PEACEKEEPING AND POLICING IN SOMALIA

Background

The international community’s intervention in Somalia began in April 1992 and ended in March 1995. The intervention included three distinct U.N. operations with different mandates and sets of resources. Public security is a recurrent issue in all discussions about this intervention. The lack of it contributed heavily to the widespread starvation and refugee flows that prompted the intervention. Throughout the 3-year period of the intervention, public security problems underlying each operation aggravated a fragile situation in Somalia characterized by the lack of national authority. Disagreement and difficulties in addressing public security issues ultimately undermined the international effort and helped bring it to an end. Responsibilities for this are shared by the United Nations, the United States as the principal power in the international effort, and by other participating states. The fundamental responsibility, however, was that of the fractious, power-driven, clan-divided Somali “leadership.”

Situation Precipitating Intervention

General Mohammed Siad Barre ruled by force for 20 years during the Cold War, and Somalis suffered a standard of living ranked as one of the lowest in world. Somalia was strategically important, and Barre exploited this to his advantage receiving huge amounts of aid, arms, and military equipment from the Soviet Union in the early 1970s, and then from the United States after Moscow switched support to his rival, Ethiopia, in 1977. He suppressed clan loyalty by forcing fealty to himself in a single-party structure while manipulating clan rivalry through the distribution of weapons and other perquisites based on affiliation with his clan.

Somalia’s history and nomadic, clan-based society are not conducive to nation-state organization. Civil war erupted during the 1980s and worsened between 1989 and 1990; and on January 26, 1991, Barre fled Mogadishu. After a few months two Hawiye clan warlords, Ali Mahdi Mohammed and General Mohammed Farah Hassan Aideed, became locked in an inconclusive battle for control of Mogadishu. Struggles among other factions and subclans occurred elsewhere in the country. In May, northern Somalia declared independence. Once Barre’s authoritarian rule was broken, the already fragile unity of Southern Somalia also collapsed, as did state institutions.

The pre-civil war police “as an organized element of society . . . provided one of Somalia’s most stabilizing influences.”¹ Historically, Somalis had made a clear distinction between their police and military. The army had been trained by the Soviet Union and had been used by Barre as an instrument of repression. The police forces, in contrast, were Western trained (principally by the United States, Italy, and West Germany), generally respected, well administered, and relatively apolitical. The police forces had an undisputed reputation for professionalism.

By the end of Barre’s regime in January 1991, Somalia’s police force totaled approximately 15,000 members, with almost 200 police stations located throughout 18 regional districts.² When Barre fled, the police, along with all government institutions, ceased to exist. Police returned to their clans. If they were not residing in their home regions, they stopped performing police functions for their own safety. Most members, especially senior police officers, sought to avoid involvement on one side or the other during the civil war in spite of the risk this entailed.

Capacity for Self-Governance

Since 1991 there had been no government in Somalia.³ After Barre fled, the nation languished in a political vacuum for almost a year. More weapons poured into the country. Hundreds of thousands of Somalis moved to refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia or fled to Yemen; wealthier Somalis went to Western Europe, the United States, and Canada. With no leadership and instability spreading beyond its borders, Somalia was positioned to benefit from outside mediation.⁴ The United Nations, and specifically the Secretary-General and the Security Council, did not intervene during 1991, although they had the justification to do so.⁵

By April 1992, Somalia was a nation in name only with no ability for self-governance. There was little physical infrastructure and no formal local, regional, or national governmental systems. There were, however, a number of local and a few regional administrative arrangements built upon traditional clan and subclan foundations.

Military and paramilitary forces included ethnic-based factions (nine major ones) that had ousted Barre, as well as armed gangs aligned with the factions or operating on their own. The fighting factions comprised in part men from the former Somali Army; for example, Mohammed Said Hersi “Morgan” had a well-organized force of 1,000 former soldiers.⁶ Although not as well organized, Aideed and his allies had the largest force and controlled more territory than any other faction.

UNOSOM I

During Somalia’s second year without a government, the unfolding natural catastrophe of drought, massive refugee migration, and the specter of pandemic starvation compelled the United Nations and its members to confront Somalia’s plight and consider a response.

Between January and August 1992, the Security Council passed five resolutions pertaining to Somalia. The uniqueness of the situation was acknowledged in each resolution. “In passing Resolutions 733, 746, 751, 767, and 775, the Security Council recognized the special nature of the Somali situation and noted that the magnitude of the human suffering posed a ‘threat to international peace and security.’”⁷

Yet the actions called for in each resolution appeared irrelevant. Resolution 733 imposed an arms embargo with no effective mechanism for enforcement. In April, the Security Council passed Resolution 751, establishing the U.N. Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM I) and calling for the development of a 90-day humanitarian aid plan. In July, Resolution 767 reaffirmed Resolution 751's action authorizing 50 observers to monitor a cease-fire whose existence was debatable at best, a committee to monitor an arms embargo that was meaningless to begin with, and a 500-member U.N. military force to provide security in this country of 6 million people (and 1 million refugees) whose warlords had already killed 4,000 people and wounded 20,000.⁸ Four weeks later, the Security Council passed Resolution 775 which increased the number of authorized military forces to 3,500 just as the first 500 had been given reluctant permission by Aideed to deploy. According to U.N. Special Representative for Somalia, Mohamed Sahnoun, this infuriated Aideed.⁹

In September, 500 Pakistani troops finally arrived; they were pinned down at the airport, unable to move, much less provide protection to humanitarian agencies. They were lightly armed, authorized to use their weapons only in self-defense. The additional 3,000 troops never went to Somalia. Generally, Aideed and other faction leaders never fully accepted these Security Council Resolutions or cooperated fully with U.N. operations.

UNOSOM I eventually made some progress in providing humanitarian assistance and organizing political reconciliation, but there was no effective component to address public security. Thus, UNOSOM operated in a void with no means to address factional feuds and banditry, fueled by massive numbers of weapons in the country.¹⁰ In August the United States organized and implemented an emergency airlift of food into Somalia from Mombassa, Kenya. Operation Provide Relief delivered over 28,000 tons of relief supplies from August 1992 to March 1993.¹¹ By December 1992, when UNITAF arrived, substantial work had begun to develop a U.N. humanitarian aid plan.¹² Primarily because of lack of security, it was never implemented during UNOSOM I.

Before the international intervention, security was a problem for the few humanitarian organizations that had remained. Others, including U.N. agencies, had pulled out. Aid workers hired armed Somalis (dubbed “technical assistance” or technicals) for protection, then it became impossible to get rid of them. In effect, the organizations paid extortion to local warlords in exchange for use of vehicles and armed guards. These “security guards” were normally members of a local warlord’s militia, or members of an armed gang associated with the warlord.¹³ Throughout the entire intervention the protection of humanitarian relief workers remained a problem.

Many Somalis saw the United Nations as a whole rather than an assortment of different organizations, viewing it as having abandoned them when its agencies moved to Kenya in 1991 because of security concerns. When the United Nations finally attempted to provide assistance and high local expectations were not met, its reputation suffered further because of mismanagement and from an inability to take action to suppress violence.¹⁴ By November 1992, over 300,000 Somalis had died and some 1,500,000 Somalis were refugees or internally displaced persons.

UNITAF

On December 3, 1992, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 794 authorizing a Chapter VII peace-enforcement operation. Called Unified Task Force (UNITAF), the operation would be led by the United States with a mandate to enforce peace by using “all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia.”¹⁵ The resolution also established a separate trust fund to accept voluntary contributions for the operation.¹⁶

By December 1992, when this second operation began, Somalia was in chaos. With some estimates of 2,000 or more people dying per day during the fall, an unprecedented humanitarian crisis had erupted in this completely broken society. The country was inundated with weapons, and open air arms markets flourished. Food was being used as a weapon by the warlords, particularly Aideed, who controlled the port, but also by Ali Mahdi, who shelled the port to stop Aideed from using it. As early as 1991, relief supplies were being looted, stolen, and extorted. By December 1992, thousands of tons of food were stuck at ports or being stolen by the armed groups. The U.S. Air Force airlift (Provide Relief) helped, but much of the food was taken over by the factions who controlled the airfields. For 2 years prior to UNITAF there had been no law in Somalia. When relief aid was brought to a standstill for lack of security, the United Nations recognized the situation as “the most extensive looting and extortion ever experienced by relief operations.”¹⁷

Prior to the war, the population of Somalia was estimated at about 7.5 million. By December 1992, between 300,000 and 500,000 people were estimated to have died, including about 25 percent of all children; 1.5 million people were at great risk; and 4 million were in need of some form of assistance.¹⁸ By the end of 1992, many Somalis felt they had been forsaken by the world. The feeling was reinforced by the 8-month U.N. effort that had done nothing to address the overriding problem of security. When the media, general public, and the U.S. Congress demanded action, policymakers agreed the only way to stop the violence was to bring in the world’s military superpower to end the anarchy rapidly and allow food to reach the starving population.¹⁹

UNITAF was the international community’s first effective effort to assist Somalia. Under the command of Lieutenant General Robert Johnston, the UNITAF coalition comprised over 38,000 troops from more than 20 countries and was dominated by 28,000 U.S. troops. By authorizing UNITAF, the military component to the international intervention, the international community provided both credibility and a means to stabilize a situation which was out of control. UNITAF effectively superseded UNOSOM I, although the latter remained nominally in existence.

The international community’s largely symbolic efforts through UNOSOM I did not effectively address security conditions. In stark contrast, security was a fundamental reason for the intervention under UNITAF and this concern affected every element of the intervention. SCR 794 had passed unanimously and “marked the first-ever U.N. sanction for the use of force to ensure the delivery of humanitarian relief.”²⁰ Boutros-Ghali described the situation as a “paradox . . . without security, relief assistance will continue to be severely constrained, but without relief assistance programmes, the prospects for security are at best precarious.”²¹

In a broad sense, public security as a responsibility of the peace mission was not a controversial issue in Somalia. It was the purpose of the intervention—delivery of humanitarian aid had become impossible because of the lack of security. There was fundamental disagreement, however, on the interpretation of that responsibility. This concerned two issues: disarmament of the warring factions and re-establishment of local security (vice security provided by international forces).

During the period leading up to UNITAF, decisions and communications concerning disarmament were (and still are) intensely disputed. SCR 794 “did not require [emphasis added] the Unified Task Force to disarm the Somalis, but Boutros-Ghali subsequently argued that he had an understanding with U.S. President George Bush that the force would disarm the Somali gunmen.”²² The Secretary-General claimed the creation of a “secure environment” presupposed disarming the gunmen and that this would be necessary for a lasting cessation of civil strife, as well as for a U.N. mission to replace UNITAF. President Bush argued that “there was no consideration of disarming the various Somali factions.”²³ The United States and UNITAF believed disarmament would require the forces to police Somalia, which would have involved many more forces, increased the threat to the troops, and diverted them from the primary mission of protecting humanitarian operations.

UNITAF viewed its mission as limited and the disagreement on security did not hamper military operations. The multilateral forces were under the command of a U.S. general and command and control as well as support systems were highly effective. Somalis respected the kind of authority exemplified by the U.S. military (although they also knew the U.S. commitment was of limited duration, so they could wait, if need be, until the United States left).

The UNITAF mission had three phases: secure the Mogadishu airfield, seaport, and areas within the capital city; secure the towns identified as relief centers—Baidoa, Belet Weyne, Gialassi, and Oddur—as well as areas in the south including Bardera, the route from Baidoa to Bardera, the port cities of Kismayo and Merca, and Baledogle which had one of the largest runways in Africa; and provide for the transfer of responsibility for maintaining a secure environment to a follow-on U.N. peacekeeping force.²⁴ Contingents from participating countries were assigned specific geographic areas of responsibility where they established Humanitarian Relief Sectors (HRS) and protected the delivery of humanitarian goods and services.

Many believe that the UNITAF Rules of Engagement (ROE) were responsible for UNITAF’s early success. Heavy weapons in areas where UNITAF forces were operating were to be confiscated, destroyed, or placed in designated storage areas. Light weapons were not to be carried on the streets but were not confiscated.²⁵ Bandits and militias respected UNITAF strength and willingness to use it when warranted. During the civil war, “technicals” were the primary vehicles used by Somali factions and one of the most visible potential threats to UNITAF forces. UNITAF was “authorized to use ‘all necessary force’ to confiscate and demilitarize” the technicals and disarm individuals. Especially with the technicals the question arose whether this meant “‘shoot on sight’ . . . Johnston decided it did not and directed commanders to challenge and approach the technicals, using all necessary force if the weapons were not voluntarily surrendered.”²⁶ By January 1, 1993, there were almost no weapons on the streets of Mogadishu or in other HRS.

UNITAF was a significant military operation in conjunction with and actively assisting a complex relief operation. There was an unprecedented degree of interaction among the military, political, and humanitarian communities. In December 1992, just days prior to the arrival of UNITAF, the international community, Somali political leaders, and clan elders met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This led to a January 1993 U.N. conference at which Somali political leaders agreed to a “nationwide cease-fire, general disarmament and a national reconciliation conference to be held on 15 March 1993.”²⁷ A U.N. Relief and Rehabilitation Program was developed, submitted to the Security Council and approved in March 1993.

During UNITAF, Humanitarian Operations Centers (HOCs) and a Civil-Military Operations Center (CMOC) were created to organize military support for humanitarian operations.²⁸ The HOC in Mogadishu was housed at UNOSOM headquarters. The CMOC was at UNITAF headquarters. The HOC in Mogadishu had as its coordinator the U.N. Manager of Humanitarian Aid, Dr. Philip Johnston, with the director of the CMOC serving as military deputy, and the U.S. Disaster Assistance Relief Team chief as civilian deputy. The degree of coordination in the HOCs of each of the HRSs varied from region to region depending on the strategy employed by HRS commanders.

The re-establishment of local security, in the form of Somali police, was included as a target sector of the U.N. Relief and Rehabilitation Program developed during UNITAF. After Sahnoun’s departure, the possibility of U.N. support for local police was raised again during UNOSOM I. Relief workers and Somalis from Hargeisa and Kismayo asked the United Nations to provide food to local Somali police forces that had been working voluntarily in those regions. U.N. headquarters determined this was outside the Security Council mandate.

The U.S. military was equally hesitant to support local police development. Following interagency decisions in Washington, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) was charged with implementation. Civil affairs personnel and police training was considered but not included.²⁹ UNITAF was viewed as a limited humanitarian mission that would be concluded within a short period.³⁰ Although not part of the mandate, UNITAF decided after deployment to help re-establish the Somali police because it did not want to do policing itself. Somali police would help protect the troops and would accelerate the transfer to UNOSOM II.

As UNITAF forces began to secure distribution routes and food storage locations, problems developed in dealing with the Somalis. The soldiers could not communicate effectively, nor did they understand Somali customs and traditions.³¹ On an ad hoc basis, former Somali police officers began to assist UNITAF forces with certain operations. At some intersections in Mogadishu, they directed traffic as a purely voluntary activity. In Mogadishu and elsewhere they joined elders and judges in performing rudimentary neighborhood police and judicial functions. U.S. Special Envoy Robert Oakley recognized the utility and effectiveness of voluntary efforts by former Somali police and concluded that some sort of institutionalized police operation might be feasible and would certainly be useful.

In late December 1992, the UNITAF Provost Marshal Lieutenant Colonel Steve Spataro explored the possibility of hiring a contract security force of former Somali police officers to perform various security functions around UNITAF compounds and on UNITAF convoys. The UNITAF leadership soon realized that without a functioning Somali-led police force to begin re-establishing a safe society, UNITAF would have merely created an “artificial” safe haven for the provision of humanitarian aid, but no more. After several exchanges by Lieutenant General Johnston and Ambassador Oakley with CENTCOM and authorities in Washington, DC, fears of “mission creep” were set aside because of the enhanced force protection the Somali police could provide.³² UNITAF was authorized in late December 1992 to provide assistance (but not training) to the police from local resources only. No official U.S. Government assistance was provided. This U.S. unwillingness to provide assistance during the initial, formative period, when coupled with the refusal of the United Nations to provide assistance, seriously weakened the development of the Somali police force.

There was no legal precedent or mandate for UNITAF to recreate police forces except to establish security as called for in SCR 794. It emerged as an attempt to achieve sustainable security and Somali control of their society. UNITAF, therefore, sought to establish an interim Auxiliary Security Force (ASF) that would enforce locally agreed upon laws and be controlled by the community: in essence, a community police force.

A Local Security Force

To encourage dialogue among the warring factions, a political committee comprising representatives of the Aideed and Mahdi clans began meeting in Mogadishu in early January under the guidance of Oakley. The paramount issue of security was a topic in every discussion, whether it was the resettlement of refugees or the re-establishment of market places. Oakley pursued the idea and feasibility of establishing interim forces of Somali police to work with UNITAF in providing security. Initially, Somali committee members doubted it could be done. Eventually, they decided it would be possible with international support. Oakley also approached the Islamic Higher Council, a traditional organization and an important segment of Somali society which supported the idea outright. The political committee came up with 10 names to serve on a police committee. Oakley personally obtained approval from Aideed and Mahdi. The warlords agreed to the establishment of the police committee and the nonpolitical interim police force specifically limited to the Mogadishu region. Individuals on the committee were supposed to be apolitical former police colonels or generals with good human rights records.

Although four members of the police committee failed to meet all the standards hoped for by UNITAF (two were former Army officers, one was the former chief of the hated secret police, and one was an engineer), they remained on the committee because it had the approval of Aideed and Mahdi. Time was short, and security was essential to the intervention’s success. There was no time to renegotiate. The police committee first met in the neutral territory of the U.S. Special Envoy Office (USLO) in mid-January 1993. Representatives from each sector of the international intervention—political, military, and humanitarian—attended the meetings.³³ Those who had not been police officers were initially more interested in political aspects and gaining control of the committee for Aideed or Mahdi. With U.S. and U.N. support, they were ignored by the former police officers who did not want political leaders to interfere in what they were trying to do. The former police took charge of discussions on how best to revive the police, focusing on the practicalities involved in standing up an interim force.³⁴ They expressed concern that the police could not make the law, enforce the law, and convict and punish those who break the law. Establishment of a police force had to be done in conjunction with the formation of a court system. Within 2 weeks the committee had identified the number of personnel needed, a list of qualifications, an acceptable vetting procedure, physical plant needs, and training and equipment requirements for the ASF.³⁵

These developments evidenced the commitment of most committee members to a nonpolitical and effective effort toward sustainable rehabilitation. After this constructive beginning, a complexity of disagreement brought work to a standstill. For different reasons the warlords and some members of the committee wanted a national police force. Mahdi and Aideed each believed that by controlling the police committee they could control the establishment of a national police; in turn, whoever controlled the national police could claim legitimacy as Somalia’s leader.³⁶ Others believed that only a national police force could permanently end the civil war. General Ahmad Jama, the last commander of the Somali National Police and generally respected by all clans, argued that a properly armed national police force could enforce a cease-fire, disarm the militias and bandits, and enforce agreed-upon laws.³⁷

Local U.S. leadership, on the other hand, was working to establish the ASF—a 5,000 person interim, regional, auxiliary force (3,000 in Mogadishu, and 2,000 in other regions). The professional relationship between the Somali police and the staff of the UNITAF Provost Marshal (PM) was important to developing a credible ASF. The PM’s staff consisted of 22 Marines and Army Military Police to provide interim assistance. The United States was walking a very fine line because there was no U.N. mandate to establish police, and U.S. law required a wavier before military assistance could be provided to foreign police.³⁸ The UNITAF position was that the local populace would more likely support the ASF if it were under local control and that this would lead to Somalis assuming some responsibility for handling their own problems. Ultimately, when the U.N.-led UNOSOM II operation assumed responsibility, a new national police force could be established.

At the suggestion of police officers on the committee, religious and other community leaders were brought into the discussions. They became convinced that re-establishment of police, courts, and jails was necessary to security, stability, and economic recovery. Their support, combined with pressure from Oakley and UNITAF commanders finally convinced Aideed and Mahdi to drop their objections. The effort to establish the ASF won full community participation, the logjam broke and the process continued. The committee agreed that it would become the supervising authority for the ASF, representing the Somali people, with the advice and assistance of UNITAF and the United Nations.

The vetting procedure started with the establishment of a list of qualifications: Somali citizen; no tangible offense against Somali society; police officer with 2 years experience prior to January 26, 1991; no handicap; and retain rank held prior to January 26, 1991.³⁹ The discovery of personnel files of the former national police reduced the time required for proper vetting. A midlevel manager from police headquarters had secured almost all personnel files in his home when faction militias and bandits looted police headquarters. After former police organized the files,⁴⁰ a week-long employment fair was held. Individuals were verified with the help of former commanders and photographs from personnel files.

The police were assigned basic functions designed to meet immediate needs of traffic control; crowd control; neighborhood patrols; security of food distribution sites; and security of airfields and seaports. Police were unarmed while on routine duty, but weapons were available in police stations, both for protection from attack and for use on special joint patrols with UNITAF.⁴¹

UNOSOM, UNITAF, U.N. agencies, and the warlords provided funding and equipment. The United Nations funded the purchase of uniforms, personal police equipment, office equipment (i.e., typewriters and furniture), and building supplies to rebuild and operate police stations. The United States supplied vehicles and radios.⁴² The Italians supplied additional uniforms. UNITAF and Somali engineers refurbished police stations.⁴³ The World Food Program (WFP) supplied food for police officers and their families. UNDP and UNOSOM I each provided $2.4 million for salaries. Eventually the United Nations provided money for a communications network. Under pressure from UNITAF, the warlords donated specific pieces of equipment (e.g., Mahdi provided rifles). Confiscated militia vehicles were refurbished and painted to serve as patrol vehicles, and in outlying areas, weapons came from the warlords’ weapons storage sites.

Initial plans called for the ASF to begin in Mogadishu and eventually expand to all areas covered by UNITAF. By the time of the transfer to UNOSOM II, the ASF was established in 17 cities and towns.⁴⁴ Spataro traveled to all UNITAF HRS to brief them on the formation of the ASF and to explain the program to senior former national police officers and elders in those areas. All supported the program, although some were more dynamic and effective than others. The HRS commanders’ representatives and community leaders traveled to Mogadishu to observe the vetting process there and discuss requirements. Using the same guidelines, local communities submitted former police officers’ names for vetting.⁴⁵

Representatives from the Somali police training and equipment subcommittee, UNOSOM I, and UNITAF wrote an ASF handbook with administrative, training, and operational guidelines regarding UNITAF and UNOSOM I support to the ASF. Its purpose was to inform UNITAF HRS commanders about ASF functions, responsibilities, and organization and the command relationship with the ASF. UNITAF and UNOSOM I oversight officers used the handbook in their monitoring of administrative and technical operations of the ASF.⁴⁶ The 10-chapter manual also served as an agreement with the Somalis that UNITAF and UNOSOM I supported the ASF.

The ASF showed promise in Mogadishu after just 2 weeks of very basic training.⁴⁷ The forces included 3,000 men and 50 women, four operational divisions, three special divisions (Criminal Investigative Division, traffic, and customs), 13 stations, and one prison. There were approximately 30 people in each of the divisions and 175 total in each of the 13 stations; an additional 150 people were assigned to the prisons. UNITAF conducted joint patrols with the ASF, and UNITAF military contingents were co-located with each division HQ and station. This provided extra communications and logistics support, protection against attacks by heavily armed factions, and psychological support.

The ASF became very popular with the local population in Mogadishu, Baidoa, and other locations. In Mogadishu, shortly after uniforms were issued and the police organized into units, they were assigned the duty of protecting 35 feeding stations that were to be opened by the international community (e.g. WFP, U.N. Children’s Fund, AID, Irish Concern, and OXFAM) and operated by Somali women. The program generated substantial political controversy and threats of organized as well as spontaneous violence. However, all 35 stations opened as scheduled, with unarmed Somali police present and UNITAF military backup nearby. An average of 4,000 extremely hungry persons were fed by each station each day, peacefully and without incident. This did wonders for the morale and health of the city population as well as the morale and reputation of the ASF. On several occasions, the latter stood their ground in protecting the people against armed bandits, often suffering casualties, until UNITAF could arrive, further enhancing their standing.

UNITAF was capable of guiding the establishment of the ASF, because of its military structure and the fact that security was such an urgent and fundamental issue. However, neither the U.N. Secretary-General, the Security Council, the United States, nor other governments actively advocated establishment of a nationwide judicial system. (Australia did help establish one in its limited HRS of the Bay Region.) With no government, elders and religious leaders in communities throughout Somalia determined what law the police would enforce. In most situations, Islamic law and local customs combined with the 1962 Somali Penal Code (which was Somali law prior to Siad Barre’s reign) to serve as the local legal code.⁴⁸

Lacking official recognition and funding, and without a parallel effort to establish judicial and penal systems that would have strengthened the work of the ASF, the success of the ASF varied from region to region. Among the more than 20 nations contributing to UNITAF, only Australia brought civilian police advisors. The Australian unit arrived in January, having had time to study the situation. It integrated police advisors and judicial experts into its force (see paper by Michael Kelly). The United States, Italy, and France had military police personnel and units. Each of these nations used its MPs differently in support of ASF. Police officers in the ASF were most effective when integrated as equal partners into a military commander’s strategy for providing security.⁴⁹

In addition to the question of what the ASF would do with persons it detained, there was the question of what laws UNITAF military personnel would apply when serious crimes (e.g., armed theft, murder) were committed in their presence and what to do with any Somali detained. These issues were not addressed in Security Council Resolution 794, endorsing UNITAF, or in the UNITAF ROE. These issues had to be decided on the ground and were subject to varying approaches by the various national contingents of UNITAF. UNITAF Headquarters put out general guidance that any prison facilities must be up to minimum standards for POWs, for temporary detention of fewer than 48 hours based upon prima facie evidence. After the initial period, prisoners were released or sent to Mogadishu’s UNITAF detention center for no more than 72 hours. Thus, in practice, detainees were released or handed over to the ASF, which, in turn, relied upon an ad hoc mixture of courts and justices, with widely varying degrees of fairness and political influence. This imperfect system was the best UNITAF could do under the circumstances.⁵⁰

Eventually the populace viewed the international community’s presence and functions as legitimate. For 2 years, Somalis had watched the international community collectively abandon them; they had to be convinced that UNITAF was a genuine and effective effort. The re-establishment of a Somali authority—the police—with the help of the international community helped legitimatize the effort.

UNOSOM II

In March 1993 the Security Council set another precedent with Resolution 814, which established UNOSOM II as a Chapter VII peace-enforcement operation under the command of the Secretary-General. Security remained a priority and was combined with an expressed mandate to assist the rehabilitation of Somalia. SCR 814 also dealt specifically with disarmament, charging UNOSOM II troops with the task of seizing small arms from all unauthorized armed elements. The mandate expanded the territory to be covered by U.N. forces and included a direct reference to the role of Somali police. The Security Council concluded that UNOSOM II would cover the whole country, whereas UNITAF had been responsible only for the southern third. Furthermore, they reasoned the mission could be accomplished with 10,000 fewer troops than UNITAF because of the help of a re-established Somali Police Force. While SCR 794 (UNITAF) had established a trust fund for voluntary contributions, under UNOSOM II the fund was authorized to receive contributions for the police, although it initially received none. The measure of success for UNOSOM II was very unclear.

Although UNITAF was a U.S.-led operation and UNOSOM II a U.N.-led operation, UNOSOM II had the political support and involvement of the United States. Political and military officials from the United States worked closely with U.N. officials to draft the mandate, concept of operations, and ROE for UNOSOM II.

Planning and implementation for UNOSOM II suffered badly from a lack of appreciation by the United States, other U.N. Member States, and the Security Council of the resources required and time it would take to deploy. A broad range of delays undermined the transfer of assets and responsibilities from UNITAF to UNOSOM II. The inclusion of public security and disarmament as mission elements meant a much greater challenge for UNOSOM II whose forces were far inferior to UNITAF. The original disagreement on disarmament was still evident in April 1993, with no plan to implement the new mandate. Forces did not arrive when expected, and some did not have necessary equipment. UNOSOM II did not have anywhere near the same resources, yet it had a much broader, more intrusive, and potentially explosive mandate vis-a-vis various factions, especially Aideed’s.⁵¹ U.N. structure provided no effective command and control, with much of the burden falling upon the Deputy UNOSOM II Commander (and U.S. Force Commander) Major General Thomas Montgomery.⁵²

A considerable amount of detailed planning went into that section of the mandate authorizing a program for local security. A U.N. evaluation of police requirements was conducted in February 1993. In March, a team from the ICITAP conducted its own review of the ASF and the potential for re-establishing a Somali national police.⁵³ They concluded that the ASF was an effective force and, with training and equipment, could form the basis for re-establishment of a national police force utilizing former members of the Somali National Police. Subsequently, Ann Wright of the UNOSOM II Justice Division developed a $45 million budget and strategy to re-establish the Somali police, corrections, and judicial systems. This program envisioned establishing a Mobile Quick Reaction Force of 2,000, plus 8,000 more police officers throughout the country. Seventy police stations would be renovated, and modest transportation and communications systems would be provided. UNOSOM sector military commanders would maintain operational control of the police until a 152-person CIVPOL organization assumed control. Operational control would pass to Somali Government authority as soon as it was capable of assuming such responsibilities. The plan called for a court structure similar to that in place in 1962 in addition to “21 District Courts, Regional Courts in seven regions, and two Courts of Appeal.” A more “modest program” called for the rehabilitation of two prisons, one in Mogadishu and one in Hargeisa.⁵⁴ The most basic problem was the lack of resources to implement the plans. U.N. Headquarters were not working in sync with UNOSOM II in preparing for implementation of the plan.

UNITAF transferred command to UNOSOM II on May 4, 1993, despite strong reservations expressed by the U.N. Secretary-General that the United Nations was not ready. The Secretary-General’s new Special Representative in Somalia, Admiral Jonathan Howe, believed he had received concept approval for the Wright plan during a May 16, 1993 meeting in Mogadishu with Kofi Annan, Director of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). Howe and his staff assumed DPKO would implement the staff and funding for the justice program approved by Annan. Unbeknownst to Howe, Annan and the Secretary-General did not request donor country contributions for police instructors, funding, or equipment. They believed the United Nations should wait until there was a real political agreement among the Somalis and when they had set up local district and regional councils to assume control over the police and judiciary.⁵⁵ Moreover, at this time there was little prospect of substantial donor contributions, since the need was not perceived. (The United States was not prepared to make a contribution to the United Nations. Nor was it prepared to assist bilaterally.)

After UNOSOM II assumed control, the ASF program floundered. UNOSOM II did not have any CIVPOL on its staff to manage the ASF and had no funds to pay them. Military personnel were removed from the ASF stations and joint patrolling ceased just as factions brought weapons out of hiding into Mogadishu and resumed escalating violence. Outgunned by the militia and organized bandits and demoralized by the loss of military support, the ASF became incapable of performing viable missions except in the Bay Region where they received strong Australian support. Concurrently, confrontations began to arise as in Mogadishu as Aideed began to test U.N. forces. UNOSOM II Commander Lieutenant General Cevik Bir responded by changing the ROE to authorize forces to engage “organized, armed militias, technicals and other crew served weapons . . . without provocation.”⁵⁶

The UNOSOM II Deputy Provost Marshal was given the title of Officer in Charge of the Somali police program and ordered to hold the program together until the UNOSOM II Justice Division assumed control.⁵⁷ During a May staff meeting, senior UNOSOM II commanders determined that the Somali police was not a military mission but the responsibility of UNOSOM II Justice Division.

On June 5, less than 1 month after UNOSOM II accepted command, Aideed’s forces responded to an armed inspection of a critical installation containing stored weapons and the vitally important faction radio station. In an attack that killed 24 Pakistani peacekeepers, Aideed retaliated for UNOSOM II’s failure to obtain his agreement for the inspection. One of his lieutenants who was notified by UNOSOM specifically warned against the inspection. UNOSOM II had not anticipated the change in Aideed’s reaction to the U.N. inspection, since UNITAF inspections had not been challenged. The following day the Security Council passed Resolution 837 condemning the attack and calling for the “arrest and detention . . . of those responsible for the armed attacks.” On June 17, Howe called for the arrest and detention of Aideed while the investigation continued.⁵⁸ UNOSOM II’s focus upon arresting Aideed upset the military, political, and humanitarian balance.⁵⁹

In July the UNOSOM II Justice Division finally began to act on the aforementioned police plan.⁶⁰ However, to manage the Somali police program were only six police monitors who worked strictly with the police in Mogadishu, in a very limited capacity. The CIVPOL cell, composed of three police monitors, was a subcell of the Justice Division. They never left Mogadishu, and their contact with the police committee, minimal from the start, further decreased. Unlike UNITAF, the U.N. military forces had no role with the police in Mogadishu. Equipment and funding identified for the ASF by UNITAF and UNOSOM II never made it to the ASF. The old ASF handbook was not updated, and CIVPOL was unfamiliar with it. Military and humanitarian leaders in the field lacked definitive guidance and adequate resources.

The Secretary-General in summer 1993 again placed police as a top priority calling for the expansion of the forces to 5,000, promising $6 million in support, claiming that an interim judicial system using the 1962 code would be in place by October 1993. Yet, no new guidance was issued to the field until September 1993, and no funds were provided. On the ground in Mogadishu, the focus was almost entirely on the conflict with Aideed and his forces. Moreover, the head of the Justice Division diluted and factionalized the reasonably effective Somali police committee by appointing additional members proposed by Aideed, Mahdi and other faction leaders. This misguided attempt to obtain support effectively neutralized and demoralized the police committee by bringing partisan political maneuvering to the fore and rendering ineffectual the previously dominant core of professional policemen who ran the committee and supervised the ASF.⁶¹

In August, the Secretary-General identified “the re-establishment of the police, judicial, and penal systems” as the “key to establishing security and law and order in a system managed by Somalis.”⁶² His report included an extensive review of what had been accomplished with the police to date and an equally extensive strategy for what was needed. It presented the plan that those in the field had been ready to implement 4 months earlier.

In summary, after UNITAF left in April 1993, the ASF rapidly deteriorated. Without pay or UNOSOM II military support, morale and discipline fell sharply. Moreover, the ASF was defenseless in the face of heavily armed militias who had again taken control of Mogadishu and other centers. Throughout the summer Somali militias fought each other, especially in Mogadishu and the Kismayo area, and Aideed fought UNOSOM II. The Security Council continued to call for re-establishment of the police, judiciary, and prisons in order to restore security and stability, but few resources were provided.

The October 3 fight between U.S. troops and Aideed’s militia marked the end of any comprehensive support from the United States. Eighteen U.S. soldiers were killed, 78 wounded, and one taken hostage; over 1,000 Somalis were also killed. The Secretary-General’s Report of November 12, 1993, assessed UNOSOM II’s effectiveness as follows:

With the passage of SCR 885 on November 16, 1993, this was acknowledged.⁶⁴

After the events of October, there was increased interest in the withdrawal of U.S. forces by March of 1994. A functioning Somali police force was seen as an important part of the “exit strategy” and necessary for any hope of stability following withdrawal of U.S. troops. ICITAP, which had seen no interest on the part of the United Nations to support the police program it had outlined in March or the Justice Division’s detailed plan, was called back to Somalia to develop an implementation plan for re-establishing a Somali police force. In November, an ICITAP team consisting of four people, led by ICITAP Director David Kriskovich, conducted an assessment of the status of the ASF and the requirements for re-establishing a police force. In December, a detailed plan was submitted to the U.S. Department of State, which approved the bilateral U.S. effort. Funding of $11 million was reprogrammed from the ICITAP Haiti project.

During a visit to Somalia in November 1993, former UNITAF PM Spataro met with the police committee in Mogadishu and with all the ASFs UNITAF had established in the field. They complained that UNOSOM II CIVPOL had not visited them. Many of the UNOSOM II military commanders in the field did not understand the purpose of the ASF or that they had any responsibility for the ASF. For good reason, many commanders did not trust the ASF; in Merca, Kismayo, Baidoa, and Bardera, the original ASF had been ousted, and militia members had become the police. In Mogadishu, patrolling had ceased, and many police stations were no longer in use.

In December 1993, the United Nations announced a “new” task for UNOSOM II: to “re-establish” the Somali police. The detailed plan envisioned a 10,000 member force by the end of 1994. This was seen as a way to compensate for the loss of U.S. and other major military units, a means toward a U.S. “exit strategy,” which might enable the operation to succeed without the U.S. military. Following the October clash between Aideed and U.S. forces, President Clinton announced that U.S. forces would leave Somalia by March 1994. The United States then shifted its focus almost entirely to public security, offering $12 million in support of the police and judiciary and $25 million in Department of Defense (DOD) equipment and services for the police. However, at that time the United States had not yet delivered on its pledge, made 2 months earlier, of $2 million for police salaries. Very little of the U.S.-provided equipment, advisors, or funds was in place before the withdrawal of all U.S. forces in March 1994. This meant that psychologically, the international intervention had lost its advantage and was at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the aggressive Somali factions that saw it as a spent force and were awaiting its total departure. Thus the resources bilaterally committed to the police had little effect in reversing their demoralization and ineffectiveness.

In January 1994, Japan announced a contribution of $10 million for the training and operation of the Somali police. It eventually provided $4,759,899 to the police program and $4,750,000 to the judiciary program.⁶⁵ From March 1994 to March 1995, however, the United Nations suffered from a chronic shortage of funds to pay police salaries.

On February 27, 1994, Congress approved a U.S. bilateral program for the Somali police, and ICITAP immediately dispatched Project Manager Michael Berkow and a team of trainers to Mogadishu. However, by the time ICITAP was authorized to begin development activities, U.S. forces were withdrawing. The security situation had so deteriorated that they could not use the Somali Police Academy and instead had to establish a provisional training center inside the U.N. compound. A second provisional training center was established in Baidoa and work had begun for a joint ICITAP-CIVPOL training center at Calcaio when ICITAP was ordered to withdraw. ICITAP also provided assistance to help rebuild police stations in the Indian sector. ICITAP conducted three 21-day “refresher” courses for former Somali National Police officers and nine specialized training courses before the program was suspended in June. ICITAP left police training materials and equipment that was used by UNCIVPOL until the withdrawal of all U.N. forces.

Frustration with the slow pace of the UNOSOM II Justice Division deployment was not limited to the United States. Within the UNOSOM II military there was a great deal of resentment at the inability of the Justice Division to provide necessary support to Somali police; the efforts of UNITAF had created certain expectations and laid a foundation for the ASF that required continued assistance. The result was the establishment in the spring of 1994 of a Military Police Liaison Cell. The military began to develop a series of courses for the Somali Police: marching, weapons handling, and other basic skills. This program became closely connected with and supported by the ICITAP program.

Both the ICITAP and the new UNOSOM II military programs came to naught. By the time they began, the last U.S. forces were leaving. It was evident that UNOSOM II would not attempt to re-establish authority by force, and that Aideed would continue to ruthlessly pursue his ambitions in many parts of the country, including the Bay Region. This meant there was little utility in the belated police assistance programs. Surprisingly, most of the vehicles and weapons delivered by the United States at this late stage of the police program were successfully removed and used by UNCIVPOL elsewhere (e.g., Angola and Haiti).

Much of the planning and implementation in Somalia required the establishment of new rules and guidelines for interventions on an ad hoc basis. The United States, which was clearly the dominant power behind UNITAF and UNOSOM II, had not previously been a direct participant in major peace operations. Somalia, with a civil war but without governmental institutions, was terra incognita. This resulted in isolated successes, particularly for UNITAF; the initial humanitarian mandate of UNITAF was successfully implemented. The end result, however, was not successful in restoring public security or achieving political agreement.

Insurmountable internal problems grew from ineffective coordination between off-site planning and on-site implementation, a lack of resources, and a misreading of the political and security situations. A basic obstacle was the inability of the Somalis to come together in any sort of peaceful consensus. The mandate for the intervention changed, and changed drastically, with each phase or operation; it was also so vague as to require interpretation during operational planning and implementation. The direction of implementation changed so drastically during UNOSOM II that key participants such as France, Italy, Zimbabwe, and Botswana ordered their forces on the ground not to participate in the hunt for Aideed and his lieutenants.

The initial results of ASF operations were successful despite several handicaps: an absence of advance planning; no agreed, detailed UNITAF-wide plan; shortage of resources; and uneven application of general guidelines by different UNITAF major component commanders. The ASF took a community policing approach by communicating and working with the local population. The ASF had strong UNITAF support (especially in the most difficult area, Mogadishu) and their assigned tasks were within their capabilities. When the ASF was vetted by the community, it was successful. The community participated in selecting the leadership, the laws, courts, and patrol operations. Mogadishu illustrates good ASF policing on a large scale. However, even here there was no assistance for the restoration on improvement of judicial and penal systems which were in a state of disarray. Baidoa was the best example of overall law enforcement success because it included UNITAF planning and assistance with courts and prisons, as well as policing.

Despite singular agreement by the international community and the Somali people, with grudging acquiescence of the factions, on the effective role that the Somali police could play, adequate emphasis on and support for its long-term development never materialized. Disagreement on how to address the problem of security plagued planning and implementation of all phases of the international intervention.

The transition from the regional ASF established by UNITAF to a national police force planned by UNOSOM II did not succeed because UNOSOM II was not provided with the personnel, physical and financial resources, and political will to continue the program. There was no Somali political consensus and the overall security environment turned hostile for the police, which was deprived of UNITAF’s military backup.

¨ A local police force can benefit military peacekeepers through its knowledge of the indigenous culture and the political situation—down to the neighborhood and gang level. It has in most cases established means of dealing with potential problems without the use of force, which are popularly understood and accepted (even if not always liked). By using local police in a cooperative mode, the military peacekeepers can avoid unwanted incidents with the local population due to lack of mutual familiarity (e.g., language, customs), and due to the difference in approach by military and police forces (e.g., crowd control and patrolling troublesome neighborhoods). Local police forces can also assume missions such as static protection which would otherwise require the use of military personnel.

¨ The use of military peacekeepers, particularly military police in a liaison role, can not only substantially enhance the effectiveness and behavior of local police forces, but avoid problems such as U.S. law regarding foreign police training and taking command of police forces. Military personnel serving in a liaison capacity can assist with monitoring, training, and gaining greater respect for local police forces from the population. The provision of logistics support (including transportation and communications) can enhance the influence of military peacekeepers over the police, and help in the coordination of police and military activities. However, care must be taken in troubled states, where the period immediately after an international intervention is often uncertain and potentially violent; military support of this kind can go a long way to prevent incidents between the local police and the population.

¨ Establishment of a functioning, generally accepted local police can reduce the length of time required for the presence of military peacekeepers. Although this idea of local police to complement and then replace military peacekeepers was eventually accepted by the United Nations and Member States, it came too late to be implemented successfully. In the absence of a political understanding among major combatants, the police cannot be expected to fill the enforcement gap over the long term.

¨ Initial military support for local police is warranted even if international civilian support for local police forces arrives later. During the danger period, the presence of international civilian police monitors and trainers is not an adequate deterrent against violence. Likewise, there is almost always a delay in the arrival of international civilian police monitors and adequate logistic support. The supplemental military support at the beginning is often essential for the long-term success of a program to assist police in assuming a major role in public security.

¨ International civilian support for local police, judiciary, and prisons is essential in most cases if long-term indigenous stability and security are to be established. Assistance for police alone, while courts, legal codes, and prisons are neglected, is not a viable long-term approach. Arbitrary or politicized sentencing and degrading or brutal prison conditions quickly corrode and undermine whatever benefits come from better policing. Planning for such support needs to be an integral part of the peacekeeping plan and included in the military plan when there is no integrated military-civilian plan. Planning should include adequate human and material resources that are available as early as possible after the intervention; it should provide for civilian support for the long haul, even after the end of military peacekeeping; and it must include replacement of any military support as soon as conditions permit. In Somalia, the initial success in rehabilitating local police was undermined by the failure to include police support in U.S. or U.N. planning, the inadequate priority by the United Nations for the police plan later developed, the lack of judicial and penal assistance (except for the Australian contingent’s brief stay in the Bay Region), and only belated U.S. material support for the police program.

¨ Each international intervention is different. In Somalia, unlike most countries, the police had not been involved in political repression—that role was played by an entirely separate force, the army. It had taken sides neither during the civil war to oust President Siad Barre nor in the conflict over power once he left Somalia. Although the Somali police needed protection from heavily armed politico-military “factions” and criminal gangs that had come to dominate the country during the pre-intervention period, the police were welcomed by the populace. The absence of any indigenous institutions or accepted political framework into which the police could fit was another unusual element of the Somalia situation. It created major difficulties for the authority, activities and development of the police, even with external support. The police were thus organized temporarily and regionally rather than as a permanent, national agency. The absence of any national institutions, as well as the absence of a plan for international civilian police support, also resulted in regional police being formed and supported by whatever national military contingent had responsibility for that region. This produced widespread variations in the capability and behavior of the regional police forces. In Mogadishu and some outlying areas (such as the French and particularly the Australian sectors), the police performed reasonably well during the UNITAF period. In other areas, they performed poorly, even being controlled by local warlords. Nowhere but in the Bay Region was there any serious support for judiciary or penal rehabilitation. During the UNOSOM II period, police performed well in the Indian sector but the functioning system established in Mogadishu collapsed under pressure of renewed factional fighting and political confrontation.

¨ Consistency and continuity are key aspects of a successful police program. Part way through the intervention in Somalia, security broke down and the civil war returned. At the same time, a shift in U.N. and U.S. policies essentially deprived the local police of international military protection. These developments seriously damaged the successful work that had been achieved in rehabilitating the police and stabilizing public security.