Politics, please.(CORRESPONDENCE)

Nicolas de Torrente and Fabrice Weissman ("A War Without Limits," Winter 2008) insightfully document international complicity in Somalia's recent suffering. The piece leaves the reader incensed at our collective failure but uncomfortably bereft of a way forward. The dilemma is not surprising. De Torrente and Weissman are classic humanitarians. They fight for justice in war but; have little to say about the justice of war or how to end it. The authors call on other humanitarian organizations to "separate themselves from international political and security agendas," asking us to stay beyond politics so that we can continue to work in war zones and save lives.

But humanitarian organizations could also save lives by becoming more, and not less, political. Advocates of a more politicized humanitarianism believe politics are too important to be left to politicians. They endeavor to influence international political and security agendas by ensuring that local voices are heard. Too often, international policymakers impose solutions that fail to accommodate the political aspirations of local populations, and these solutions do not hold.

Embracing that challenge is particularly important now as global leaders seek to find their post-"post 9/11" voices. For years, US policymakers have talked about the "3 Ds": "defense," "diplomacy, "and "development." But Somalia reminds us how off-balance these pillars have been. As de Torrente and Weissman show, lack of political muscle has sapped the best convictions of the development and diplomatic communities while fueling the intensity of more military-minded strategists. Therefore, debate over US policy in regions like Somalia occurs within a "defense" mindset. There are those (including Secretary Robert Gates) who believe that US civilian-led development and diplomatic efforts could help regions like Somalia move away from perennial fragility, given adequate resources and strategic mandates for effective missions. They suggest that Somalia does not need "more" international intervention but rather "the right kind" of engagement, where understanding the context and people is paramount.

Others at the Pentagon are distrustful of such lofty ambitions, unconvinced that the United States can effectively assist Somalia in the shift away from perpetual crisis and doubtful that a stronger Somalia would lead to a safer United States. They aim to use US humanitarian and development tools to achieve more concrete, immediate security goals. For example, they endorse such efforts as US soldiers' well digging on the Somali-Kenya border to prevent the spread of Somalian Islamic radicalism. They reason, as long as the wells win over local "hearts and minds," their actual humanitarian or development benefit--or lack thereof--matters little.

As the United States seeks to take a more proactive approach to African security through the Africa Command, the Pentagon will continue to debate the importance of effective long-term development versus short-term security gains. The outcome will help define not only how the United States is perceived in places like Somalia, but will also impact the well-being of millions of people. Because the debate concerns a global political and security vision for the United States, classic humanitarian NGOs will say very little about it. I am glad that MSF continues to save innocent lives in war time, but I also hope that more humanitarian voices will challenge the inevitability of Somalia's war and will urge President Obama to work toward a far-sighted diplomatic and development policy framework that reflects the desires of ordinary Somalis. By proposing a bottom-up approach to Somalia's development, policymakers and NGOs can help Somalis determine a better future for themselves and ultimately for our world.

PAUL O'BRIEN

Director of the Aid Effectiveness Team,, Oxfam America.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates