religious duty to do so. This example of unregulated freedom of speech and misunderstandings between different groups, poses a problem in the Netherlands, and introduces an interesting question to the remainder of the world: In our modern society, when do we draw the line? When does “controversial and thought-provoking” become “unnecessarily offensive and misleading?”

Protection of our traditions, of our reputations, and of our origins is, clearly, of great importance to Americans, and to other nations’ citizens. In our growing multi-cultural world, freedom of speech, among other traditions, has proven to become a conflict. Though religion, technology, culture, and politics tie us together, they seem to be pushing us farther apart than recent decades. One of the many problems that I believe are connected to Buruma’s opinions is the education in the United States. Though of course children get a far better education than most nations offer, the American youth is often confined to a small scope of the globe. We learn about the French and Indian War every year, starting in fourth grade, but I had never heard of Ayan Hirsi Ali and Submission until twelfth grade; global politics are not introduced until a student opts to take a class about the subject, and that is a problem; our education system should be altered to meet the requirements of an advancing cultural and political world.

            Buruma’s book takes a current issue, and explains its historical sources and its connections with Dutch history and religious conflict. At first, I hated the book, because I thought that Buruma provided little context for those who were, essentially uninterested in Dutch history, like me. However, as the plot of the book accelerated, I found Murder in Amsterdam to be semi-interesting, and at least thought-provoking. However, Buruma phrases his sentences in a pretty biased tone, and I often found myself questioning the validity of the book’s sources in general. Overall, however, the book succeeded in emphasizing the cultural problems and political issues in a single country, and implying their importance to the rest of the multicultural world.

Reactions to the Ogaden War

The Ogaden War, a conflict between Somalia and Ethiopia from 1977 to 1978, provoked internal dissent throughout Somalia. At its height, however, the Ogaden war was extremely popular, and President Siyad’s public status was never more supported. But, Somalia’s withdrawal and catastrophic defeat, coupled with the refugee influx, quickly led to widespread public demoralization and a rising sentiment of tribalism, as differing groups of people sought scapegoats in others. Eventually, this dissent led to an attempted coup against the regime in April 1978, led by military officers of the Mijerteyn (Darod) clan who had played a dominant role in the old civilian government. Following the failure of the coup, those who revolted formed a guerilla opposition group called the Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF), and sought support in Ethiopia but were eventually subdued. The fact that the Darod clan sought success in Ethiopia, a country that was historically Somalia’s enemy, is a sign of both desperation and a measure of the degree of disintegration of Somalia national unity.  

In 1989-1990, the Somali National Movement (SNM), a large influence in the Somali Civil War, became much more prominent. Drawing much of its support from the Isaq clans of central northern Somalia, they expressed their disappointment with the Siyad regime. The SNM launched their headquarters, like the SSDF, on the border of Ethiopia, where they conducted raids.

The SSDF and the SNF are just two examples of the escalation of armed opposition to the Siyad regime and the fall of Somali solidarity. Though Siyad’s hostility towards Ethiopia, even well after the war (supported the Ogadeni Western Somali Liberation Front), angered Somalis, he won the election of 1986, as he ran unopposed. In February 1987, a “new” government was formed, including a Prime Minister (one of Siyad’s close military friends); in reality, this government was not “new,” but rather a compilation of Siyad’s clan and family. Change in Somalia was needed.

Gender and Somalia's Judicial System

As most people know, Somalia has an overwhelmingly patriarchal culture. Polygamy is permitted, but polyandry is not. Under laws issued by the former government, female children could inherit property, but only half the amount to which their brothers were entitled. Similarly, according to the tradition of blood compensation, those found guilty in the death of a woman must pay only half as much to the aggrieved family as they would if the victim were a man. In addition, the traditional practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is universal throughout the country of Somalia. About 98% of women undergo this harmful procedure. Infibulation, the most dangerous form of FGM, is the most common practice in Somalia.

In addition, there is no national judicial system in Somalia. The judiciary in most regions relies on some combination of traditional and customary law, Shari’a law, the penal code of the pre-1991 Siad barre government, or some combination of the three. For example, in Bosasso and Afmedow, criminals are turned over to the families of their victims, which then exact blood compensation in keeping with local tradition. Shari’a courts continue to operate in several regions of the country, filling the vacuum created by the absence of normal government authority. Shari’a courts traditionally ruled in cases of civil and family law, but extended their jurisdiction to criminal proceedings in some regions beginning on 1994. In northwestern Somalia, the “Republic of Somaliland” adopted a new constitution, based on democratic principles, but continues to use the pre 1991 penal code. A United Nations report tells of a lack of trained judges and of legal documentation in Somaliland, which causes problems in the administration of justice. In Barder, courts apply a combination of Shari’a law and the former penal code. In south Mogadishu, court decisions are based solely on Shari’a Law. There are also five Islamic courts operating in Mogadishu, which generally refrain from administering the stricter Islamic punishments (i.e. amputation, etc.), but their militias implement many of these punishments anyway.

The U.S. Government's View

Last January, the United States Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations held a meeting regarding the role of Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia, and how its presence was, essentially, a “ticking time bomb.” A major problem with Al Qaeda’s domination in Africa, particularly Somalia, is its intent to recruit American citizens to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States; these individuals include not only Americans who are of Arab or South Asian descent, but also individuals who converted to Islam in prison or elsewhere were “radicalized.” Some Americans were even arrested in Minnesota in early 2009 after returning from fighting alongside Al Shabab; since then, two dozen Americans of Somali origin have disappeared (in recent months) from St. Paul, Minnesota. From now on, fighting extremism world-wide will be an even bigger challenge for the United States, as terrorism is spreading throughout Asia and Africa.

The United States has, however, attempted to help a little bit. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Somali president, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, and praised him as “the best hope” for his country in many years. In addition, the Obama administration has provided money for weapons and helping the Djibouti military to train Somali troops. This would help to “bolster Sharif’s embattled government.”

These goals are, unfortunately, a tad too narrow compared to the immensity of the problem at hand. Senator Russ Feingold says that the US policy should be reconstructed and should be rooted in a “serious, high-level commitment to a sustainable and inclusive peace.” The United States needs to find a way to either evacuate endangered Somalis, or nullify the alliance of Al Qaeda and Al Shabab.

Al Qaeda and Al Shabab

One of Muhammad’s assertions was, “If you take up a domestic life, hold on to the tails of cattle, are content with farming, and thus abandon jihad, Allah will let humiliation lord over you until you return to your religion.” This statement raises two highly controversial questions that are still pertinent to jihad and to terrorism in general. The first regards suicide: Is it legitimate for a Muslim to kill him or herself for the sake of Islam? The second question is more relevant to my topic, as my topic focuses on terrorism’s effects on others: Is it legitimate to bombard the infidels if Muslims, women and children, are intermingled with them? According to Al Qaeda, it is clear that the answer to both of these questions is “yes.”

            These terrorist beliefs, coupled with the alliance of Al Qaeda and Al Shabab, have contributed to Somalia’s status as a “failed nation.” New punishments are created everyday for petty “crimes,” if you can even call them that, and the Somali public has been terrorized for years. Stoning, amputation, public humiliation, and whippings are not uncommon components of Al Shabab’s effort to return Somalia to a "seventh-century-style Islamic state."

            But the main problem with Somalia is that it doesn’t show any signs of getting better. Al Shabab and Al Qaeda grow increasingly closer every day, and organizing suicide bombings and attracting jihadists from around the world, even from the United States. Though most prominent and most “effective” in Somalia, Al Shabab is no longer restricted to this nation; it has been influencing Yemen, Kenya and Uganda as well. The alliance between Al Shabab and Al Qaeda isn’t going away until a foreign nation takes action against it, but who knows what consequences could arise from that? There are too few plausible solutions.

Source: The Al Qaeda Reader

Source: "Al Shabab" from The New York Times