Somalia: Creating Space for Fresh Approaches to Peacebuilding

u.s. engagement in somalia: frames, missed opportunities, and alternative options
When the practices of well resourced governments and international institutions
are informed by local experience and perspective, it can help lead to
greater participation in the development of economic opportunities, emerging
justice systems, and governance institutions, thereby engendering more
ownership in the shape of sustainable peace. 62
Through our responses to violence, Lederach writes, “we choose to transcend or
enter and sustain the cycle of violence”. Since September 11, 2001, US leaders
have, for the most part, “chosen the route of perpetuation” by responding with
mostly militarily means to perceived threats to national interests. This response
has not increased national (or international) security, but instead has continued
the cycle of violence. 63 How one defines or frames a perceived problem influences
the proposed solution, along with the tools and tactics used to achieve it. If terrorism
is the “problem”, the strategy revolves around its focus on terrorism. Rather
than transforming cycles of violence in Somalia, war on terror policies such as
partnering with warlords in 2006 against the ICU, rendition activities, and the
obstruction of NGO efforts to provide humanitarian assistance or to engage al-
Shabaab have contributed to perpetuating them. Adherence to the war on terror
framework is an obstacle to constructive social change, a process that “seeks to
change the flow of human interaction in social conflict from cycles of destructive
relational violence toward cycles of relational dignity and respectful engagement”.
64
An alternative framework that focuses on human-centered, relationship-driven,
respectful engagement could begin to facilitate a gradual shift in US policy
toward effectively addressing cycles of violence in Somalia, including its own role
in sometimes perpetuating them. If human security is the “problem”, one envisions
a strategy that revolves around human well-being. As Lederach and Appleby
note, “at its core, peacebuilding nurtures constructive human relationships”, and
strategic peacebuilders recognize that the actors involved have widened beyond
the scope of the state. 65 A human security framework would underscore the critical
role of nonstate actors in identifying security needs and promoting reconciliation,
and could help encourage the development of linkages between international
institutions, states, and nonstate actors – a key component of strategic
peacebuilding. States will continue to act in the name of “national interest” or
“national security”, but many are beginning to perceive that strategic peacebuilding
in an interdependent world is, in fact, “in their own interests”. 66 One hopes
that the US will move in this direction in its engagement with Somalia.
Recommendation: Ideally, the US should adopt a human security framework,
underscoring the critical role of nonstate actors in identifying security needs
and creating the linkages needed to sustain effective peacebuilding processes in
Somalia.
A human security framework could help facilitate appropriate resource allocation
and a shift in tactics away from military responses to violence.
62 Oliver Richmond, “Conclusion:
Strategic Peacebuilding beyond
the Liberal Peace”, in Strategies of
Peace: Transforming Conflict in a
Violent World, ed. Daniel Philpott
and Gerard F. Powers, (New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.,
2010), p. 363.
63 Lederach, p. 25.
64 Lederach, p. 181.
65 John Paul Lederach and R. Scott
Appleby, “Strategic Peacebuilding:
An Overview”, in Strategies of
Peace: Transforming Conflict in a
Violent World, ed. Daniel Philpott
and Gerard F. Powers, (New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.,
2010), p. 22, 26.
66 Lederach and Appleby, p. 25.
51