ONTD Political

U.S. Patriot Act Kept Somalia Starving

3:27 pm - 04/21/2012
By Linus Atarah

HELSINKI, Apr 19, 2012 (IPS) - When war-torn Somalia was also ravaged by a drought-induced famine last year, which killed tens of thousands and displaced over a million people, international media was quick to blame the Islamist Al-Shabaab for blocking humanitarian assistance from reaching its zone of control in southern Somalia.

But according to Ken Menkhaus, professor of Political Science at Davidson College in North Carolina, the United States’ counter-terrorism laws played an equally central role in obstructing assistance from reaching famine victims in desperate need of aid.

Speaking here in a seminar on Wednesday, organised by the Department of the Study of Religions at Helsinki University, Menkhaus said humanitarian organisations suspended food aid delivery to drought- struck areas controlled by Al-Shabaab for fear of violating the USA Patriot Act.


Congress passed the Act in 2001 as part of its response to the Sep. 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon and under it, anyone who provides material benefits, even if unwittingly, to a designated terrorist group, could face the most severe penalties.

Given that Al-Shabaab – the Somali cell of the militant Islamist Al-Qaeda, fighting the Federal Transitional Government (FTG) in Somalia and controlling vast swathes of the south except the capital Mogadishu – is designated a terrorist organisation by the U.S., humanitarian groups were fearful that an accusation of ‘aiding terrorists’ could damage their entire organisation.

Thus many reached the conclusion that they were too vulnerable to operate in Al-Shabaab-controlled areas.

Though the group undoubtedly prevented assistance from reaching starving famine victims based on its claim that food aid was a Western conspiracy to drive Somali farmers out of business, Menkhaus, a specialist on the Horn of Africa, believes that was not the end of the sordid story.

"There are plenty of western countries, including my own government, who would like to see the conversation stop right there and say it was all Al-Shabaab’s fault." However, the other bottleneck was U.S. policy, which "de facto criminalises any transactions in southern Somalia," he said.

Other countries have similar laws, but since the U.S. supplies the bulk of food aid to Somalia, it has the heaviest impact on the country.

In a twist of tragic irony, "suspension of food aid into southern Somalia was the only thing that the U.S. government and Al-Shabaab could agree on, to the detriment of (millions) of Somalis," Menkhaus told IPS.

In reality, the U.S. could have issued a waiver, protecting relief agencies from counter-terrorism laws; similar waivers have been issued for relief agencies in southern Lebanon and the West Bank of the occupied Palestinian territories, where Hezbollah and Hamas operate respectively.

But in the case of Somalia, Menkhaus believes the U.S. administration did not want to give its Republican opponents any political leverage on the eve of upcoming presidential elections by appearing too "soft on terrorism".

Instead, the U.S. government prepared a document that purportedly gave relief agencies protection from the law but which, upon close examination by legal experts, was found to contain no such protections, leaving those humanitarian agencies vulnerable to attack under the Patriot Act.

Recent forecasts indicate that Somalia could soon be facing another drought, which could produce yet another food crisis in the country this year. There is now an urgent need for preemptive decisions, by the U.S. government in particular, to avoid another humanitarian catastrophe, Menkhaus said.

Al-Shabab waning?

A Somali national working with an aid agency on the ground in the south of the country, who did not want to be identified because of concern for his safety, told IPS that Al-Shabaab is gradually losing support as increasing numbers of Somalis are beginning to resent the group’s forcible recruitment policy and suicide bombings.

Formed in 2008 to resist the invasion of neighbouring Ethiopian forces, Al-Shabaab was once a popular movement, seen as a legitimate force to oust an invading army in the face of the FTG’s inaction. It had also brought law and order to several regions torn asunder by warring gangs of warlords.

However, Menkhaus said that the group has been seriously weakened by multiple military defeats at the hands of the 12,000 African Union peacekeepers in the country; and its tactic of deploying suicide bombers among the civilian population is alienating much of the group’s former support base.

Abdi-Rashid, who did not want his full identity revealed, accused Western governments of exacerbating what he described as the "politicisation of aid in Somalia", whereby the humanitarian agenda is becomes secondary to the political agenda.

Huge importance has been heaped on the civil war and the "security situation", much of it with good reason: by 2008 Somalia was the most dangerous place in the world for humanitarian aid workers.

"One-third of all humanitarian casualties occurred not in Afghanistan or in Iraq but in Somalia," Menkhaus said.

Still, this was no excuse to allow famine victims to perish en masse, he stressed.

"Long term development work should still go on in spite of the conflict" to secure people’s basic human rights to tangible things like "schools and drinking wells", Abdi-Rashid told IPS.

If such long-term issues are ignored much longer, there will be serious consequences not only for Somalia but for the entire region.

"These famines – the ones we had last year and the one we may have in 2012 – are producing seismic changes (including) the loss of viable livelihoods in rural southern Somalia, sending waves of people across the borders into Kenya and Ethiopia," added Abdi-Rashid.

The Kenyan refugee camp of Dadaab, with a population of 520,000, is now Kenya’s third largest city, and completely unsustainable.

Meanwhile, destitute nomads and farmers who can no longer find livelihoods in rural areas are drifting into urban centres. These people, who come with no technical skills into a barren employment landscape, are forming huge slums of several hundred thousand people in villages that previous housed only a few thousand residents.

"This is a time bomb for Somalia because not only Al-Shabaab but any armed group or criminal gang (will) find ready recruits in these sprawling urban slums," Abdi-Rashid concluded.

IPS News
sarahsayssoo 21st-Apr-2012 03:08 pm (UTC)
Al-Shabaab was blocking humanitarian aid from everyone according to the UN so I'm not sure how this isn't Al-Shabaab's fault
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/africa-emerges/somalia-famine-aid-blocked-al-shabaab-rebels (note: autoroll video with Iman speaking halfway down the page...the article is good tbough)

Edited at 2012-04-21 03:09 pm (UTC)
premor 21st-Apr-2012 03:59 pm (UTC)
Of course Al-Shabaab is at fault here for blocking aid - but what the Patriot Act does is it makes negotiating with them to reach an agreement wrt aid potentially illegal, and that's what this article is talking about.
furrygreen 21st-Apr-2012 03:11 pm (UTC)
I think the way the US, and most of the developed world, has treated Africa's agricultural problems is the worst of the worst that capitalism is. It's just unbelievable to me. We completely sabotage their farming industry just so we can buy really cheep grain from our own producers and send it over there to help the "starving Africans". They wouldn't be starving if the developed world didn't lean on them to stop them from farming and growing their own food!

How will there ever be peace in those countries if every policy we have undermines their efforts to get on their feet?

I dunno. I feel very strongly about this.
fenris_lorsrai 21st-Apr-2012 03:34 pm (UTC)
Farm subsidies to US farmers also play a big role in keeping market prices artificially low so that imported american grain is cheaper than what's grown locally. and the same subsidies hurt us, because it encourages overproduction and over reliance on a few subsidized crops... which then flood world markets and crash the price. Dirt cheap corn crashes not just corn, but many other grain crops AND sugar prices. and then we stick corn in EVERYTHING since we don't know what to do with it all...

Should the US have subsidies for some types of agriculture? yes: but not for what we're currently giving subsidies too. subsidies should be offered for crops that won't produce this year(trees, bushes, asparagus, or a year of cover crop/pasture to recharge soil) OR a subsidy to plant a less productive cultivar of a dominant crop that has some other desirable trait. So for example, if you plant a cultivar of corn that produces 90 bushels per acre instead of 100 for the most dominant cultivar, subsidy would pay you for the lost 10 bushels because you're growing a cultivar that has different genes so may survive a large scale crop blight or infestation that the most dominant crop is susceptible too. Basically the subsidy pays you for investing in the nations food security and maintaining a live seed bank.
furrygreen 21st-Apr-2012 11:47 pm (UTC)
The subsidies were what I meant when I said they were keeping the market low. Anytime one of these countries tries to get subsidies, the world stonewalls them. They did learn their mistake when Asia/SA farmers became independent. Can't let that happen with the African's. And no one talks about it. It's like the HUGE gender imbalance in Asia now because we had to attach food to abortion/birthrate. Of course, no one talks about that either.

I understand the need to make money but at the expense of millions of peoples? It disgusts me.
bludstone 22nd-Apr-2012 01:34 pm (UTC)
Doesnt the subsidies mean its not really free market capitalism any more?
furrygreen 22nd-Apr-2012 01:45 pm (UTC)
Of course. That's our good ol' capitalism. Capitalism hasn't been "free market" is such a long time. They embrace the "kill any and everyone who gets in their way". It's a bit like Walmart in my mind.

In this case, they are not allowed to give or ask for subsidies for their own workers but we give lavish subsidies for ours. And any farmers who want to take out loans to help in farming are often given really terrible interest rates (3 or 4 times the normal amounts), the seed is horribly expensive, and pressure is put on these farmers by their gov'n to stop the farming because that's what the international community wants and they can't produce the food they need. It's a catch 22.

The Bush era cotton subsidies were really terrible because cotton was finally a cash crop they were getting off the ground and starting to sell before the prices crashed.
bludstone 22nd-Apr-2012 01:49 pm (UTC)
I know that corn subsidies have begun tapering off, that should bring some normalcy to a market thats been out of whack for 40 years.
tabaqui 21st-Apr-2012 03:13 pm (UTC)
Well, this is...revolting. But not surprising, which makes me sad. When will we, the 'Police of the world', stop fucking over innocent civilians for...no particular fucking reason?
furrygreen 21st-Apr-2012 03:19 pm (UTC)
There is a reason. All our surplus food goes to Africa. We grow way, way more than we need and to make certain we keep the monopoly, we do everything in our power to stop these countries from being self-sufficiant. Thus, when things like this happen, it slams them incredibly hard. It's all about the money, naturally.
tabaqui 21st-Apr-2012 03:24 pm (UTC)
Oh, of course. Money seems to trump *everything*, anymore.

I also remember reading something about seed companies - and I want to blame Monsanto, but i don't know - 'giving' seeds to farmers in Africa that don't germinate new crops, so then the farmers have a harvest but also a field of useless plants that won't produce more next season and so now they have to buy a whole new raft of seeds just to have a new crop.

Revolting. This is the way the world will end - most of the population starving while some few sit on silos bursting with grain.
fenris_lorsrai 21st-Apr-2012 03:55 pm (UTC)
Yep, Monsanto has the crops that won't produce viable seeds. They donated seed to Haiti after the earthquake. Haiti burned the donation because they realized that WIND POLLINATED crops that could spread that trait around on the next hurricane was a bad fucking idea. plus Monsanto has patented their genes and will sue neighboring farmers if they find the genes in their crops... their wind pollinated crops. so if you're downwind, your crops WILL be contaminated by the neighbor eventually. You will be sued eventually for "pirating" their genes.

If Monsanto appeared in a movie as an evil conspiracy, nobody would believe it.


(to be clear, I don't have a problem with GMOs in general, I have a problem with Monsanto's use of them and the structure of laws around them which are extremely poorly enforced in the safety area, and enforced in a draconian way it punishes victims of crop contamination)
tabaqui 21st-Apr-2012 04:10 pm (UTC)
Even friggin' worse than i thought, and kudos, Haiti, for seeing that trap and avoiding it.

I have a *huge* issue with GMOs. I think they are a very bad idea, mostly because they are driven by profit and not by any actual desire to do good.

There's a book - The Windup Girl - came out a couple years ago? It's set in Thailand and all about a future where GMOs and Monsanto, et al, have really fucked us over and it's...quite horrifying. And something i can see happening, sadly.
fenris_lorsrai 21st-Apr-2012 06:33 pm (UTC)
We've been modifying crops for a loooooong time so some of the GMOs are really just accelerated methods of doing what you used to have to do by hand or took a decade to do. It cuts time and makes it more precise. No problem with those.

There are also some crops its hard to cross successfully for traits (wheat) because its largely self pollinating, so making them in a lab is a LOT easier. But those are just crossing strains or hybridizing with a closely related species. well established whats likely to happen.

Now, shoving genes from totally unrelated species in that you could never hybridize with cross pollination and couldn't graft together either and doing it with wind pollinated crops, THAT is just damn irresponsible. and that's what a lot of the things we think of as GMOs are. we don't know what that unrelated stuff is going to do, long term or when it hybridizes with other related cultivars with a slightly different structure. add wind pollination in and it becomes impossible to keep it contained. ones pollinated by animals, you can use pesticide or netting to keep them off and let them self pollinate. Wind... unless you do everything in a greenhouse with a contained system that doesn't vent to outside at all, you run the risk of an unusually wind current spreading this over a wide area.

wind pollinated GMOs using unrelated species DNA are the dirty bomb of agriculture.
yamamanama 21st-Apr-2012 06:49 pm (UTC)
I read that book and I was like "This is happening, isn't it?"
gloraelin 21st-Apr-2012 09:56 pm (UTC)
Michael Pollan's book Botany of Desire has a really interesting section about Monsanto, in regards to how they're fucking with the potato crops here in the US. It's easy to read but it'll give you a good jumping-off point to further reading, too.
tabaqui 22nd-Apr-2012 01:40 am (UTC)
Ah, cool - thanks for the rec!
fenris_lorsrai 22nd-Apr-2012 04:44 am (UTC)
PBS also did a documentary version of botany of desire
erunamiryene 21st-Apr-2012 08:37 pm (UTC)
This country is a fucking embarrassment to humanity.
____jonas 21st-Apr-2012 11:19 pm (UTC)
And so many people are proud of that. It's disgusting.
dncingmalkavian 21st-Apr-2012 11:39 pm (UTC)
Tell me about it. I'm honestly ashamed to be an American more and more these days.
yamamanama 22nd-Apr-2012 02:28 am (UTC)
Maybe if we evolved from birds instead...
sankaku_atama 22nd-Apr-2012 04:40 pm (UTC)
There are some people I wouldn't be surprised to find out had evolved from Dodos.
doverz 23rd-Apr-2012 02:51 am (UTC)
I really, really hate all the "America is the best nation in the world" shit.
sesmo 22nd-Apr-2012 09:56 am (UTC)
I wish this article provided actual sources. Because I'm attempting to source it and failing.

Menkhaus who is quoted did say that back in early 2011, but then noted that the US was working a waiver. (Waiver discussed here, search for Somalia: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Sanctions/Pages/answer.aspx) I cannot find a single source that actually says that there was a waiver but it was somehow a fake. Given that I read the legal rags, if "legal experts" had found this to be the case, I expect to be able to find this analysis.

In May 2011, the US upped its food contributions to Somalia.http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gyQ0ARj134Ch_OKbLc0oiQoqtIsQ?docId=CNG.af25df64d6e4a91b0a11167574389d85.6f1

And in January of 2011 the Red Cross pulled out because they weren't permitted to provide the food to those who were starving. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-somalia-food-redcross-idUSTRE80B1HM20120112

This article = fail. At a minimum for lacking sources for what are some fairly explosive accusations.
premor 22nd-Apr-2012 10:51 am (UTC)
The waiver Menkhaus was talking about was issued later that year, in August.

" Up until Aug. 2, this meant that no transactions, including negotiations for humanitarian access to famine victims, were allowed."

"Although State Dept. officials said the details of the new policy have yet to be worked out, it is clear that the blanket ban imposed by the material support law is not being lifted. Instead, the process for aid groups to get licenses from Treasury is to be relaxed in a way that allows them to enter al-Shabaab controlled territory for the purpose of delivering aid to the people there. The Treasury licensing process is notoriously slow and aid groups have registered complaints about the arbitrary and prolonged process."

(1)

I cannot find a single source that actually says that there was a waiver but it was somehow a fake. Given that I read the legal rags, if "legal experts" had found this to be the case, I expect to be able to find this analysis.

The article doesn't state that the waiver was ~fake, but that it lacked sufficient protections.

The very first Google hit for "humanitarian waiver Somalia" gives you a Harvard University's Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Reasearch link that discussed how the issued waiver lacked essential protections:

http://hpcrresearch.org/blog/dustin-lewis/2011-08-10/counterterrorism-regulations-and-humanitarian-access-famine-somalia

Your inability to find sources seems more like a failure on your part.
wrestlingdog 22nd-Apr-2012 05:44 pm (UTC)
I wish I was surprised by this.
This page was loaded May 18th 2013, 9:54 pm GMT.