The Somali terrorist group al-Shabab came in the spotlight by claiming responsibility for the two deadly bomb attacks in Uganda, killing at least 74 people and wounding hundreds more during the World Cup final. These attacks were performed in retaliation for the sending of Ugandan troops to the African Union (AU) peacekeeping mission in Somalia. For the first time al-Shabab stroke directly in Uganda.
So who are al-Shabab? The group is an Islamist insurgency group in the ongoing war in Somalia. Currently the group controls most of the southern and central parts of Somalia, including a large part of the capital, Mogadishu. It is directly linked to al-Quaeda, Hizballah and other terrorist groups. Experts say that leadership and strategy is now in the hands of foreign militants, particularly veterans of Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and ethnic Somalis from the U.S.
Bruno Schiemsky, a security consultant based in Nairobi, says al-Shabab's goal has been for some time to expand its influence from Somalia to other countries as well. Its current target is not Uganda, however – it is Somaliland, the sister country of Somalia that has experienced a somewhat calmer security environment. Now al-Shabab wants to disrupt elections in Somaliland. ISSA reports that that a breakdown in governance in Somaliland should be expected to occur as soon as the new administration takes office on July 26, 2010.
Kenya's foreign minister, Moses M. Wetangula, says that Somalia's most immediate neighbors, including Kenya, face potential attacks from the militants. He also believes that “levels of engagement of the United States (…) have been below our expectations”.
The outcome of the elections in Somaliland and the response of the African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia will be instrumental for the future developments. However, the threat of larger instability in the Horn of Africa is quite apparent.
Thanks for this post, Vihar, very current issue!
Thanks, Helena, there will probably be an update after the elections in Somaliland.
I’m curious about next article about the election.
Seems this title turned out to be prophetic:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/06/why-islamists-love-the-world-cup.html
Hi Vihar,
That Al Shabab’s intention is not to open a gardening center is obvious. But it is not only those guys that are a threat to peace and therefore a reason to worry.
In our own social, open minded and helpful Holland we face similar threats. Albeit in a different, non AK47 carrying, form. Two days ago, are most right wing anti-islam politician Geert Wilders announced to start the Geert Wilders International Freedom Alliance. Watch this guy and watch him carefully. This is a very dangerous man and now his intentions are to spread his wings.
In the run-up to the last Dutch elections (june 2010) he avoided every debate about his ideas and blamed everything that goes wrong in Holland on the islam and islamics.
Here is a brand new video about his ideas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHb8GZcQio
So what now, should we start to prepare for a holy war all over again?
Johan,
I can see the connection, but it is quite far-fetched. Al-Shabab is a serious security concern that may further disrupt an already vulnerable area. From a security perspective we need to assess the threat posed by al-Shabab, as well as necessary measures to overcome this threat. Again from a security perspective al-Shabab poses a much more serious and imminent threat than does Mr. Wilders.
As for the political process of rising nationalist and far-right sentiments in Europe you need to understand that such phenomena have not been caused by celestial movements, but rather by some undergoing social changes, and must be assessed as such.
This is a personal view from a guy from the field (very worth reading): http://www.wavemagazine.net/arhiva/44/politics/somalia-political-situation.htm
Thanks for this post on a very current issue.
Of course, Al-Shabab is a serious security concern in that area, specifically. However, and thank you Johan for spreading the word on this mad man, Mr. Wilders is dangerous and we have to be watchful with him. UN and others have to keep an eye on him. This is a complete madness. Johan, please, maintain us informed on him.
Thank you for the link, Luan!
I’ve just seen it on my twitter: http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2010/07/20107178513916507.html
Right, SSC is one of the clans involved in the infighting for control between Somaliland and various factions in Puntland. Now the question is whether such militias together with al-Shabab will succeed in destabilizing Somaliland itself.
Vihar,
Wilders’ threat is as big, if not bigger. What he is doing is trying to find support for his anti-islam movement through reasoning and talks. People tend to take that a lot more serious than guys planting bombs and shooting AK47’s. Wilders is clever enough not to use violence (at least not in the near future to come).
Johan,
Within a democratic system we use criminal law as our main instrument to prevent any anti-social or anti-democratic behaviour WITHIN the democratic system. What you are saying here is that Mr. Wilders, although NOT breaching any particular Dutch law, has built up a POTENTIAL to do so or to encourage others to do so in the future (presuming that the Dutch law enforcement system works and is monitoring his activities closely). Now, even IF there is such a potential, UNTIL it is realised, we simply cannot do anything about it. You know this.
Now, the difference: al-Shabab has willingly organized two bomb attacks in a foreign country, killing ACTUAL people, thus committing a serious CRIME.
Please consider that from a legal perspective there is an OBVIOUS differentiation in the status of Mr. Wilder’s organisation and al-Shabab. That being said, I will be the first to advocate prosecution for Mr. Wilders provided that he or his associates commit ANY crime.
I will, however, defend his right of free speech as long as he stays within the boundaries of legal conduct. I will do that for you and for any other European citizen that wants to have his voice heard, whatever the agenda, even IF I totally disagree with him/her.
Please remember that some of the MOST distinctive features of democratic society are the rule of law and freedom of speech. Law provides a very useful instrument for objectively qualifying human conduct.
Vihar,
If someone is in support of free speech it is me. BUT….(and this discussion is going on in many countries worldwide) how far does this freedom go. In the 1930’s in Germany we also had a guy with a rather weird moustache who could say whatever he wanted. We all know where that has lead to.
Then we have the following situation: In principle is Mr. Wilders already committing a crime by enticing hatred against a certain group of people. He basically declared war on the islam, although there is freedom of religion in the Netherlands. So now we see the interesting conflict between two laws from the constitution. So now what do we do?
Johan,
The idea that Hitler got into power through a democratic procedure is not exactly accurate. Nor is it true that lack of active civil society allowed him to dominate. In fact weak political institutionalisation was to blame (that is, a weak political institutions and parties in particular). You can read this article on the subject: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25054008?cookieSet=1
So the irony is that by inserting the debate into a formal political process, Mr. Wilders is actually weakening the prospects for any violent transformation. Now, again, should he sidestep from the legal standards, he should be sanctioned on national level. More importantly, the European Union as an organisation is monitoring his impact on the Dutch political system and will, undoubtedly, step in to prevent him from doing anything confronting the founding principles of the EU.
But keep in mind that the PERCEIVED scale of threat may be quite different from the REAL scale of threat. More importantly, Mr. Wilders’ support base should be engaged. There are, obviously, some people out there that for some reason support his agenda, and we should debate with these people in order to understand their point of view (and NOT Mr. Wilders’).
All in all, it’s about the strength of the democratic system. If the system is robust (as I believe it is in Netherlands), Mr. Wilders will not succeed in radicalising the electorate further. But that depends on NOT shunning his support base away from mainstream politics.
Vihar,
An interesting discussion, but I agree with Johan. In times of crisis, the conservatives tend to come to power. There is this risk, in every single place in this world, even in the Netherlands. Take for example Jean-Marie Le Pen (of the same gang of that of Mr. Wilders) in 2002 in France. He almost got the presidential election! Do you have any idea of what France would became?
I do not believe inserting the debate into a formal political process weakens the prospects for any violent transformation. Many people will cling to it.
Of course, EU will keep an eye on him. But it doesn’t guarantee very much. Or does?
Luan, conservatism is a mainstream political ideology in many countries around the world and has nothing to do with radical far-right groups. The same goes for social democrats as opposed to maoists, for example.
You may believe in anything you want; I’m not in the belief business. The problem with so many debates is that everyone comes with a very normative worldview and tries to impose that worldview on others. I haven’t had the faintest idea to COMPARE anyone with a terrorist organization. Johan did that, probably being worried by the same Mr. Wilders. Now, Johan and you have made your point: you believe that Geert Wilders is extremely dangerous, probably more dangerous than an al-Quaeda franchise in Africa.
I happen to find your assessment completely unfounded both by facts and theory. This will not make you BELIEVE otherwise; but it may well make others think twice. I also thank you for your interesting perspective, which, although inaccurate, is part of the ongoing debate on security issues around the world.
Vihar,
Talking about inaccuracy: I haven’t said that Hitler came into power through a democratic procedure. I said that he gained power and influence because he could say whatever he wanted.
Secondly, if the EU would step in to silence Mr. Wilders, what would that say about the democratic principles and freedom of speech in the EU? The EU is so strong that it could not even kick a dent in a packet of butter. Let alone in silencing a dangerous politician.
The increase in popularity of Mr. Wilders’ ideas is not a perception. It is a fact. His party gained 15! seats and went from 9 to 24 seats in parliament. Did you hear the EU scream that this is not allowed?
Lastly, I am not worried by Wilders. I am worried about his ideologies and the very likely support he is going to gain in other parts of the world. And that is what I ‘believe’.
Johan,
It will obviously be a long debate, but an important one nevertheless.
You are mixing terms and issues all the time. Your initial assumption was that Geert Wilders was as dangerous as al-Shabab, if not a bigger threat. if I understood correctly, from your perspective his ideology may further radicalize constituencies in Western Europe and the United States with an anti-Islam agenda. This is only my interpretation of your ideas, since you did not produce a coherent argument.
I explained to you that from a legal perspective Mr. Wilders has not committed any crimes that we know of yet, while al-Shabab members have been directly involved in killing civilians in Somalia, Somaliland and Uganda.
Then you wanted to link the experience of the failed Weimar republic and the rise of Adolf Hitler with Geert Wilders rise in politics. I kindly explained to you that the rise of Nazism in Weimar Germany was made possible by a weak political party system, and such comparisons with contemporary Netherlands are truly an exaggeration.
To summarize, you wanted to use my post to make the point that in your eyes Geert Wilders is an omnipotent threat to civil society, democracy and world peace. I disagree. To do otherwise would be to claim that Western culture and society hasn’t learned anything from the carnage of World War II. Now he may well be a serious threat to tolerance and civil society, but I certainly do believe that the rule of law both in Netherlands and the EU in general will see to it that he does not encourage unlawful actions or any policy that contradicts common democratic principles.
On a more personal note I feel that people in the Horn of Africa deserve all the attention they can get on their own problems, and your excursion into Dutch politics will not help them.
Intersting post! Thanks.