Since 1991 when the central Somali government collapsed, a militant group called Al-Shabaab has run much of southern Somalia. Somalia has been helped by the UN, especially the World Food Program stay sustainable in times of turmoil. Now Al-Shabaab is rejecting aid from the WFP, saying that if they continue to depend on international organizations that they will never regain economic sustainability. This puts the WFP in an ethical dilemma, as they are confronted with weighing immediate relief versus long term sustainability. Even if they were to discontinue their immediate relief program, they have modules for implementing long term relief in place. Al-Sahaab still rejects this help.
This story covers a struggle between realist theory and constructivism. Though Al-Shabaab is not a world power, it is acting to gain full autonomy of its territory, rejecting aid from organizations. Yet it admits that the organizations have influence. It is clear that the WFP is a help to somalia, since its work threatens the sustainability of the country. This undeniable influence proves a constructivist theory to be true. This story relates back to our in class discussion of if an international organization can have a negative influence. Al-Shabaab would have a firm stance that they can. The WFP and Al-Shabaab, neither of which are actual governments are in a power struggle over the governance of a failed state. Is this realist theory scaled down? Are both actors working towards humanitarian interests of the Somalian people?
I think this might be an example of structural realism. The situation involves a international organization and a military organization, both allegedly NGOs, in competition for the right to provide the means to life for the people of Somalia. First of all, I think that to term either one of those purely non-governmental is inappropriate because Al-Shabaab has been the functional government in southern Somalia, and the WFP is heavily influenced by U.S. food surplus in particular, so both represent, if non-traditional nor explicit then functional, state interests. So the power struggle does seem to fit, maybe loosely, with a realist perspective, especially because of the concern for economic rather than humanitarian stability (or the tension between those two demands), and the constructionist might label the WFP activity as non-governmental but perhaps an export of Northern countries, so the conflict is exacerbated by two very different approaches; the human right not to starve jeopardizes sovereignty.
ReplyDelete