____________________________________________________________________ S O M A L I A N E W S U P D A T E ____________________________________________________________________ No 39 December 3, 1992. ISSN 1103-1999 ____________________________________________________________________ Somalia News Update is published irregularly via electronic mail and fax. Questions can be directed to antbh@strix.udac.uu.se or to fax number +46-18-151160. All material is free to quote as long as the source is stated. ____________________________________________________________________ In this issue: U.N. HEAD SUGGESTS MASSIVE USE OF FORCE JESSE JACKSON SEES "GLORIOUS OPPORTUNITY" FOR U.S. UNITED NATIONS: STILL DELIBERATING! VIEWPOINTS ON TROOP OPTION MIXED FEELINGS AMONG US POLITICIANS SOMALIA: U.N. HEAD SUGGESTS MASSIVE USE OF FORCE Copyright Inter Press Service 1992, all rights reserved. New York, Nov 30 (ips) -- In a major departure from existing practice governing United Nations peacekeeping operations, the U.N. secretary-general has proposed a massive use of force in somalia to subdue the rebel leads and armed irregular groups holding up the the delivery of humanitarian supplies to the thousands of starving people. The proposal was one of five presented as "options" to the U.N. security council monday, and it was in reponse to the council's request that secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali "re-examine the basic premises and priciples" of the U.N. operation in Somalia. Boutros-Ghali said it was clear from earlier discussions that all council members favoured the use of force -- as provided for under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter -- "to create the condition for the uninterrupted delivery of relief supplies to the starving people of Somalia." Boutros-Ghali said he recognised that a major military operation, countrywide, undertaken either by a group of countries authorised by the security council or by the united nations itself, would raise "difficult questions especially as regards organisation, command and control".But in the option where a group of member-countries were authorised by the security council to conduct the operation, boutros- ghali has suggested various possiblities to protect the council's "legitimate interests". These include a specific time-frame for the operation, with regular reports to the security council by the ember-states organising the operation; that after the immediate security problem is resolved, the operation would be taken over by a U.N. peacekeeping operation organised along conventional lines; and that the security council appoint a small liaison staff to the field operations or an adhoc commission to visit the operation. Another option consistent with the united nations' enlarged role in the mainentance of peace and security was for the United Nations itself to take over the command and control of enforcement action. But Boutros-Ghali made it clear that the world body "at present, does not have the capability to command and control an enforcement opertion of the size and urgency required by the present crisis in Somalia." Member-states would not only have to contribute troops in the field but would have to provide additional staff in New York to conduct the operation. and they would have to agree that these military officers would take orders from the United Nations and not from "the national authorities", he said. A third course of action would be for the United Nations Operation in SOMALIA (UNOSOM) to "undertake a show of force" in the capital, Mogadishu, to deter other armed groups from stopping relief supplies. This course was based on the opinion of some experts who held that "a determined show, and if necessary, use of force by unosom" would be enough to convince the armed groups to cease their lawless activities. The various armed groups operating in the city are reported to be well armed, to have combat experience, and although the supply of ammunition is old, it is said to be plentiful and still operational. The manner in which boutros-ghali presented another two options, it was clear that they were only of academic interest. One was to continue the deployment of UNOSOM to a strength of 4,200 soldiers under "existing principles and practices" of peacekeeping operations. this would mean force would be used only in self-defence. The secretary-general, however, said that this course of action "would not be an adequate response to the humanitarian crisis in Somalia." The other option would be to "abandon the idea of using international personnel". this would invlove the withdrawl of the military elements of UNOSOM, while leaving the humanitarian agencies to negotiate and make separate deals with the various de facto authorities. But this would mean giving protection money to various factions, clans, and sub-clans, and eventually lead to "further fragmentation and destroy hopes of national reconciliation". Boutros-Ghali said he excluded the option of withdrawal of UNOSOM as he was convinced that the "current difficulties were due, not to their presence, but to the fact that not enough of them are there and that they do not have the right mandate". SOMALIA: JESSE JACKSON SEES "GLORIOUS OPPORTUNITY" FOR U.S. Copyright Inter Press Service 1992, all rights reserved. Washington, nov 30 (ips) -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson, the prominent civil rights activist, monday praised the proposal of U.S. president George Bush to send as many as 30,000 u.s. troops to Somalia, calling the move a "glorious opportunity" for washington to do "the correct thing".But Jackson, who met with acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger monday, said he will also appeal to the leaders of China, of Islamic countries, and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to take part in a global mission to ensure that emergency food supplies get to starving Somalis."It must be assured that this is not a unilateral military adventure -- that this is a multinational humanitarian effort," Jackson told reporters outside the State Department. He spoke shortly after U.N. secretary-general Boutros Boutros- Ghali reportedly urged in a written report that the security council authorise the use of force to deliver relief supplies in Somalia where more than 300,000 people are believed to have died of starvation and clan warfare over the last six months. As many as 1.5 million more may die unless food and medicines sent by international donors get to those who need it, according to U.N. and relief officials. Clan-based militias and armed gunmen badly disrupted relief supplies which have been shipped to the country since last August, and last week, a U.N. grain ship was hit by shellfire as it entered Mogadishu's port which has been closed since. The attack on the ship apparently prompted bush last wednesday to endorse a proposal by some of his senior national security aides to send as many as 30,000 U.S. troops into Somalia to secure the port, airfields, and strategic points in the highway system to ensure the security of food aid. The proposal was passed along to Boutros-Ghali by Eagleburger late wednesday after which it was leaked to the press. But some officials of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) active in Somalia have denounced the plan, insisting that a major military intervention could actually endanger their work and escalate the violence by the militias. Others have argued that a large military force will disrupt tentative efforts to negotiate peace and the establishment of an interim government and force the united nations itself to assume responsibility for governing the east African nation -- something for which it currently has no mandate. Asked about this, State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said monday, "we have not advocated that the United Nations somehow take over Somalia." But he added that the world body "could be in a position to help the Somali people reconstruct a civil administration." But, for now, he went on, the "purpose is not to establish a government or change the ruling structure of the country, but simply to provide for the safety of delivery of humanitarian supplies." After speaking with Eagleburger, however, Jackson told reporters the world community needed to act speedily and urged the security council to expand the united nations' mandate in Somalia unanimously and "no later than tomorrow". speed is also the wish of the Bush administration, according to government sources who said the White House hopes to conclude Washington's participation in the effort by the inauguration of president-elect Bill Clinton Jan. 20. U.S. planners say U.S. troops, provided they are sent in force, should be able to secure the ports, airstrips and major highways within four weeks. Already, U.S. ships with 2,000 marines are reportedly headed for the waters off the Somali coast with amphibious capabilities, combat equipment, tanks, long-range howitzers, four attack helicopters and a dozen more cargo helicopters. Pentagon officials say thousands more troops could, if called, on arrive within two weeks. Jackson, who said he has spoken twice with Boutros-Ghali and once with Clinton in recent days, noted such an operation would be the first time the U.N. would go into a country without being invited. But "there is the moral imperative to go in to stop the banditry and save people from starvation," he said. He added that U.S. participation would also be unprecedented. "it breaks new ground because it's the first time we've been willing to risk the lives of american soldiers to save an African people. There's a fundamental breakthrough in how we see the world." But he also stressed the U.S. contribution should be part of a U.N. operation. The Bush administration is known to oppose any institutional arrangement that would put U.S. combat troops under U.N. command. UNITED NATIONS: STILL DELIBERATING! UNITED NATIONS (UPI, Dec, 3) -- The U.N. Security Council moved closer toward an agreement Wednesday on a U.S.-led military operation to provide security for international relief workers attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to thousands of starving people in Somalia, diplomats said. The 15-nation Security Council was to resume negotiations late Wednesday to hammer out details of the humanitarian operation, which would begin with the landing of a U.S.-led military contingent to secure the capital Mogadishu and its port and airport, the diplomats said. The diplomats said a larger multi-national force would follow as soon as possible to take over the delivery of food supplies to Somali civilians, who have been suffering from severe malnutrition as a result of lawlessness and acts of banditry. African diplomats, who spoke on conditions of anonymity, said they have agreed to let the United States command and control the military operation. Washington reportedly had offered up to 20,000 American troops on the condition they remain under U.S. command. The 50-nation Organization of African Unity said on Monday that the Security Council should authorize the military operation and expressed appreciation of Washington's "generous offer" of troops. A draft resolution under discussion by members of the council would urge the application of Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to call on members of the world body to take "all necessary measures" to secure an "environment for humanitarian relief operations." Chapter 7 allows the United Nations to use force to put an end to violence. The chapter was invoked in the Persian Gulf War to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and in Bosnia-Herzegovina against Serbian forces. Western diplomatic sources said the draft resolution on Wednesday dropped the original demand from Washington for a unified command of the entire operation. Instead, officials agreed that a U.N. peace-keeping force, under a separate command, would work simultaneously in the aid campaign. The sources said the draft would be voted on Thursday if Wednesday's negotiations were successful. The draft made no mention of U.S. leadership over the military operation, but it was agreed that an American general would command the force, the sources said. They pointed out that the Security Council resolution allowing the coalition army under U.S. command to fight against Iraq in 1991 made no such specific mention of such a command. There is currently a battalion of 655 Pakistani soldiers and a few dozens officers from Canada, Belgium and Egypt trying to secure Mogadishu as part of the U.N. peace-keeping force in Somalia (UNOSOM). The Security Council had authorized the deployment of nearly 4,000 military personnel in that country to protect the relief agencies. In a related development, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros- Ghali asked Canada to temporarily delay the dispatch of its infantry battalion to Bossasso and allow him to study "carefully" the relationship between UNOSOM and the new U.S.-led military force. The Western sources said also that Washington, not the Security Council, would ask countries to contribute troops to the proposed military operation. A similar task fell on the United States when it formed the 32-nation coalition that confronted Iraq during Operation Desert Shield-Desert Storm. The sources, drawing on controversial issues from Desert Storm, said even though the military operation in Somalia would be open-ended, the U.N. secretary-general would have the right to end it when he decided to deploy more U.N. peace-keeping troops to take over that operation. Members of the Security Council had expressedly asked that the U.N. peace-keeping operation become involved in the post-conflict political settlement. MIXED FEELINGS AMONG US POLITICIANS WASHINGTON (UPI, Dec, 3) -- A leading military authority in Congress, saying the move would represent a major change in U.S. policy, Wednesday cautioned against sending U.S. troops into Somalia without a clear-cut objective. "My feeling is it's a mistake with the present conditions as they are," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense. Murtha, at a news conference, said there is "no clear-cut mission. The rules of engagement are not clear, and we have no purpose in being there. It's not in our national interest. And for those reasons I, at this point, oppose deploying troops to Somalia as bad as the situation is." Murtha made his comments as the United Nations was considering authorizing a multinational military force that would try to safeguard relief efforts for starving civilians in that country. He acknowleldged the situation in Somalia is desperate, but said other problems exist elsewhere in the world, as in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet republics. "It's tragic, it's terrible what's happening. Everytime I see the pictures I almost have to turn them off," he said. Similar concerns were voiced by Sen. Hank Brown, R-Colo., who said it would "be a mistake to send troops to Somalia," where they would be at risk. Following a White House meeting on the POW-MIA issue, Brown told reporters he is not against humanitarian assistance but "it would be dangerous to send troops to Somalia with no defined mission." Murtha recently visited Sarajevo and on his return urged President Bush to not commit U.S. troops to that war-torn area. He said he also has told administration officials and top aides to President-elect Bill Clinton of his opposition to involvement in Somalia. "It's a change in direction for the country," Murtha said. "We have to make a decision up front. If we make this kind of deployment are we going to make it in other parts of the world where you have some similar, terrible, tragic situations?" "Is the mission for limited deployment of a small number of troops?" he asked. "Is it for a large deployment for an extended period of time? Are we going to try to form a government? Are we going to start forming governments in these countries? There's just so many unanswered questions. I think it's a precipitious decision at this stage." Murtha also complained that Bush had not consulted with Congress about the possibility of deploying troops. Murtha said such consultation was critical in gaining support for the Gulf War and he urged Bush to do the same in the current situation. Murtha said he had been told by a top Defense Department official that the deployment probably would involve "near 30,000 troops" if the decision is made to join the U.N. effort. But Murtha noted that many more military personnel would have to be involved in support operations. He also expressed concern about the costs of such an operation, and warned it would take away from domestic needs and from the already reduced Pentagon budget. SOMALIA-VIEWPOINTS ON TROOP OPTION Copyright, 1992. The Associated Press. All rights reserved. By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) -- Experts who have been advising the United Nations on Somalia say more soldiers are needed to deliver food to starving millions -- but not 30,000 U.S. troops. Some fear such an influx would alienate the Somalis, unleash attacks on relief workers, and destroy efforts to rebuild the shattered east African nation. "I think the troops are needed there, but not this drastic step,"said Sture Normark, director of the Horn of Africa Program at the Life and Peace Institute in Uppsala, Sweden. The United Nations appointed Normark's operation to arrange consultations with international experts on Somalia and Somali intellectuals. Washington reportedly has offered to send 30,000 troops to Somalia under the U.N. umbrella to deliver aid to 2 million people threatened with starvation. At the same time, the United Nations is beginning consultations with clan elders and local leaders, looking to restore some semblance of government there. "If the Marines come in and take control of all strategic resources, that will destroy those local structures," said Save The Children spokesman Don Redding, whose British relief agency runs feeding centers and clinics in Somalia. Many relief organizations and experts want the United Nations to get the 3,500 troops it already has authorized to Somalia as quickly as possible, and maybe a few thousand more. So far, only 500 U.N. troops from Pakistan have been deployed in Mogadishu, the Somalia capital. Warlords and feuding clans refuse to let them go elsewhere, or to welcome the other troops. "In my view, less than 5,000 troops should easily be able to stabilize and pacify the country if ... elders are empowered", said Said Samatar, a professor of African history at RutgersUniversity in New Jersey. Professor Bernhard Helander of the University of Uppsala, who researched famine-hit southern Somalia, said rebuilding the country could take years. He said this must be done to secure lasting peace, but he believes the United Nations is "under pressure from other donors to do something more quickly." Helander said 30,000 troops would undoubtedly end looting and lead to many people surrending their weapons -- "But the conflicts won't go away, and if you don't do anything to resolve them, you have the same problem when those 30,000 troops leave." Normark said U.N. authorities suggest that Somalia be broken into four administrative zones -- northeast, northwest, central region and south. Efforts would be made to work with clan and local leaders in each region to restore basic services, he said. Samatar, a Somali who heads The Somali Peace and Consultation Committee, stressed that "75 percent of the country is not starving" and some local government structures are still operating. He suggested sending in several thousand troops in famine-stricken areas like Baidoa, in the south, and ordering looters to relinquish their arms in exchange for food and protection. "If they cooperate, reward them well. If they refuse, the response should be a swift and ruthless penalty," he said. Clan elders could then take over distributing aid, which would help restore their power; a police force should be set up with U.N. help; then, the military force should move on to the next region, he said. U.S. disaster relief expert Fred Cuny said a U.S. security zone similar to the one that protected the Kurds in northern Iraq could be established in the famine area of southern Somalia, the New York Times reported. Cuny was quoted as saying 2,500 Marines with air and naval support and 1,000 ground troops from other nations could do it. Professor Ioan Lewis of the London School of Economics, consultant director of the International African Institute, said he would not object to 30,000 troops if broadcasts to the Somali people made it clear what the goals were."All along I have personally advocated that the best thing would be to import the French Foreign Legion from neighboring Djibouti," he said. "Marines are tough, but don't have the experience in dealing with Somalis the Foreign Legion has. Perhaps there could be a combined operation under U.N. auspices." ____________________________________________________________________ Posted by Bernhard Helander in Uppsala, Sweden.