Here's my column on America's late December proxy war adventure in the Horn of Africa. John Judis in fantastic column gets much shriller about this.
« Counterinsurgency | Main | Times Change »
Somalia
17 Jan 2007 09:35 am
Comments (10)
One wonders why Matthew continues to ignore that the ICU declared a state of war on Ethiopia before Ethiopia invaded.
I know that fact is kind of inconvenient for Matthew. But one would think that someone who claims to be part of the Reality-Based Community(TM) would, you know, acknowledge reality.
Judis, BTW, not only fails to acknowledge this, but actually flat out lies about it. Judis writes: "And there was no justification for Ethiopia's invasion. It was a clear violation of the U.N. charter. The neighboring people have been feuding for centuries, but Ethiopia's Christian government could not cite a significant provocation for its attack on the Muslim country and its Islamic government."
I mean, that is just a flat out lie. There certainly WAS a provocation for Ethiopia's attack - the leader of the ICU declared a state of war! That most certainly justifies Ethiopia's actions.
The citation is here. Note, of course, that the date (December 21) is before Ethiopia's invasion.
Within the same article you have huge columns of Ethiopian Armor already in Somalia.
Thanks, I'll keep my reality.
Judis' column is simply fallacious.
The de jure government of Somalia (recognized by the UN) invited in the Ethiopians. Thus there was no invasion and violation of anyone's sovereignty. I'm going to pull a rank as an attorney who does international law and say that it's really that simple. His basic premise is simply flawed. Furthermore, it turns out that the civilian casualties were attributable to MI-24 Hinds -- Soviet-made helicopter gunships in the Ethiopian inventory. We don't even have any Apaches or Kiowas anywhere near Somalia.
whether the ICU declared war or not is irrelevant since the ICU was not recognized by the UN as the legal government of Somalia. The UN-recognized government requested Ethiopian support. (that this was a government in name only is irrelevant, legally speaking)
Nathan is, I'm sure, right in his analysis of the legality of the invasion. The odd thing about the legal situation is that the de jure government of Somalia has never in fact controlled more than a tiny fraction of the country, whereas the ICU, as the de facto government, controlled the bulk of the state. Still, from a strictly legal point of view, sovereignty wasn't violated.
Morally, however, the case is somewhat murkier. Michael Walzer argues pretty convincingly that state sovereignty can be justified only as an extension of individual autonomy. A government that can't manage to control more then a tiny fraction of a state (and hence govern only a tiny fraction of the state's autonomous citizens) can hardly be said to possess all that much sovereignty. Rather, sovereignty rightly belongs to whatever entity is actually doing the governing. Which in this case was the ICU.
That's not to say that the case against Ethiopia is clear-cut. I suspect that there is a possible case to be made for humanitarian intervention. Much would turn on just how repressive the ICU really is. Not being an expert on current affairs in the Horn of Africa, I can't really say. But it's worth noting that having a hard-line, fundamentalist Islamic governments set up shop in the war-torn, Hobbesian anarchy of Afghanistan didn't really work out all that well. At least not for anyone not named bin Laden.
The trouble with Nathan's version of the state sovereignty principle is that it is legalistic. The Soviets in Afghanistan were invited in by the de jure government, as was the United States in Vietnam. That doesn't change the reality that both were foreign interventions on behalf of client governments.
I don't dispute that there are issues with making de jure sovereignty everything.
My point solely is that Judis was all wet. And he is. He tried to argue that the U.S. had assisted Ethiopia in violating the UN Charter. Which, as a legal matter, is patently false. Yglesias has raised some interesting questions. Judis tried to raise legal ones...something which apparently he knows nothing about.
whether the ICU declared war or not is irrelevant since the ICU was not recognized by the UN as the legal government of Somalia.
It may not be relevant as to whether Ethiopia's response was legal. But it most certainly IS reelvant to whether Ethiopia's response was justified.
Within the same article you have huge columns of Ethiopian Armor already in Somalia.
Thanks, I'll keep my reality.
If that's the relevant point, then Matthew's article is even MORE non-Reality-Based. Since Matthew's entire article is pased ont he premise that Ethiopia "conquered Somalia and began an occupation of the capital, Mogadishu" over "Christmas break". If you are saying that the preexsting Ethiopian troops in Somalia (protecting the Badoa government) are all that matters, Matthew's entire article is based on a false premise.
Your choice, Ed.
Comments closed January 31, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I certainly wouldn't call Judis's column "fantastic". He completely ignores the point that Ethiopia and the U.S. are at least claiming to act in support of what is the internationally recognized government of Somalia, which severly undercuts his argument.
That being said, I did not know about the U.S. attacks on civilians in the Somali border towns, which are very upsetting.
Posted by Dave | January 17, 2007 10:45 AM