Libertarian Labor Review #14
Winter 1992-93, pages 2, 36

Editorial
                    Somalia: Chaos or Anarchy

     The United States Marines have landed on the shores of
Somalia. This is the third invasion carried out by the Bush
administration. In each case the people of the U.S. have been
subjected to sophisticated propaganda campaigns via the media to
elicit popular support for these imperialist adventures. The
invasion of Panama was justified as part of the "war on drugs"; the
war on Iraq was supposed to punish aggression by "a fiend worse
than Hitler"; now, in Somalia, the enemy is chaos and anarchy and
the goal is a humanitarian one--to feed the starving masses.
     But, hold on. There's something wrong with this picture: since
when is the U.S. military a humanitarian agency? Those guns aren't
there for show, they're for killing. Of course, only those who
resist U.S. beneficence will be blown away. 
     The propaganda campaign that has accompanied the Somali
operation has been slick. Pictures of starving children
counterposed with those of drug-crazed gun slingers could do
nothing but elicit sympathy for the victims and hatred for the
victimizers. How could any decent human being oppose the use of
force in such circumstances?
     Sure, the U.S. shares responsibility for the disaster. For a
decade U.S. arms and food flooded Somalia in order to shore up the
Barre dictatorship and subsidize his war with Soviet-backed
Ethiopia over the Ogaden region. This "aid" destroyed agriculture
in Somalia leading to the current famine. The fall of the Barre
dictatorship in 1991, and the clan-based civil war that followed in
its wake, has led to the current relief crisis. Surely the U.S., as
the world's cop, has a responsibility to step in and put an end to
this "anarchy." 
     How could any decent person oppose the U.S.'s "humanitarian"
intervention (and be assured that this is a U.S. operation, albeit
behind a United Nations veil)? 
     Now, nobody likes to see people starve to death and some way
has to be found to get food to the people, and no one could
possibly sympathize the gun thugs who are stealing food and selling
it on the black market (that's capitalism at its rawest). 
     But there are reasons for opposing the invasion. The most
compelling reason being the precedent it sets for future
interventions in the third world, both foreign and domestic.
Liberia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Georgia, and other areas
that are torn by civil strife have already been mentioned as areas
that require the use of military force to shore up the nation-state
against the disintegrating effects of ethnic strife. Strife that
very often disguises class conflicts.
     Our own domestic third world, the inner cities of our 
metropolitan areas, could also become candidates for even greater
military occupation in the name of the "war on drugs." No less a
propagandist for the ruling class than Ted Koppel, in his first
report live from Mogadishu, let the cat out of the bag when he made
a comparison between the drug-crazed teens with guns terrorizing
the streets of the Somali capital and the gang-bangers of the U.S.
inner cities. The inference should not be lost here: just as
military force was necessary to clean up the gangs in Somalia, it
may also be the only viable solution to the gang problem in the
U.S.
     The para-military operation of Darrel Gates' "operation clean
sweep" in Los Angeles or the calls for the use of the National
Guard to clear the gangs out of CHA housing projects in Chicago
will now be made more palatable by referring to "operation restore
hope." Another example of how a militaristic foreign policy
inevitably rebounds on the domestic front. 
     Much has been made of the "anarchy" that currently reigns in
Somalia. But what exists in Somalia is not anarchy but chaos,
engendered by the collapse of a central authority and the
competition between rival gangs to fill in the power vacuum. What
is needed in Somalia is not a central state authority but grass-
roots organizations that can reorganize the economic life of
society. 
     Where are these organizations going to come from? Certainly
not from the U.S. military or the UN. These bodies are interested
in only one thing: restoring the national state known as Somalia,
an artificial legacy of European colonialism. For the U.S. it's a
question of restoring a stable client in the strategic Horn of
Africa as an asset in its ongoing quest to control the world's oil
supply; for the UN its a matter of upholding the very idea of the
nation-state, its very reason for being (for without nation-states,
why would you need a "United Nations"?).
     But, are a people on the verge of starvation capable of
creating the necessary organs for survival? This is the crucial
question for anarchists and, frankly, this writer doesn't know. All
we do know is that the statists do not want such self-organization
to come about and will do everything in their power to prevent it.
We also know that the absolute dependence into which the Somali
people have fallen makes for passivity rather than activism. 
     The lesson in all this, for anarchists, is the absolute
necessity to prepare grass-roots organizations: unions,
cooperatives, agricultural collectives, self defense groups, etc.,
in advance of any revolutionary crisis brought on by war or any
other disaster so that the people will have the infrastructure of
a new society in place before the collapse of the state comes
about.
     It may be too late for the Somali people, their neo-
colonialist subjugation appears inevitable. Perhaps the survivors
will, at some future date, take up the struggle for freedom again.
But for anarchists, particularly those of us in the U.S., the task
is to point out the truth--that the U.S. is not a humanitarian
agency, and its military adventure in Somalia is not for the
benefit of the Somali people but to serve the long-term interests
of the U.S. ruling class. U.S. get out of Somalia and North
America!
                                                             Mike


