SS

Gergen

 

te ee

 

ae -
iar

Trouble in Somalia, trouble across the globe
A recipe for international oceanic terrorism

By Musa V. Sheriff

omalia is a country located on
S the horn of Africa, and with over

eight million people, it is one of
the poorest, most violent, and unstable
countries in the world and in Africa in
particular.

The 1990s was a decade of
nightmares and troubles in many parts
of Africa, ranging from the genocide
in Rwanda, the biggest civil war on the
continent in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and other bloody civil wars
in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast
and Somalia, to name a few. Most rebel
factions on the African continent are
devoid of any progressive political value
systems which inclines them to recruit
fighters who would prefer to capitalize
on social problems of particular ethnic
groupings in return for goods and
properties expropriated from innocent
civilians. Nowhere is such phenomenon
more of a reality than in “modern”
Somalia.

After decades of civil war, self-
destruction, mistrust and resentment
among the Somalis, the nation is not
only impoverished materially and
technologically but also its people are
pushed to the edge of survival. How
does one live if everything is gone
or destroyed? Those notorious rebels
and their leaders have turned to the

sea as pirates, to hijack international
ships, and demand millions of dollars

in ransoms. This has been their modus
operandi for some time now. These

are the consequences of a nation-state
degenerating and disintegrating slowly
into living oblivion, subjecting and
condemning its people to abject poverty
and deprivation.

I want the so-called “international”
community to comprehend the fact
that the cost of inaction will be far
greater than the cost of taking a solid
and reasonable action for what is
right. Failure to act, I fear might turn
the situation into a global security
nightmare for everyone, not only for the
western nations. Signs of that scenario
are being exhibited on a daily basis.

The issues surrounding piracy in
Somalia have forced security experts,
policy makers and shipping companies

   

on a global scale to provide an answer to
this controversial question: What can the
international community do to eradicate
Somalian piracy so that ships have
access, once again, to the Gulf of Aden?
As the drama on the high sea unfolds
and becomes so dead serious, one could
argue that Somalia has become a naval
security threat.

According to Nigerian writer
Chinua Achebe, “When things fall apart,
the centre cannot hold, turning and
turning in the widest gyre, the falcon
cannot hear the falconer.” Such was the
case of Somalia in 1991 when warlords
deposed their president, Shea Barry.
Since then, the nation has been ruled by
thugs, extreme poverty and hunger, with
no hope on the horizon for peace and
stability.

The U.S. dispatched troops in 1992
as part of a UN relief operation to feed

suffering and hungry civilians, but the
Americans became entrapped in local
clan warfare. Months later, militias shot
down two helicopters and killed 18
American soldiers. Images of gunmen
dragging the bodies of U.S. soldiers
through the city of Mogadishu prompted
President Bill Clinton to order a US.
withdrawal and promised “No troops
would be deployed there again unless
there was a clear U.S. national interest.”
Piracy has a long history and will
continue into the future because it has
complex causes and cannot be fought by
military means alone. Therefore, experts
and policy makers will have to rethink
their strategies in the fight against
piracy. For me, though, I think the first
step in combating any global security
threats, is to first fight extreme poverty
and other underlying social, political and
economic disadvantages as Professor
Jeffrey Sack argues in his book, The End
of Poverty. The international community
will have to not only refocus on the
war in Somalia but also endeavour to
make Somalia a functional democratic
nation-state with full authority vested in
a government of the people.

Fuming? Nodding? Sound off and let
us hear about it. Email your comments
about this or any other story to
opinions @theotherpress.ca

 

Remembering Arthur Erickson

Vancouver’s
ij) own Arthur
Erickson
died on May
20", 2009.

~ An architect
of epic proportions, he is known as

a master of modernism. The style of
today, of girders and glass, he applied
to numerous projects in Canada and
around the world, including, maybe
most familiar to the suburban young of
the Lower Mainland, SFU.

His style was a departure from
classicism, gothic or renaissance style
architecture; buildings which are often
valued for their history and beauty by
the general public and yet occasionally
reviled by architects as uncreative,
stale and stagnant. In short—they’ve
been done to death. But on the flipside,
if modernism is our groundbreaking
saviour and the very definition of
imagination run amok, why do so
many North American sky lines look
indistinguishable from one another?

Comparisons are often made
between European architecture and

8

 

its North American counterpart. We

in North America marvel at the older
European buildings, while many
Europeans visit North America to
experience our geography. Erickson
once stated, “Compared to industry

in Europe or Japan, where industry
was based on a craft tradition, we are
sadly behind.” We live and work in
simple boxes, reminiscent of the Soviet
era, while they often live and work in
places of classical exuberance, flowing
with history, places where life has
been thoroughly lived. The modernist

 

pioneer known as Le Corbusier once
called the buildings he designed
“machines for living.” Critics claimed
that modernism with its blockish,
simplicity is dehumanizing. The critics
were right; given a choice, we prefer
the ornate.

Erickson blended the simple
modernism with more angular forms.
Some of his civic buildings twist
imaginatively while his homes,
particularly those tucked away in the
forests of the Pacific Northwest, blend
seamlessly into the natural landscape.

Erickson himself was a critic
of the direction of 20" century
architecture, laying blame squarely
on developers. He said that “builders
eventually took advantage of the look
of modernism to build cheaply and
carelessly.” If a developer intends to
stay at arm’s length from the building
by leasing or selling it right after its
construction then what do they care
about its looks? Their emphasis will
be on its functionality. There is also a
good chance that the builder isn’t even
local, so what of thoughtful land use?
Nothing. When there is a buck to be
made across the world, aesthetics can
generally take a backseat. Antoni Gaudi
would roll over in his grave.

With Erickson, like a young
Howard Roark, the architect hero of
Ayn Rand’s 1943 objectivist novel,
The Fountainhead, he seems to have
risen above his profession, sticking to
his ideals. While he maintained a firm
modernist root, his work is better than
the banality of it. Erickson was firmly
in control.