子英
人文曆史回憶四海 古今中外上下五千年
正文
作者：穆罕默德．哈珊 文章發於：民聲網 點擊數：1672 更新時間：2011-10-1
受訪者介紹：
穆罕默德．哈珊是地緣政治學與阿拉伯世界專家。他生於阿迪斯阿貝巴（Addis Abeba，在衣索比亞境內），曾參與1974年社會主義革命中的學生運動。他先在布魯賽爾專攻公共行政，後來到埃及研讀政治。哈珊曾經出任衣索比亞的外交官，派駐華盛頓、北京與布魯賽爾。他曾經在2003年出版《美軍占領下的伊拉克》，對於阿拉伯民族主義、伊斯蘭運動與弗蘭芒民族運動也有不少相關論述，是當代關於阿拉伯與穆斯林世界最傑出的專家之一。
問：海盜在索馬利亞是如何發展起來的？那些海盜是什麽人？
答：從1990年起，索馬利亞就沒有政府存在。這個國家落到軍閥手中。歐洲與亞洲船隻趁著混亂到索馬利亞沿海捕魚，既不申請許可也不尊重基本法令。他們不遵守他們本國的保護物種的捕撈配額規定，而且他們使用的漁撈技術（甚至是炸藥！）已對索馬利亞海域資源造成巨大的損害。
不隻如此！一些歐洲公司也引進黑道，在索馬利亞海岸傾倒核能廢料。然而，2005年的南亞海嘯將許多廢料衝到索馬利亞的土地上，民眾開始得到前所未見的怪病，這是海盜出現的背景。
索馬利亞漁民的漁撈技術原始，因而更無法糊口。因此他們決定保護自己和他們的海洋。這正是美國在1756年到1763年內戰期間對付英國的作法：沒有海軍的華盛頓總統找海盜保護美國海域。
培植虛弱而分裂的國家
問：索馬利亞國家組織幾乎20年不存在！怎麽可能？
答：這是美國所采取的戰略結果。在1990年，這個國家遭到武力衝突、饑荒與劫掠所蹂躪；國家崩潰了。對此狀態，幾年前在此發現石油的美國在1992年發起「恢複希望行動」。美國海軍陸戰隊第一次幹預非洲，想控製一個國家。這是頭一遭以人道幹預的名義發動軍事入侵。
問：所謂「恢複希望行動」，讓我們想起「無國界醫師」創辦人貝爾納．庫希內（Bernard Kouchner）在索馬利亞海灘著名的米袋展示？
答：是的，大家都記得這些照片是如何被小心的展示出來。但是真正的理由是戰略性質的。一份美國國務院的報告建議，在蘇聯集團瓦解之後，美國必須保持獨霸全球的超級強權地位。為了達成此目標，這份報告倡議美國在非洲占有一個霸權位置，以取得其巨量的原物料。
問：不過，「恢複希望」即將失敗。連好萊塢電影《黑鷹計畫》裏可憐的美國大兵都遭到「索馬利亞壞蛋叛軍攻擊」......
答：美國士兵的確是被索馬利亞一個民族反抗軍打敗了。從那時候起，美國的政策是讓索馬利亞處於無政府狀態，甚至是巴爾幹半島化。這是以往英國的老招式，也運用在許多地方：培植虛弱而分裂的國家，以利於宰製它們。這就是索馬利亞國家機器幾乎20年不存在的原因。美國實行一種渾沌理論來阻止索馬利亞任何一種和解，並維持國家的分裂。
問：在蘇丹，內戰的緣故，艾克森石油公司發現石油之後被迫撤離那個國家。所以，讓索馬利亞陷入混亂而無法掠奪已經發現的石油，這不是違背美國利益嗎？
答：掠奪石油不是美國人的優先考量。美國知道石油蘊藏就在那裏，但也不須立即開采。在它的戰略裏有兩個更重要的因素。
第一是，防止競爭者和一個富裕而強大的索馬利亞國家進行內部協商。你拿蘇丹比較，是很有意思的。美國在蘇丹發現石油是30年前的事，蘇丹現在把石油賣給中國。同樣的事也可能發生在索馬利亞。阿不都拉．尤素夫（ Abdullah Yusuf ）還是過渡政府總統時去了中國，雖然他是美國支持的。美國傳播媒體強烈地批評了那次訪問。
事實上，美國對於那件事也沒法擔保：如果一個索馬利亞政府明天建立起來，不管其政治色彩為何，它可能采取一個獨立於美國之外的戰略而和中國做生意。西方帝國主義者不希望看到一個強大而團結的索馬利亞國家。
這個渾沌理論的第二個目的和索馬利亞的地理位置有關，這對歐洲與美國帝國主義者是很有戰略價值的。
殖民時代國境線的災難
問：為什麽很有戰略價值？
答：議題在於控製印度洋。你可以看看地圖。就像我前麵說的，西方勢力對於索馬利亞海盜的發展占有重要的因素。但是他們不說實話，也不對他們的罪行做出救贖，西方勢力一方麵批評海盜現象，另一方麵把他們在此地區軍事部署的存在正當化。北大西洋公約組織就在在打擊海盜的名義下，把海軍部署到印度洋。
問：真正目的是什麽？
答：控製崛起國家，主要是印度和中國的經濟發展。世界上半數的貨櫃運輸與70％的石油產品的總運輸量都要經過印度洋。從那個戰略觀點看來，索馬利亞占有非常重要的位置：這個國家有著非洲最長的海岸線（3,300公裏），並且麵臨阿拉伯灣與荷姆茲海峽，這是此區域經濟的關鍵項目。
而且，如果索馬利亞問題取得某種和平解決方案，一方麵非洲國家之間的關係，和另一方麵印度和中國的關係，可以透過印度洋取得發展，那些美國的競爭者就可以在那個非洲地區發揮影響力，可以透過莫三比克、肯亞、馬達加斯加、坦尚尼亞、桑吉巴（Zanzibar）、南非等等和印度洋有關的國家輕易就可進入亞洲市場，並發展出豐碩的經濟關係。
曼德拉在擔任南非總統期間，曾提及需要一種從新的經濟關係出發的印度洋革命。美國和歐洲不要這個方案。那就是為何他們寧願維持索馬利亞的不穩定狀態。
問：你說美國不希望看到索馬利亞和解。但是索馬利亞分崩離析的根源是什麽？
答：為了了解這種混亂狀態，我們必須探討索馬利亞的曆史。
這個國家曾經遭受殖民強權的分割。索馬利亞融合義大利殖民的南部和英國殖民的北部，在1959年獨立。但是索馬利亞人也居住於肯亞、衣索比亞和吉布提（Djibouti）的某些地區。新的索馬利亞國在它的國旗上是一顆五角星星，五道尖芒代表索馬利亞傳統領域的一部分。這個圖像背後的訊息是：「兩個索馬利亞已經合在一起，但有三個索馬利亞仍然被殖民中。」
當時控製肯亞的大英帝國麵對這些主張的適法性問題時，在索馬利亞主張的肯亞地區舉行一次公投。由索馬利亞種族占多數的人口中有87％的人投票讚成與索馬利亞統一。
公投結果發表後，一個肯亞的民族派領袖朱摩．肯亞塔（Jomo Kenyatta）威脅，如果他們把部分領土劃給索馬利亞的話，就要把英國殖民者趕出去。因此大英帝國決定不考慮公投結果，使得直到今天，有一大批索馬利亞人族群還住在肯亞境內。你必須了解，對於索馬利亞，這些殖民時代的國境線是很真實的災難。國境劃分的議題在非洲大陸是很重要的辯論主題。
社會主義理念散布開來
問：那個辯論的議題是什麽？
答：在1960年代，隨著許多非洲國家的獨立，在我們稱之為「蒙羅維亞集團」與「卡薩布蘭加集團」之間有過一次大辯論。這後來包括摩洛哥、索馬利亞與其他國家認為，從殖民時期遺留下來的國境線需要重新討論。對他們來說，這些國境線沒有合法性。多數非洲國家和它們的國境線是殖民主義的產物。
最後，現今「非洲聯盟」的前身「非洲統一組織」（Organization of African Unity）明令，這些國境線是無可爭議了：回頭爭論這些國境線，隻會在非洲大陸各處引發內戰。非洲統一組織的創建人之一，坦尚尼亞的朱力亞斯．尼雷爾（Julius Nyerere）日後坦承，這項決議是最好的結論，但是他很惋惜索馬利亞國土的不完整。
問：索馬利亞遭到殖民勢力瓜分，有什麽衝擊？
答：就是和鄰近各國產生緊張關係。索馬利亞主張重劃國境那些年，衣索比亞變成美帝主義的一個堡壘。美國在肯亞與厄立垂亞也有軍事基地。這時索馬利亞還是個年輕的、牧歌般的民主國，想要建立自己的軍隊。目標是在已有武力的鄰國麵前不要顯得文弱，並希望支持衣索比亞境內的索馬利亞人運動，甚至必要時以武力重獲某些領土。但是西方勢力反對索馬利亞建立軍隊。
問：因此索馬利亞和鄰國的關係緊張。反對索馬利亞這項建軍計畫是不合理的嗎？那會引發戰爭，不是嗎？
答：西方才不在乎非洲人間的衝突，隻在乎它自己的利益。美國和英國當時在衣索比亞、肯亞與厄立垂亞提供人力物力訓練軍隊。這些國家還處於非常壓迫人的封建製度下。但是它們也是扈從於西方利益的新殖民地政權。另一方麵，索馬利亞掌權的力量還是比較民主而獨立的。因此，西方沒興趣對它們無法控製的國家提供協助。
結果，索馬利亞決定求助於蘇聯。這使西方勢力大為震驚，並擔心蘇聯的影響力會深入非洲。那些擔心在1969年的政變時變得更加重要。
問：你的意思是？
答：社會主義的理念在那個國家散布。有個重要的索馬利亞族群的確住在南葉門的亞丁。然而，是英國把印度的共產黨人、民族主義者等等它認為危險的人流放到此地。這些人通常是被捕後被送到亞丁，使亞丁的民族主義和革命的理念快速發展，後來並影響葉門人與索馬利亞人。在具有馬克思理念的公民影響下，一群軍官在1969年發動政變，西亞德．巴雷取得索馬利亞政權。
學生與群眾自動地動員起來
問：那次政變的原因是什麽？
答：索馬利亞政府的腐敗。不過它掌握了使索馬利亞變成地區強權的關鍵：戰略位置，單一語言和眾多共同的文化元素。這在非洲很罕見。但是由於錯失經濟發展，這個政府製造出有利於族群分裂的環境。
索馬利亞菁英為了從政而分裂。每個人都創立自己的政黨，而無任何真實的黨綱，並從現存的族群中徵召選民。這使得分裂加劇而一點作用都沒有。自由主義類型的民主政治事實上不適用於索馬利亞：3百萬人口的國家竟然曾經有過至少63個政黨！那個政府甚至於無法采行某種官方語言，而在行政係統製造出嚴重的困擾。
教育方麵也很嬴弱。官僚係統、警察與軍隊倒是建立起來了。這將在日後的政變扮演要角。
問：「進步」！來自軍方？
答：軍隊是索馬利亞唯一有組織的機構。作為一種壓迫工具，它本來是用來保護所謂的文人政府與菁英的。但是對於許多來自於不同家族與地區的索馬利亞人來說，軍隊也是沒有界限、沒有部族主義、沒有氏族分裂的一個交流場域。這是從亞丁來的馬克思主義理念可以在軍中流傳的原因。因此那次政變是由民族主義的軍官領導的。他們對於社會主義沒有充分的知識，但是他們同情那些理念。而且他們知道越南的情況，反帝的感情也因此建立。熟悉馬克思與列寧教誨的平民在索國缺少一個大型政黨，就轉而支持政變，並成為掌權的軍官的顧問。
問：索馬利亞政變帶來什麽改變？
答：帶來一項重要的正麵傾向：新政府很快的采用一種官方語言。同樣的，蘇聯和中國也協助索馬利亞。學生與群眾自動地動員起來。教育與社會狀況得到提升。政變後的幾年是索馬利亞人前所未見的好光景，直到1977年。
問：發生什麽事？
答：被殖民勢力分化的索馬利亞為了奪回奧加登地區，出兵攻擊衣索比亞。奧加登主要人口是索馬利亞人。當時衣索比亞本身是社會主義國家，受到蘇聯支持。這個國家曾經長期處於帝王塞拉西的統治。但是在70年代，發生了一次重要的動員要推翻他。我本人親身參與的學生運動提出四項要求。第一，非暴力的與民主的解決與厄立垂亞的緊張關係。第二，實行一個能把土地分配給農民的土地改革。第三，建立民族平等的政策；衣索比亞是一個被菁英統治的多民族的國家，菁英無法代表民族的多元性。第四，廢除封建製度並建立民主國家。就像在索馬利亞，軍隊是衣索比亞唯一有組織的機構，平民也和軍官們攜手，在1974年推翻塞拉西。
自由市場造成中產階級混戰
問：這兩個受到蘇聯支持的社會主義國家是如何起衝突的？
答：衣索比亞革命後，為了解決兩國的矛盾，包括蘇聯、古巴與南葉門在內的代表團，和衣索比亞與索馬利亞舉行圓桌會議。卡斯楚來到阿迪斯阿貝巴和摩加迪休。對他而言，索馬利亞的要求是合理的。最後，衣索比亞代表團同意索馬利亞的要求。兩國簽署協議，同意在做出決議前不做挑釁動作。事態似乎有了好的開始，但是索馬利亞沒有遵守協議......
衣索比亞代表團回到國家兩天後，季辛吉，尼克森的前國務卿出現在摩加迪休。季辛吉代表一個非正式組織：「撒哈拉俱樂部」，由巴勒維國王的伊朗、摩布杜（Mobutu）的剛果、沙烏地阿拉伯、摩洛哥與法國與巴基斯坦情報機關組成。那個組織的目的在於反製蘇聯對於波斯灣與非洲的滲透。在撒哈拉俱樂部的威脅利誘下，西亞德．巴雷做出攻擊衣索比亞的毀滅性的錯誤戰略。
問：那場戰爭的後果是什麽？
答：蘇聯撤離那個地區。仍在西亞德．巴雷領導下的索馬利亞被納入帝國主義勢力的新殖民主義網絡中。這個國家在軍事衝突後損失慘重，世界銀行和國際貨幣基金會負責「重建」。這又加劇索馬利亞中產階級的混戰。各個地區的菁英都想獲得自己的市場。他們在部族之間製造分裂，並且使得國家逐漸走上孤立，直到1990年西亞德．巴雷垮台為止。從那時候起，每一任國家領導都學他。
問：但奧加登戰爭的30年後，相反的場麵發生了：衣索比亞在美國的支持下攻打索馬利亞......
答：是的，就像我說的，「恢複希望」失敗後，美國寧可讓索馬利亞繼續亂下去。不過到2006年，有一個自發的運動在「伊斯蘭法庭」這個武裝組織的發展下，起來對抗地方軍閥，以使國家恢複統一。那是一種群眾起義（Intifada）。
美國為了阻止這個運動重建索馬利亞，忽然決定支持它先前拒絕承認的「過渡性聯邦政府」。事實上，美國人明白他們維持索馬利亞一盤散沙的計畫不再可行：有個運動--還是伊斯蘭運動！--即將走上全國的大和解。為了破壞索馬利亞的統一，美國決定支持「過渡性聯邦政府」。但是後者毫無社會基礎與軍隊。因此衣索比亞軍隊在華盛頓的指揮下攻擊摩加迪休，準備推翻「伊斯蘭法庭」。
「伊斯蘭法庭」脆弱的一環
問：成功了嗎？
答：沒有，衣索比亞軍隊被擊敗而撤離索馬利亞。伊斯蘭法庭組織分散成幾個運動組織，至今仍控製國家大部分地區。至於阿不都拉．尤素夫的過渡性政府，它垮台了，美國以伊斯蘭法庭的前發言人謝赫．謝裏夫（ Sheik Sharif ）取代之。
▲2009年5月索馬利亞亞丁灣，美國海軍組成的海上搜檢隊接到商船發出的求救信號後，出動海軍接近一艘有嫌疑的海盜船。（圖文／路透）
問：所以，謝赫．謝裏夫（Sheik Sharif）已經轉向「另一個陣營」？
答：他曾是伊斯蘭法庭的發言人，因為他是一個不錯的雄辯者（orator）。但是他沒有政治知識。他搞不清楚帝國主義或民族主義。西方勢力也因此扶持他。他是「伊斯蘭法庭」脆弱的一環。他現在領導的虛假政府是在吉布提製作出來的。這個政府在索馬利亞沒有社會基礎或權威。它隻存在於國際關係上，因為帝國主義勢力支持它。
問：在阿富汗，美國說他們要和塔利班協商。那他們為何不和索馬利亞的伊斯蘭團體尋求討論空間？
答：因為那些團體要取代外國占領者，讓索馬利亞人民得到民族和解。結果，美國希望瓦解這些團體：透過伊斯蘭運動或是「聯邦過渡性政府」達成的民族和解不合乎帝國主義勢力的利益。民族主義的反抗運動在當地萌芽，並對抗阿迪斯阿貝巴（Addis Ababa）的親帝國主義政府。實際上美國的渾沌理論已經在整個區域製造出動亂。現在他們把動亂輸出到厄立垂亞。
問：為什麽？
答：這個小國家實行獨立的民族政策。厄立垂亞對於整個區域有一個願景：「非洲之角」（索馬利亞、吉布提、厄立垂亞、衣索比亞）不需要外國勢力的幹預；在互相尊重的基礎上，它的財富應該足以建立新的經濟關係。厄立垂亞認為，這個區域必須聯合起來，各國必須能夠討論它們的問題。當然這個政策嚇死美國人，深怕其他國家跟進。所以他們指控厄立垂亞輸送武器到索馬利亞，還在衣索比亞煽動騷亂。
問：厄立垂亞沒有輸送武器到索馬利亞嗎？
答：連一顆子彈都沒有！這純粹是宣傳伎倆，就像他們指責敘利亞軍援伊拉克反抗軍那樣。厄立垂亞的願景符合我們前麵說的印度洋革命計畫。西方勢力不希望如此，並想把厄立垂亞弄回到他們控製的新殖民主義國家圈，例如肯亞、衣索比亞或是烏幹達。
問：索馬利亞境內沒有恐怖份子嗎？
答：帝國主義勢力一直以來都將爭取自身權利的人民標示為恐怖份子。愛爾蘭人直到他們簽署協議之前都是恐怖份子。阿巴斯（Abbas）曾是恐怖份子。現在他被視為朋友。
問：但是我們聽說蓋達組織出現在索馬利亞？
答：蓋達組織到處都有，從比利時到澳洲都有！隱形的蓋達組織是一個標誌，被美國設計來向大眾說明並合理化軍事行動。如果美國向美國人和大兵說：「我們要派兵到印度洋和中國打仗。」百姓當然都會害怕。但是如果你告訴他們，出兵隻是為了攻擊海盜和蓋達組織，就沒問題。然而真正的目的是不一樣的。包括將勢力伸入未來幾年內將成為主要衝突舞台的印度洋區域。
編譯■李文吉
Somalia had every reason to succeed: an advantageous geographical situation, oil, ores and only one religion and one language for the whole territory; a rare phenomenon in Africa. Somalia could have been a great power in the region. But the reality is completely different: famine, wars, lootings, piracy, bomb attacks. How did this country sink? Why has there been no Somali government for approximately twenty years? Which scandals stand behind those pirates who hijack our ships? In this new chapter of our series "Understanding the Muslim World", Mohamed Hassan explains for us why and how imperialist forces have applied in Somalia a chaos theory.
How did piracy develop in Somalia? Who are those pirates?
Since 1990, there has been no government in Somalia. The country is in the hands of warlords. European and Asiatic ships took advantage of this chaotic situation and fished along the Somali coast without a license or respect for elementary rules. They did not observe the quotas in force in their own country to protect the species and they used fishing techniques -even bombs!- that created huge damages to the wealth of the Somali seas.
That’s not all! Taking also advantage of this lack of any political authority, European companies, with the help of the mafia, dumped nuclear wastes offshore Somali coasts. Europe knew of this but turned a blind eye as that solution presented a practical and economical advantage for the nuclear waste management. Yet, the 2005 Tsunami brought a big part of these wastes into the Somali lands. Unfamiliar diseases appeared for the first time among the population. This is the context in which the piracy mainly developed. Somali fishermen, who had primitive fishing techniques, were no more able to work. So they decided to protect themselves and their seas. This is exactly what the United States did during the civilian war against the British (1756-1763): with no naval forces, President George Washington made a deal with pirates to protect the wealth of the American seas.
No Somali state for almost twenty years! How is that possible?
This is the result of an American strategy. In 1990, the country was bruised by conflicts, famine and lootings; the state collapsed. Facing this situation, the United States, who discovered oil in Somalia a few years ago, launched Operation Restore Hope in 1992. For the first time, US marines intervened in Africa to take control of a country. It was also the first time that a military invasion was launched in the name of humanitarian interference.
The famous rice bag exhibited on a Somali beach by Bernard Kouchner?
Yes, everybody remembers those pictures carefully showcased. But the real reasons were strategic. An US State Department report recommended indeed that the United States must stay the lonely global superpower after the Soviet Bloc collapse. To reach that goal, the report advocated to occupy a hegemonic position in Africa, which enjoys a vast amount of raw materials.
However, Restore Hope will be a failure. There was even that Hollywood movie "Black Hawk Down", with those poor G.I.’s "attacked by the bad Somali rebels"...
US soldiers were indeed defeated by a Somali nationalist resistance. Since then, American policy was to keep Somalia without any real government, even to balkanize it. This is the old British strategy, already applied in many places: setting weak and divided states in order to better rule them. That is why there has been no Somali state for almost twenty years. The United States has implemented a chaos theory in order to stop any Somali reconciliation and keep the country divided.
In Sudan, due to the civilian war, Exxon has had to leave the country after having discovered oil. So isn’t letting Somalia plunge into chaos contrary to American interests, which cannot exploit the discovered oil?
Oil exploitation is not their priority. The United States know that the reserves are there but doesn’t need it immediately. Two elements are much more important in its strategy. First, prevent the competitors from negotiating with a rich and powerful Somali state. If you consider Sudan, the comparison is interesting. The oil that the American companies discovered there thirty years ago, Sudan is selling it today to China. The same thing could happen in Somalia. When he was president of the transition government, Abdullah Yusuf went to China although he was supported by the United States. US mass media had strongly criticized that visit. The fact is that United States have no guarantee on that point: if a Somali government is established tomorrow, whatever is its political color, it could probably adopt a strategy independent of United States and trade with China. Western imperialists do not want a strong and unified Somali state. The second goal pursued by this chaos theory is linked to the geographical location of Somalia, which is strategic for both European and American imperialists.
Why is it strategic?
The issue is the control of the Indian Ocean. Look at the map. As mentioned, western powers have an important share of the responsibility in the Somali piracy development. But instead of telling the truth and paying compensation for what they did, those powers criminalize the phenomena in order to justify their position in the region. Under the pretext of fighting the piracy, NATO is positioning its navy in the Indian Ocean.
What is the real goal?
To control the economic development of the emerging powers, mainly India and China. Half of the world’s container traffic and 70% of the total traffic of petroleum products passes through the Indian Ocean. From that strategic point of view, Somalia is a very important place: the country has the longest coast of Africa (3.300 km) and faces the Arabian Gulf and the Straight of Hormuz, two key points of the region economy. Moreover, if a pacific response is brought to the Somali problem, relations between African in one hand, and India and China on the other hand, could develop through the Indian Ocean. Those American competitors could then have influence in that African area. Mozambique, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania, Zanzibar, South Africa etc. All those countries connected to the Indian Ocean could gain easy access to the Asian market and develop fruitful economic relationship. Nelson Mandela, when he was president of South Africa, had mentioned the need of an Indian Ocean revolution, with new economic relationships. The United States and Europe do not want this project. That is why they prefer to keep Somalia unstable..
You say that the United States does not want Somali reconciliation. But what are the roots of the Somali divisions?
In order to understand this chaotic situation, we must delve into Somali history. This country had been divided by colonial powers. In 1959, Somalia gained independence through the fusion of the Italian colony in the South, and the British colony in the North. But Somalis were also living in some parts of Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti. The new Somali state adopted a star on its flag, each branch representing one part of the historical Somalia. The message behind that symbol: "Two Somalias have been united, but three are still colonized".
Facing the legitimacy of those claims, the British - who controlled Kenya-, organized a referendum in the Kenyan area claimed by Somalia. 87% of the population, composed mainly of Somali ethnics, voted for the Somali unity. When the results were published, Jomo Kenyatta, a Kenyan nationalist leader, threatened the British to throw the colonists out if they gave a part of the territory up to Somalia. So Great Britain decided not to take the referendum into account, and today an important Somali community is still living in Kenya. You must understand that those colonial borders were a real disaster in the Somali case. The border issue was besides the object of an important debate among the African continent.
What was the issue of that debate?
In the sixties, as many African countries became independent, there was a debate between what we called the Monrovia and the Casablanca groups. This later, including among others Morocco and Somalia, resolved that the borders inherited from colonialism be discussed. For them, those boundaries had no legitimacy. But most of the African countries and their borders are colonialism products. Finally, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the ancestor of the current African Union, closed the debate by decreeing that the borders were indisputable: going back over those boundaries would provoke civilian wars everywhere on the continent. Later, one of the OAU architects, the Tanzanian Julius Nyerere, confessed that this decision was the best but that he regretted the Somali outcome.
What will be the impact of the colonial divisions on Somalia?
They will create strains with neighboring countries. During those years when Somalia advocated for revising the borders, Ethiopia became a US imperialism bastion. The United States had also military bases in Kenya and Eritrea. At this moment, Somalia, a young pastoral democracy, wished to build its own army. The goal was to not appear weak in front of the armed neighbors, to support Somali movements in Ethiopia and even to regain by force, if necessary, some territories. But the western forces were opposed to the creation of a Somali army.
So Somalia had tense relations with its neighbors. Was it not reasonable to be opposed to this Somali army project? It would have provoked wars, wouldn’t it?
The West did not care about conflicts between Africans but its own interests. The United States and Great Britain were providing and training militaries in Ethiopia, Kenya and Eritrea. Those countries were still under the yoke of very repressive feudal systems. But they were also neocolonial regimes devoted to Western interests. On the other hand, the power in place in Somalia was more democratic and independent. So the West had no interest in providing for a country that could escape its control.
As a consequence, Somalia decided to turn to the Soviet Union. This frightened the Western forces that feared Soviet influence stretching in to Africa. Those fears became more important with the 1969 putsch.
What do you mean?
Socialist ideas were spread in the country. An important Somali community was indeed living in Aden in South Yemen. However, this is where Britain used to exile persons it considered dangerous in India: communists, nationalists and so on. They used to be arrested and sent to Aden where nationalist and revolutionary ideas quickly developed and affected later both Yemenites and Somalis. Under the influence of civilians with Marxist ideas, a coup d’état was led by officers in 1969 and Siad Barre took power in Somalia.
What were the reasons of that coup d’état?
The Somali government was corrupted. He had however the cards in hand to erect the country to the great regional power rank: a strategic position, only one language, one religion and many common cultural elements. This is fairly rare in Africa. But, by missing the economical development of the country, this government has created a context favorable to divisions among clans. Under the pretext of doing politics, Somali elites become divided. Everyone created his own political party, without any real program, and recruited voters among the existing clans. This increased the divisions and turned out to be totally useless. A democracy in a liberal type was in fact unsuitable for Somalia: there were at once 63 political parties for a three million population country! And the government was even not able to adopt an official script, which was creating serious troubles in the administration. Education was weak. Bureaucracy, police and army were, however, established. This later will play a key role in the progressive coup d’état.
"Progressive"! With the army?
The army was the only organized institution in Somalia. As a repressive apparatus, it was supposed to protect the so-called civilian government and the elite. But for many Somalis coming from different families and areas, the army was also an exchange place where there were no borders, no tribalism, no clan divisions. This is how Marxist ideas from Aden circulated among the army. So the coup d’état was led by officers who were most of all nationalist. They did not have a good knowledge of socialism but they had sympathy for those ideas. Moreover, they knew what was happening in Vietnam, and that fed anti-imperialist feelings. The civilians, who knew Marx and Lenin’s teachings lacked a mass political party, supported the coup d’état and become the advisers of the officers who took power.
What changes did the Somali coup d’état bring about?
One important positive aspect: the new government quickly adopted an official script. Likewise, the Soviet Union and China were helping Somalia. The students and the population mobilized themselves. Education and social conditions were enhanced. The years that followed the coup d’état were in fact the best ones that Somalia never knew. That is, until 1977.
What happened?
Somalia, which has been divided by colonial forces, attacked Ethiopia to get the territory of Ogaden back. Ogaden was mainly populated by Somalis. At this time however, Ethiopia was itself a socialist state supported by the Soviets. This country had been led for a long time by Emperor Selassie. But in the seventies, there was an important mobilization to overthrow him. The students’ movement, in which I personally participated, made four major demands. First, to nonviolently and democratically resolve tensions with Eritrea. Secondly, to establish a land reform that would distribute the lands to the peasants. Thirdly, to establish the principle of equality among the nationalities; Ethiopia was a multinational country led by elite who did not represent the diversity. Fourthly, to abolish the feudal system and to establish a democratic state. As in Somalia, the army was the only organized institution in Ethiopia and the civilians joined the officers to overthrow Selassie in 1974.
How did two socialist states, each supported by the Soviet Union, enter conflict?
After the Ethiopian revolution, a delegation including Soviet Union, Cuba and South Yemen organized a round table with Ethiopia and Somalia in order to resolve their contradiction. Castro went to Addis Abeba and Mogadishu. To him, Somali claims were justified. Finally, the Ethiopian delegation agreed to seriously seriously its Somali neighbor’s demands. The two countries made an agreement stipulating that no provocation should happen as long as no decision has been taken. Things seemed to start well but Somalia did not honor the agreement...
Two days after the Ethiopian delegation returned to its country, Henry Kissinger, a former Nixon Secretary of State, turned up to Mogadishu. Kissinger was representing an unofficial organization: the Safari Club that was among others including Shah’s Iran, Mobutu’s Congo, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and French and Pakistani intelligence services. The objective of that organization was to fight against the Soviet infiltration in the Gulf and in Africa. Under the Safari Club pressures and help promises, Siad Barre committed a disastrous strategic mistake of attacking Ethiopia.
What were the consequences of that war?
Soviets left the region. Somalia, still led by Siad Barre, integrated the neocolonial network of the imperialist forces. The country had been seriously damaged by the conflict and the World Bank and the IFM were in charge of "rebuilding" it. This has aggravated infighting among Somali bourgeoisie. Each regional elite wanted to have its own market. They made the divisions among the clans’ worst and contributed to the progressive dislocation of their country up to Siad Barre’s fall in 1990. Since that, any head of state succeeded to him.
But, thirty years after the Ogaden war, the opposite scenario happened: Ethiopia was supported by the United States to attack Somalia...
Yes, as I said, since the Restore Hope failure, United States has preferred to keep Somalia in chaos. However, in 2006, a spontaneous movement developed under the Islamic courts to fight against the local warlords and bring unity to the country. It was a kind of Intifada. In order to stop this movement from rebuilding Somalia, United States decided suddenly to support the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) after having refused to recognize it before. In fact, they realized that their project of a Somalia without effective state was no more possible: a movement - furthermore Islamic!- was about to lead to a national reconciliation. In order to sabotage the Somali unity, United States decided to support the TFG. But this later was lacking any social basis and an army. So the Ethiopian troops, commanded by Washington, attacked Mogadishu to overthrow the Islamic courts.
Did it work?
No, the Ethiopian army was defeated and had to leave Somalia. On their side, the Islamic courts were dispersed in several movements that still control a big part of the country today. As for Abdulla Yusuf’s transitional government, he collapsed and United States replaced it by Sheik Sharif, the former Islamic Court spokesman.
So Sheik Sharif has passed to "the other camp"?
He used to be the Islamic courts spokesman because he is a good orator. But he has no political knowledge. He has no idea what imperialism or nationalism are. That is why western powers took him back. He was the Islamic court’s weak link. Today he chairs a fake government, created in Djibouti. This government has no social base or authority in Somalia. It only exists on the international level because the imperialist forces support it.
In Afghanistan, the United States said they were ready to negotiate with Taliban. Why don’t they look for discussing with the Islamic groups in Somalia?
Because those groups want to take the foreign occupier over and to allow a national reconciliation for the Somali people. As a result, the United States wants to break those groups: a reconciliation, through the Islamic movement or through the TFG, is not in the interests of the imperialist forces. They just want chaos. The problem is that today, this chaos reached Ethiopia too, which is very weak since the 2007 aggression. A nationalist resistance movement came to the light over there to fight against the pro-imperialist government of Addis Ababa. With their chaos theory, United States had in fact created troubles in the whole region. And now, they took it out on Eritrea.
Why?
This little country leads an independent national policy. Eritrea also has a vision for the whole region: the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia) do not need foreign powers’ interference; its wealth should allow it to establish new economical relationship on the basis of mutual respect. According to Eritrea, the region must get it together and its members must be able to discuss about their problems. Of course, this policy frightens United States that fears that other countries follow that example. So they accuse Eritrea of sending weapons to Somalia and instigating troubles in Ethiopia.
Isn’t Eritrea sending weapons in Somalia?
Not even a bullet! This is a pure propaganda as they did against Syria about the Iraqi resistance. Eritrea’s vision catches up with the project of Indian Ocean revolution that we spoke about before. The western powers do not want of that and wish to bring Eritrea back to the circle of the neocolonial states under control, such as Kenya, Ethiopia or Uganda.
Are there no terrorist in Somalia?
Imperialist powers have always labeled as terrorists the people who fight for their right. Irishmen were terrorists until they signed an agreement. Abbas was a terrorist. Now, he is a friend.
But we heard about Al Qaeda in Somalia?
Al Qaeda is everywhere, from Belgium to Australia! That invisible Al Qaeda is a logo designed to justify to the public opinion military operations. If United States say to their citizens and soldiers: "We are going to send our troops into the Indian Ocean in order to probably fight against China", people would be afraid of course. But if you tell them that it is just about fighting piracy and Al Qaeda, it won’t be a problem. The real goal is however different. It consists in setting forces in the Indian Ocean region that will be the theater of major conflicts in the coming years. This is what we will analyze in the next chapter...
受訪者介紹：
穆罕默德．哈珊是地緣政治學與阿拉伯世界專家。他生於阿迪斯阿貝巴（Addis Abeba，在衣索比亞境內），曾參與1974年社會主義革命中的學生運動。他先在布魯賽爾專攻公共行政，後來到埃及研讀政治。哈珊曾經出任衣索比亞的外交官，派駐華盛頓、北京與布魯賽爾。他曾經在2003年出版《美軍占領下的伊拉克》，對於阿拉伯民族主義、伊斯蘭運動與弗蘭芒民族運動也有不少相關論述，是當代關於阿拉伯與穆斯林世界最傑出的專家之一。
問：海盜在索馬利亞是如何發展起來的？那些海盜是什麽人？
答：從1990年起，索馬利亞就沒有政府存在。這個國家落到軍閥手中。歐洲與亞洲船隻趁著混亂到索馬利亞沿海捕魚，既不申請許可也不尊重基本法令。他們不遵守他們本國的保護物種的捕撈配額規定，而且他們使用的漁撈技術（甚至是炸藥！）已對索馬利亞海域資源造成巨大的損害。
不隻如此！一些歐洲公司也引進黑道，在索馬利亞海岸傾倒核能廢料。然而，2005年的南亞海嘯將許多廢料衝到索馬利亞的土地上，民眾開始得到前所未見的怪病，這是海盜出現的背景。
索馬利亞漁民的漁撈技術原始，因而更無法糊口。因此他們決定保護自己和他們的海洋。這正是美國在1756年到1763年內戰期間對付英國的作法：沒有海軍的華盛頓總統找海盜保護美國海域。
培植虛弱而分裂的國家
問：索馬利亞國家組織幾乎20年不存在！怎麽可能？
答：這是美國所采取的戰略結果。在1990年，這個國家遭到武力衝突、饑荒與劫掠所蹂躪；國家崩潰了。對此狀態，幾年前在此發現石油的美國在1992年發起「恢複希望行動」。美國海軍陸戰隊第一次幹預非洲，想控製一個國家。這是頭一遭以人道幹預的名義發動軍事入侵。
問：所謂「恢複希望行動」，讓我們想起「無國界醫師」創辦人貝爾納．庫希內（Bernard Kouchner）在索馬利亞海灘著名的米袋展示？
答：是的，大家都記得這些照片是如何被小心的展示出來。但是真正的理由是戰略性質的。一份美國國務院的報告建議，在蘇聯集團瓦解之後，美國必須保持獨霸全球的超級強權地位。為了達成此目標，這份報告倡議美國在非洲占有一個霸權位置，以取得其巨量的原物料。
問：不過，「恢複希望」即將失敗。連好萊塢電影《黑鷹計畫》裏可憐的美國大兵都遭到「索馬利亞壞蛋叛軍攻擊」......
答：美國士兵的確是被索馬利亞一個民族反抗軍打敗了。從那時候起，美國的政策是讓索馬利亞處於無政府狀態，甚至是巴爾幹半島化。這是以往英國的老招式，也運用在許多地方：培植虛弱而分裂的國家，以利於宰製它們。這就是索馬利亞國家機器幾乎20年不存在的原因。美國實行一種渾沌理論來阻止索馬利亞任何一種和解，並維持國家的分裂。
問：在蘇丹，內戰的緣故，艾克森石油公司發現石油之後被迫撤離那個國家。所以，讓索馬利亞陷入混亂而無法掠奪已經發現的石油，這不是違背美國利益嗎？
答：掠奪石油不是美國人的優先考量。美國知道石油蘊藏就在那裏，但也不須立即開采。在它的戰略裏有兩個更重要的因素。
第一是，防止競爭者和一個富裕而強大的索馬利亞國家進行內部協商。你拿蘇丹比較，是很有意思的。美國在蘇丹發現石油是30年前的事，蘇丹現在把石油賣給中國。同樣的事也可能發生在索馬利亞。阿不都拉．尤素夫（ Abdullah Yusuf ）還是過渡政府總統時去了中國，雖然他是美國支持的。美國傳播媒體強烈地批評了那次訪問。
事實上，美國對於那件事也沒法擔保：如果一個索馬利亞政府明天建立起來，不管其政治色彩為何，它可能采取一個獨立於美國之外的戰略而和中國做生意。西方帝國主義者不希望看到一個強大而團結的索馬利亞國家。
這個渾沌理論的第二個目的和索馬利亞的地理位置有關，這對歐洲與美國帝國主義者是很有戰略價值的。
殖民時代國境線的災難
問：為什麽很有戰略價值？
答：議題在於控製印度洋。你可以看看地圖。就像我前麵說的，西方勢力對於索馬利亞海盜的發展占有重要的因素。但是他們不說實話，也不對他們的罪行做出救贖，西方勢力一方麵批評海盜現象，另一方麵把他們在此地區軍事部署的存在正當化。北大西洋公約組織就在在打擊海盜的名義下，把海軍部署到印度洋。
問：真正目的是什麽？
答：控製崛起國家，主要是印度和中國的經濟發展。世界上半數的貨櫃運輸與70％的石油產品的總運輸量都要經過印度洋。從那個戰略觀點看來，索馬利亞占有非常重要的位置：這個國家有著非洲最長的海岸線（3,300公裏），並且麵臨阿拉伯灣與荷姆茲海峽，這是此區域經濟的關鍵項目。
而且，如果索馬利亞問題取得某種和平解決方案，一方麵非洲國家之間的關係，和另一方麵印度和中國的關係，可以透過印度洋取得發展，那些美國的競爭者就可以在那個非洲地區發揮影響力，可以透過莫三比克、肯亞、馬達加斯加、坦尚尼亞、桑吉巴（Zanzibar）、南非等等和印度洋有關的國家輕易就可進入亞洲市場，並發展出豐碩的經濟關係。
曼德拉在擔任南非總統期間，曾提及需要一種從新的經濟關係出發的印度洋革命。美國和歐洲不要這個方案。那就是為何他們寧願維持索馬利亞的不穩定狀態。
問：你說美國不希望看到索馬利亞和解。但是索馬利亞分崩離析的根源是什麽？
答：為了了解這種混亂狀態，我們必須探討索馬利亞的曆史。
這個國家曾經遭受殖民強權的分割。索馬利亞融合義大利殖民的南部和英國殖民的北部，在1959年獨立。但是索馬利亞人也居住於肯亞、衣索比亞和吉布提（Djibouti）的某些地區。新的索馬利亞國在它的國旗上是一顆五角星星，五道尖芒代表索馬利亞傳統領域的一部分。這個圖像背後的訊息是：「兩個索馬利亞已經合在一起，但有三個索馬利亞仍然被殖民中。」
當時控製肯亞的大英帝國麵對這些主張的適法性問題時，在索馬利亞主張的肯亞地區舉行一次公投。由索馬利亞種族占多數的人口中有87％的人投票讚成與索馬利亞統一。
公投結果發表後，一個肯亞的民族派領袖朱摩．肯亞塔（Jomo Kenyatta）威脅，如果他們把部分領土劃給索馬利亞的話，就要把英國殖民者趕出去。因此大英帝國決定不考慮公投結果，使得直到今天，有一大批索馬利亞人族群還住在肯亞境內。你必須了解，對於索馬利亞，這些殖民時代的國境線是很真實的災難。國境劃分的議題在非洲大陸是很重要的辯論主題。
社會主義理念散布開來
問：那個辯論的議題是什麽？
答：在1960年代，隨著許多非洲國家的獨立，在我們稱之為「蒙羅維亞集團」與「卡薩布蘭加集團」之間有過一次大辯論。這後來包括摩洛哥、索馬利亞與其他國家認為，從殖民時期遺留下來的國境線需要重新討論。對他們來說，這些國境線沒有合法性。多數非洲國家和它們的國境線是殖民主義的產物。
最後，現今「非洲聯盟」的前身「非洲統一組織」（Organization of African Unity）明令，這些國境線是無可爭議了：回頭爭論這些國境線，隻會在非洲大陸各處引發內戰。非洲統一組織的創建人之一，坦尚尼亞的朱力亞斯．尼雷爾（Julius Nyerere）日後坦承，這項決議是最好的結論，但是他很惋惜索馬利亞國土的不完整。
問：索馬利亞遭到殖民勢力瓜分，有什麽衝擊？
答：就是和鄰近各國產生緊張關係。索馬利亞主張重劃國境那些年，衣索比亞變成美帝主義的一個堡壘。美國在肯亞與厄立垂亞也有軍事基地。這時索馬利亞還是個年輕的、牧歌般的民主國，想要建立自己的軍隊。目標是在已有武力的鄰國麵前不要顯得文弱，並希望支持衣索比亞境內的索馬利亞人運動，甚至必要時以武力重獲某些領土。但是西方勢力反對索馬利亞建立軍隊。
問：因此索馬利亞和鄰國的關係緊張。反對索馬利亞這項建軍計畫是不合理的嗎？那會引發戰爭，不是嗎？
答：西方才不在乎非洲人間的衝突，隻在乎它自己的利益。美國和英國當時在衣索比亞、肯亞與厄立垂亞提供人力物力訓練軍隊。這些國家還處於非常壓迫人的封建製度下。但是它們也是扈從於西方利益的新殖民地政權。另一方麵，索馬利亞掌權的力量還是比較民主而獨立的。因此，西方沒興趣對它們無法控製的國家提供協助。
結果，索馬利亞決定求助於蘇聯。這使西方勢力大為震驚，並擔心蘇聯的影響力會深入非洲。那些擔心在1969年的政變時變得更加重要。
問：你的意思是？
答：社會主義的理念在那個國家散布。有個重要的索馬利亞族群的確住在南葉門的亞丁。然而，是英國把印度的共產黨人、民族主義者等等它認為危險的人流放到此地。這些人通常是被捕後被送到亞丁，使亞丁的民族主義和革命的理念快速發展，後來並影響葉門人與索馬利亞人。在具有馬克思理念的公民影響下，一群軍官在1969年發動政變，西亞德．巴雷取得索馬利亞政權。
學生與群眾自動地動員起來
問：那次政變的原因是什麽？
答：索馬利亞政府的腐敗。不過它掌握了使索馬利亞變成地區強權的關鍵：戰略位置，單一語言和眾多共同的文化元素。這在非洲很罕見。但是由於錯失經濟發展，這個政府製造出有利於族群分裂的環境。
索馬利亞菁英為了從政而分裂。每個人都創立自己的政黨，而無任何真實的黨綱，並從現存的族群中徵召選民。這使得分裂加劇而一點作用都沒有。自由主義類型的民主政治事實上不適用於索馬利亞：3百萬人口的國家竟然曾經有過至少63個政黨！那個政府甚至於無法采行某種官方語言，而在行政係統製造出嚴重的困擾。
教育方麵也很嬴弱。官僚係統、警察與軍隊倒是建立起來了。這將在日後的政變扮演要角。
問：「進步」！來自軍方？
答：軍隊是索馬利亞唯一有組織的機構。作為一種壓迫工具，它本來是用來保護所謂的文人政府與菁英的。但是對於許多來自於不同家族與地區的索馬利亞人來說，軍隊也是沒有界限、沒有部族主義、沒有氏族分裂的一個交流場域。這是從亞丁來的馬克思主義理念可以在軍中流傳的原因。因此那次政變是由民族主義的軍官領導的。他們對於社會主義沒有充分的知識，但是他們同情那些理念。而且他們知道越南的情況，反帝的感情也因此建立。熟悉馬克思與列寧教誨的平民在索國缺少一個大型政黨，就轉而支持政變，並成為掌權的軍官的顧問。
問：索馬利亞政變帶來什麽改變？
答：帶來一項重要的正麵傾向：新政府很快的采用一種官方語言。同樣的，蘇聯和中國也協助索馬利亞。學生與群眾自動地動員起來。教育與社會狀況得到提升。政變後的幾年是索馬利亞人前所未見的好光景，直到1977年。
問：發生什麽事？
答：被殖民勢力分化的索馬利亞為了奪回奧加登地區，出兵攻擊衣索比亞。奧加登主要人口是索馬利亞人。當時衣索比亞本身是社會主義國家，受到蘇聯支持。這個國家曾經長期處於帝王塞拉西的統治。但是在70年代，發生了一次重要的動員要推翻他。我本人親身參與的學生運動提出四項要求。第一，非暴力的與民主的解決與厄立垂亞的緊張關係。第二，實行一個能把土地分配給農民的土地改革。第三，建立民族平等的政策；衣索比亞是一個被菁英統治的多民族的國家，菁英無法代表民族的多元性。第四，廢除封建製度並建立民主國家。就像在索馬利亞，軍隊是衣索比亞唯一有組織的機構，平民也和軍官們攜手，在1974年推翻塞拉西。
自由市場造成中產階級混戰
問：這兩個受到蘇聯支持的社會主義國家是如何起衝突的？
答：衣索比亞革命後，為了解決兩國的矛盾，包括蘇聯、古巴與南葉門在內的代表團，和衣索比亞與索馬利亞舉行圓桌會議。卡斯楚來到阿迪斯阿貝巴和摩加迪休。對他而言，索馬利亞的要求是合理的。最後，衣索比亞代表團同意索馬利亞的要求。兩國簽署協議，同意在做出決議前不做挑釁動作。事態似乎有了好的開始，但是索馬利亞沒有遵守協議......
衣索比亞代表團回到國家兩天後，季辛吉，尼克森的前國務卿出現在摩加迪休。季辛吉代表一個非正式組織：「撒哈拉俱樂部」，由巴勒維國王的伊朗、摩布杜（Mobutu）的剛果、沙烏地阿拉伯、摩洛哥與法國與巴基斯坦情報機關組成。那個組織的目的在於反製蘇聯對於波斯灣與非洲的滲透。在撒哈拉俱樂部的威脅利誘下，西亞德．巴雷做出攻擊衣索比亞的毀滅性的錯誤戰略。
問：那場戰爭的後果是什麽？
答：蘇聯撤離那個地區。仍在西亞德．巴雷領導下的索馬利亞被納入帝國主義勢力的新殖民主義網絡中。這個國家在軍事衝突後損失慘重，世界銀行和國際貨幣基金會負責「重建」。這又加劇索馬利亞中產階級的混戰。各個地區的菁英都想獲得自己的市場。他們在部族之間製造分裂，並且使得國家逐漸走上孤立，直到1990年西亞德．巴雷垮台為止。從那時候起，每一任國家領導都學他。
問：但奧加登戰爭的30年後，相反的場麵發生了：衣索比亞在美國的支持下攻打索馬利亞......
答：是的，就像我說的，「恢複希望」失敗後，美國寧可讓索馬利亞繼續亂下去。不過到2006年，有一個自發的運動在「伊斯蘭法庭」這個武裝組織的發展下，起來對抗地方軍閥，以使國家恢複統一。那是一種群眾起義（Intifada）。
美國為了阻止這個運動重建索馬利亞，忽然決定支持它先前拒絕承認的「過渡性聯邦政府」。事實上，美國人明白他們維持索馬利亞一盤散沙的計畫不再可行：有個運動--還是伊斯蘭運動！--即將走上全國的大和解。為了破壞索馬利亞的統一，美國決定支持「過渡性聯邦政府」。但是後者毫無社會基礎與軍隊。因此衣索比亞軍隊在華盛頓的指揮下攻擊摩加迪休，準備推翻「伊斯蘭法庭」。
「伊斯蘭法庭」脆弱的一環
問：成功了嗎？
答：沒有，衣索比亞軍隊被擊敗而撤離索馬利亞。伊斯蘭法庭組織分散成幾個運動組織，至今仍控製國家大部分地區。至於阿不都拉．尤素夫的過渡性政府，它垮台了，美國以伊斯蘭法庭的前發言人謝赫．謝裏夫（ Sheik Sharif ）取代之。
▲2009年5月索馬利亞亞丁灣，美國海軍組成的海上搜檢隊接到商船發出的求救信號後，出動海軍接近一艘有嫌疑的海盜船。（圖文／路透）
問：所以，謝赫．謝裏夫（Sheik Sharif）已經轉向「另一個陣營」？
答：他曾是伊斯蘭法庭的發言人，因為他是一個不錯的雄辯者（orator）。但是他沒有政治知識。他搞不清楚帝國主義或民族主義。西方勢力也因此扶持他。他是「伊斯蘭法庭」脆弱的一環。他現在領導的虛假政府是在吉布提製作出來的。這個政府在索馬利亞沒有社會基礎或權威。它隻存在於國際關係上，因為帝國主義勢力支持它。
問：在阿富汗，美國說他們要和塔利班協商。那他們為何不和索馬利亞的伊斯蘭團體尋求討論空間？
答：因為那些團體要取代外國占領者，讓索馬利亞人民得到民族和解。結果，美國希望瓦解這些團體：透過伊斯蘭運動或是「聯邦過渡性政府」達成的民族和解不合乎帝國主義勢力的利益。民族主義的反抗運動在當地萌芽，並對抗阿迪斯阿貝巴（Addis Ababa）的親帝國主義政府。實際上美國的渾沌理論已經在整個區域製造出動亂。現在他們把動亂輸出到厄立垂亞。
問：為什麽？
答：這個小國家實行獨立的民族政策。厄立垂亞對於整個區域有一個願景：「非洲之角」（索馬利亞、吉布提、厄立垂亞、衣索比亞）不需要外國勢力的幹預；在互相尊重的基礎上，它的財富應該足以建立新的經濟關係。厄立垂亞認為，這個區域必須聯合起來，各國必須能夠討論它們的問題。當然這個政策嚇死美國人，深怕其他國家跟進。所以他們指控厄立垂亞輸送武器到索馬利亞，還在衣索比亞煽動騷亂。
問：厄立垂亞沒有輸送武器到索馬利亞嗎？
答：連一顆子彈都沒有！這純粹是宣傳伎倆，就像他們指責敘利亞軍援伊拉克反抗軍那樣。厄立垂亞的願景符合我們前麵說的印度洋革命計畫。西方勢力不希望如此，並想把厄立垂亞弄回到他們控製的新殖民主義國家圈，例如肯亞、衣索比亞或是烏幹達。
問：索馬利亞境內沒有恐怖份子嗎？
答：帝國主義勢力一直以來都將爭取自身權利的人民標示為恐怖份子。愛爾蘭人直到他們簽署協議之前都是恐怖份子。阿巴斯（Abbas）曾是恐怖份子。現在他被視為朋友。
問：但是我們聽說蓋達組織出現在索馬利亞？
答：蓋達組織到處都有，從比利時到澳洲都有！隱形的蓋達組織是一個標誌，被美國設計來向大眾說明並合理化軍事行動。如果美國向美國人和大兵說：「我們要派兵到印度洋和中國打仗。」百姓當然都會害怕。但是如果你告訴他們，出兵隻是為了攻擊海盜和蓋達組織，就沒問題。然而真正的目的是不一樣的。包括將勢力伸入未來幾年內將成為主要衝突舞台的印度洋區域。
編譯■李文吉
Somalia had every reason to succeed: an advantageous geographical situation, oil, ores and only one religion and one language for the whole territory; a rare phenomenon in Africa. Somalia could have been a great power in the region. But the reality is completely different: famine, wars, lootings, piracy, bomb attacks. How did this country sink? Why has there been no Somali government for approximately twenty years? Which scandals stand behind those pirates who hijack our ships? In this new chapter of our series "Understanding the Muslim World", Mohamed Hassan explains for us why and how imperialist forces have applied in Somalia a chaos theory.
How did piracy develop in Somalia? Who are those pirates?
Since 1990, there has been no government in Somalia. The country is in the hands of warlords. European and Asiatic ships took advantage of this chaotic situation and fished along the Somali coast without a license or respect for elementary rules. They did not observe the quotas in force in their own country to protect the species and they used fishing techniques -even bombs!- that created huge damages to the wealth of the Somali seas.
That’s not all! Taking also advantage of this lack of any political authority, European companies, with the help of the mafia, dumped nuclear wastes offshore Somali coasts. Europe knew of this but turned a blind eye as that solution presented a practical and economical advantage for the nuclear waste management. Yet, the 2005 Tsunami brought a big part of these wastes into the Somali lands. Unfamiliar diseases appeared for the first time among the population. This is the context in which the piracy mainly developed. Somali fishermen, who had primitive fishing techniques, were no more able to work. So they decided to protect themselves and their seas. This is exactly what the United States did during the civilian war against the British (1756-1763): with no naval forces, President George Washington made a deal with pirates to protect the wealth of the American seas.
No Somali state for almost twenty years! How is that possible?
This is the result of an American strategy. In 1990, the country was bruised by conflicts, famine and lootings; the state collapsed. Facing this situation, the United States, who discovered oil in Somalia a few years ago, launched Operation Restore Hope in 1992. For the first time, US marines intervened in Africa to take control of a country. It was also the first time that a military invasion was launched in the name of humanitarian interference.
The famous rice bag exhibited on a Somali beach by Bernard Kouchner?
Yes, everybody remembers those pictures carefully showcased. But the real reasons were strategic. An US State Department report recommended indeed that the United States must stay the lonely global superpower after the Soviet Bloc collapse. To reach that goal, the report advocated to occupy a hegemonic position in Africa, which enjoys a vast amount of raw materials.
However, Restore Hope will be a failure. There was even that Hollywood movie "Black Hawk Down", with those poor G.I.’s "attacked by the bad Somali rebels"...
US soldiers were indeed defeated by a Somali nationalist resistance. Since then, American policy was to keep Somalia without any real government, even to balkanize it. This is the old British strategy, already applied in many places: setting weak and divided states in order to better rule them. That is why there has been no Somali state for almost twenty years. The United States has implemented a chaos theory in order to stop any Somali reconciliation and keep the country divided.
In Sudan, due to the civilian war, Exxon has had to leave the country after having discovered oil. So isn’t letting Somalia plunge into chaos contrary to American interests, which cannot exploit the discovered oil?
Oil exploitation is not their priority. The United States know that the reserves are there but doesn’t need it immediately. Two elements are much more important in its strategy. First, prevent the competitors from negotiating with a rich and powerful Somali state. If you consider Sudan, the comparison is interesting. The oil that the American companies discovered there thirty years ago, Sudan is selling it today to China. The same thing could happen in Somalia. When he was president of the transition government, Abdullah Yusuf went to China although he was supported by the United States. US mass media had strongly criticized that visit. The fact is that United States have no guarantee on that point: if a Somali government is established tomorrow, whatever is its political color, it could probably adopt a strategy independent of United States and trade with China. Western imperialists do not want a strong and unified Somali state. The second goal pursued by this chaos theory is linked to the geographical location of Somalia, which is strategic for both European and American imperialists.
Why is it strategic?
The issue is the control of the Indian Ocean. Look at the map. As mentioned, western powers have an important share of the responsibility in the Somali piracy development. But instead of telling the truth and paying compensation for what they did, those powers criminalize the phenomena in order to justify their position in the region. Under the pretext of fighting the piracy, NATO is positioning its navy in the Indian Ocean.
What is the real goal?
To control the economic development of the emerging powers, mainly India and China. Half of the world’s container traffic and 70% of the total traffic of petroleum products passes through the Indian Ocean. From that strategic point of view, Somalia is a very important place: the country has the longest coast of Africa (3.300 km) and faces the Arabian Gulf and the Straight of Hormuz, two key points of the region economy. Moreover, if a pacific response is brought to the Somali problem, relations between African in one hand, and India and China on the other hand, could develop through the Indian Ocean. Those American competitors could then have influence in that African area. Mozambique, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania, Zanzibar, South Africa etc. All those countries connected to the Indian Ocean could gain easy access to the Asian market and develop fruitful economic relationship. Nelson Mandela, when he was president of South Africa, had mentioned the need of an Indian Ocean revolution, with new economic relationships. The United States and Europe do not want this project. That is why they prefer to keep Somalia unstable..
You say that the United States does not want Somali reconciliation. But what are the roots of the Somali divisions?
In order to understand this chaotic situation, we must delve into Somali history. This country had been divided by colonial powers. In 1959, Somalia gained independence through the fusion of the Italian colony in the South, and the British colony in the North. But Somalis were also living in some parts of Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti. The new Somali state adopted a star on its flag, each branch representing one part of the historical Somalia. The message behind that symbol: "Two Somalias have been united, but three are still colonized".
Facing the legitimacy of those claims, the British - who controlled Kenya-, organized a referendum in the Kenyan area claimed by Somalia. 87% of the population, composed mainly of Somali ethnics, voted for the Somali unity. When the results were published, Jomo Kenyatta, a Kenyan nationalist leader, threatened the British to throw the colonists out if they gave a part of the territory up to Somalia. So Great Britain decided not to take the referendum into account, and today an important Somali community is still living in Kenya. You must understand that those colonial borders were a real disaster in the Somali case. The border issue was besides the object of an important debate among the African continent.
What was the issue of that debate?
In the sixties, as many African countries became independent, there was a debate between what we called the Monrovia and the Casablanca groups. This later, including among others Morocco and Somalia, resolved that the borders inherited from colonialism be discussed. For them, those boundaries had no legitimacy. But most of the African countries and their borders are colonialism products. Finally, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the ancestor of the current African Union, closed the debate by decreeing that the borders were indisputable: going back over those boundaries would provoke civilian wars everywhere on the continent. Later, one of the OAU architects, the Tanzanian Julius Nyerere, confessed that this decision was the best but that he regretted the Somali outcome.
What will be the impact of the colonial divisions on Somalia?
They will create strains with neighboring countries. During those years when Somalia advocated for revising the borders, Ethiopia became a US imperialism bastion. The United States had also military bases in Kenya and Eritrea. At this moment, Somalia, a young pastoral democracy, wished to build its own army. The goal was to not appear weak in front of the armed neighbors, to support Somali movements in Ethiopia and even to regain by force, if necessary, some territories. But the western forces were opposed to the creation of a Somali army.
So Somalia had tense relations with its neighbors. Was it not reasonable to be opposed to this Somali army project? It would have provoked wars, wouldn’t it?
The West did not care about conflicts between Africans but its own interests. The United States and Great Britain were providing and training militaries in Ethiopia, Kenya and Eritrea. Those countries were still under the yoke of very repressive feudal systems. But they were also neocolonial regimes devoted to Western interests. On the other hand, the power in place in Somalia was more democratic and independent. So the West had no interest in providing for a country that could escape its control.
As a consequence, Somalia decided to turn to the Soviet Union. This frightened the Western forces that feared Soviet influence stretching in to Africa. Those fears became more important with the 1969 putsch.
What do you mean?
Socialist ideas were spread in the country. An important Somali community was indeed living in Aden in South Yemen. However, this is where Britain used to exile persons it considered dangerous in India: communists, nationalists and so on. They used to be arrested and sent to Aden where nationalist and revolutionary ideas quickly developed and affected later both Yemenites and Somalis. Under the influence of civilians with Marxist ideas, a coup d’état was led by officers in 1969 and Siad Barre took power in Somalia.
What were the reasons of that coup d’état?
The Somali government was corrupted. He had however the cards in hand to erect the country to the great regional power rank: a strategic position, only one language, one religion and many common cultural elements. This is fairly rare in Africa. But, by missing the economical development of the country, this government has created a context favorable to divisions among clans. Under the pretext of doing politics, Somali elites become divided. Everyone created his own political party, without any real program, and recruited voters among the existing clans. This increased the divisions and turned out to be totally useless. A democracy in a liberal type was in fact unsuitable for Somalia: there were at once 63 political parties for a three million population country! And the government was even not able to adopt an official script, which was creating serious troubles in the administration. Education was weak. Bureaucracy, police and army were, however, established. This later will play a key role in the progressive coup d’état.
"Progressive"! With the army?
The army was the only organized institution in Somalia. As a repressive apparatus, it was supposed to protect the so-called civilian government and the elite. But for many Somalis coming from different families and areas, the army was also an exchange place where there were no borders, no tribalism, no clan divisions. This is how Marxist ideas from Aden circulated among the army. So the coup d’état was led by officers who were most of all nationalist. They did not have a good knowledge of socialism but they had sympathy for those ideas. Moreover, they knew what was happening in Vietnam, and that fed anti-imperialist feelings. The civilians, who knew Marx and Lenin’s teachings lacked a mass political party, supported the coup d’état and become the advisers of the officers who took power.
What changes did the Somali coup d’état bring about?
One important positive aspect: the new government quickly adopted an official script. Likewise, the Soviet Union and China were helping Somalia. The students and the population mobilized themselves. Education and social conditions were enhanced. The years that followed the coup d’état were in fact the best ones that Somalia never knew. That is, until 1977.
What happened?
Somalia, which has been divided by colonial forces, attacked Ethiopia to get the territory of Ogaden back. Ogaden was mainly populated by Somalis. At this time however, Ethiopia was itself a socialist state supported by the Soviets. This country had been led for a long time by Emperor Selassie. But in the seventies, there was an important mobilization to overthrow him. The students’ movement, in which I personally participated, made four major demands. First, to nonviolently and democratically resolve tensions with Eritrea. Secondly, to establish a land reform that would distribute the lands to the peasants. Thirdly, to establish the principle of equality among the nationalities; Ethiopia was a multinational country led by elite who did not represent the diversity. Fourthly, to abolish the feudal system and to establish a democratic state. As in Somalia, the army was the only organized institution in Ethiopia and the civilians joined the officers to overthrow Selassie in 1974.
How did two socialist states, each supported by the Soviet Union, enter conflict?
After the Ethiopian revolution, a delegation including Soviet Union, Cuba and South Yemen organized a round table with Ethiopia and Somalia in order to resolve their contradiction. Castro went to Addis Abeba and Mogadishu. To him, Somali claims were justified. Finally, the Ethiopian delegation agreed to seriously seriously its Somali neighbor’s demands. The two countries made an agreement stipulating that no provocation should happen as long as no decision has been taken. Things seemed to start well but Somalia did not honor the agreement...
Two days after the Ethiopian delegation returned to its country, Henry Kissinger, a former Nixon Secretary of State, turned up to Mogadishu. Kissinger was representing an unofficial organization: the Safari Club that was among others including Shah’s Iran, Mobutu’s Congo, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and French and Pakistani intelligence services. The objective of that organization was to fight against the Soviet infiltration in the Gulf and in Africa. Under the Safari Club pressures and help promises, Siad Barre committed a disastrous strategic mistake of attacking Ethiopia.
What were the consequences of that war?
Soviets left the region. Somalia, still led by Siad Barre, integrated the neocolonial network of the imperialist forces. The country had been seriously damaged by the conflict and the World Bank and the IFM were in charge of "rebuilding" it. This has aggravated infighting among Somali bourgeoisie. Each regional elite wanted to have its own market. They made the divisions among the clans’ worst and contributed to the progressive dislocation of their country up to Siad Barre’s fall in 1990. Since that, any head of state succeeded to him.
But, thirty years after the Ogaden war, the opposite scenario happened: Ethiopia was supported by the United States to attack Somalia...
Yes, as I said, since the Restore Hope failure, United States has preferred to keep Somalia in chaos. However, in 2006, a spontaneous movement developed under the Islamic courts to fight against the local warlords and bring unity to the country. It was a kind of Intifada. In order to stop this movement from rebuilding Somalia, United States decided suddenly to support the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) after having refused to recognize it before. In fact, they realized that their project of a Somalia without effective state was no more possible: a movement - furthermore Islamic!- was about to lead to a national reconciliation. In order to sabotage the Somali unity, United States decided to support the TFG. But this later was lacking any social basis and an army. So the Ethiopian troops, commanded by Washington, attacked Mogadishu to overthrow the Islamic courts.
Did it work?
No, the Ethiopian army was defeated and had to leave Somalia. On their side, the Islamic courts were dispersed in several movements that still control a big part of the country today. As for Abdulla Yusuf’s transitional government, he collapsed and United States replaced it by Sheik Sharif, the former Islamic Court spokesman.
So Sheik Sharif has passed to "the other camp"?
He used to be the Islamic courts spokesman because he is a good orator. But he has no political knowledge. He has no idea what imperialism or nationalism are. That is why western powers took him back. He was the Islamic court’s weak link. Today he chairs a fake government, created in Djibouti. This government has no social base or authority in Somalia. It only exists on the international level because the imperialist forces support it.
In Afghanistan, the United States said they were ready to negotiate with Taliban. Why don’t they look for discussing with the Islamic groups in Somalia?
Because those groups want to take the foreign occupier over and to allow a national reconciliation for the Somali people. As a result, the United States wants to break those groups: a reconciliation, through the Islamic movement or through the TFG, is not in the interests of the imperialist forces. They just want chaos. The problem is that today, this chaos reached Ethiopia too, which is very weak since the 2007 aggression. A nationalist resistance movement came to the light over there to fight against the pro-imperialist government of Addis Ababa. With their chaos theory, United States had in fact created troubles in the whole region. And now, they took it out on Eritrea.
Why?
This little country leads an independent national policy. Eritrea also has a vision for the whole region: the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia) do not need foreign powers’ interference; its wealth should allow it to establish new economical relationship on the basis of mutual respect. According to Eritrea, the region must get it together and its members must be able to discuss about their problems. Of course, this policy frightens United States that fears that other countries follow that example. So they accuse Eritrea of sending weapons to Somalia and instigating troubles in Ethiopia.
Isn’t Eritrea sending weapons in Somalia?
Not even a bullet! This is a pure propaganda as they did against Syria about the Iraqi resistance. Eritrea’s vision catches up with the project of Indian Ocean revolution that we spoke about before. The western powers do not want of that and wish to bring Eritrea back to the circle of the neocolonial states under control, such as Kenya, Ethiopia or Uganda.
Are there no terrorist in Somalia?
Imperialist powers have always labeled as terrorists the people who fight for their right. Irishmen were terrorists until they signed an agreement. Abbas was a terrorist. Now, he is a friend.
But we heard about Al Qaeda in Somalia?
Al Qaeda is everywhere, from Belgium to Australia! That invisible Al Qaeda is a logo designed to justify to the public opinion military operations. If United States say to their citizens and soldiers: "We are going to send our troops into the Indian Ocean in order to probably fight against China", people would be afraid of course. But if you tell them that it is just about fighting piracy and Al Qaeda, it won’t be a problem. The real goal is however different. It consists in setting forces in the Indian Ocean region that will be the theater of major conflicts in the coming years. This is what we will analyze in the next chapter...
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
