Politics and conflict have produced famine in the Horn of Africa as or more than drought and spiking global food prices. That is the conclusion of a worthy CNN docu-report entitled “Witness to Famine.” While highlighting the humanitarian catastrophe and urgency of the situation, we commend CNN for placing accountability and reporting with unusual candor and lack of diplomatic ambivalence. (Reporters include Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Anderson Cooper, Nima Elbagir and David McKenzie). The responsibility lies with the Al-Shabaab regressive Islamist movement, Washington and some allies, and regimes in the region including Ethiopia’s authoritarian government. Part of the reason to proceed with such analysis is to impress upon those responsible to do more, especially as the response is lagging way behind the need and urgency. One thing is certain: the famine was foreseen well in advance, and it is fair to ask did it fit into anyone’s greater strategic plan to defeat old adversaries.


CNN pointed to a clear turning point that empowered the radical Al-Shabaab. Washington decided to give the Ethiopian regime carte-blanche to invade Somalia ostensibly to fight the “Islamic Court Union”(ICU) authorities that sprung about around much of Somalia to fill a vacuum that had lasted around two decades. The ICU may have resembled the manner in which the Taliban had come to power in Afghanistan and had a rather conservative, even harsh definition of Islamic law to apply. Nonetheless, many people in the region saw the ICU as the only hope after years, decades, of self-serving warlords and chaos. The ICU was not good, but no better alternatives were offered.


Then Ethiopia stepped in with its own scheme – invade Somalia to fight the ICU. The US and allies went along. However, Ethiopia was a recent and “traditional adversary” of Somalia. Ethiopia and Somalia had been proxies in war for the Soviet Union and the US, with the “Super Powers” flipping sides” at least a couple of times. Internal conflicts also were waged similarly, (and Eritrea was one of the states born out of such conflicts). Somalis almost overwhelmingly resented the Ethiopian invasion. Worse, there was an implicit deal that also allowed Ethiopia to dispatch with its own Somali peoples, (particularly in the Ogaden), without concern for political consequences or condemnation that might at the United Nations normally follow a regime’s brutality toward its own people. That was 2006-07, and since then there has been a series of unforeseen and perhaps otherwise conspired set of consequences.

• Ethiopia eventually retreated, but claimed a victory, even as an African Union force was briskly established to fill the void. That force now really only controls Mogadishu and ostensibly helps defend a provisional Somali Government.
• The Al-Shabaab rounded up the remnants of the vanquished ICU and turned it to an ever more regressive and violent theology/ideology.
• Al-Shabaab controls much of south Somalia (besides Mogadishu, areas as Somaliland in the north are controlled by other provisional authorities.)
• The Al-Shabaab reject western aid, including humanitarian assistance. Undoubtedly, this has made the drought and famine much worse. It is also fair to ask whether the south of Somalia has been isolated with each side in the conflict perceiving advantage.
• Ethiopia has left Somalia but it continues to crack down on the Somali population in the Ogaden
• Ethiopia continues to deny access to and isolate the Ogaden denying witness to the famine there (by some estimates worse than even in Somalia), as well as its own brutality (which some have defined as ethnic cleansing and genocide.)


The Ethiopian regime had its own reasons to not only invade Somalia but to keep the country from achieving any credible central government. Having fought serial conflicts with Somalia, in part over the Ogaden, a weak Somalia leaves Ethiopia’s regime unchallenged as it perhaps may seek to change the population equation there. Ostensibly in pursuing a fight against today’s real and imagined bogeyman – “Islamic radicalism” – it has conveniently left a non-credible as well as reactionary Islamist group in charge of southern Somalia. It has already secured a carte blanche for its own brutality in Ogaden and blindness to the famine and abuses there.


Famine in the Horn of Africa is no different in its potential military/political effect than in other conflicts, historically where starvation and weak bodies and minds are as or more effective than bombs and bullets – just see the potato famine inflicted upon the Irish to the concentration camps of WWI. The response to the famine in Somalia, Djibouti, Kenya, Eritrea, Uganda and Ethiopia must be ramped up and all areas made accessible to international access and aid. Whether it is the Al-Shabaab or Ethiopia’s regime, they must be held accountable for denying access and aid to the ordinary people who so desperately needed it. The consequences should be political actions/sanctions and investigation and potential prosecution by the International criminal Court.



Tracing historical accountability can be a bit like employing statistics: it can all be made to fit your point. Thus with history, it depends on your starting point. With the famine in Somalia and the Horn of Africa, we could go back to the last great famine of more than two decades earlier. For most Americans the history with Somalia starts and ends with “Blackhawk Down.” However, the tragedy today is many “strategic” maneuvers removed. If aid is denied or not forthcoming as needed to the suffering and dying, or access is denied, then direct demands made and questions asked.


Related ARTICLE – “History Repeats Itself in Ogaden” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/history-repeats-itself-in-ogaden-by-susan-sacirbey/34177


By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey


Facebook – Become a Fan at “Diplomatically Incorrect”


Twitter – Follow us at DiplomaticallyX