Making War to Keep Peace (11 page)

The same tendency to expand the authority and powers of the secretary-general was present in Boutros-Ghali's discussion of “intrusive” operations dealing with ethnic conflicts, failed states, new states, development, and sovereignty. The new definitions quickly led to new practices, which were then treated as established procedures. Yet this new
conception was about to be tested as the United States moved toward action in Somalia—and problems soon followed.

Alternatives in Somalia: Boutros-Ghali's View

As the situation worsened, the secretary-general wrote to the Security Council on November 29, 1992, proposing five options. He obviously favored the fifth, which was to organize “a countrywide enforcement operation to be carried out under UN command and control…which would be consistent with the recent expansion of the Organization's role in the maintenance of international peace and security and which would strengthen its long-term evolution as an effective system of collective security.”
³⁸

One aspect of this proposal raised red flags in Washington: it would give the secretary-general control of U.S. troops and the rules of engagement. Boutros-Ghali wanted the authority to determine when U.S. troops should be deployed to Somalia, and to decide when a secure environment for humanitarian relief had been established, clearing the way for U.S. troops to withdraw and UN troops to take over.
³⁹

But George Bush had no intention of relinquishing control over U.S. troops or over decisions about their weapons, rules of engagement, deployment, and withdrawal. He also clashed with Boutros-Ghali over how peacekeeping operations in Somalia should be conducted. At every stage in the development of UNITAF, Bush resisted efforts by Boutros-Ghali and others to expand the scope of the American mission. When Bush presented the original U.S. plan in late November, the secretary-general urged the United States to disarm the Somali factions before handing control of the operation over to the UN.
⁴⁰
When American forces arrived in Mogadishu in December, Boutros-Ghali pressed the U.S.-led coalition to defuse all land mines, train a civilian police force, and create a civil administration. The Bush administration resisted the pressure, confining the discussion to the logistics of the upcoming transfer of the operation to UN control.
⁴¹

In Boutros-Ghali's view, U.S. troops would have to disarm the country before a secure environment could be said to exist. Bush thought
otherwise. “[T]he mission of the Coalition is limited and specific,” he wrote to the secretary-general, “to create security conditions which will permit the feeding of the starving Somali people and allow the transfer of this security function to the UN peacekeeping force.”
⁴²

Bush knew he had to set limits, because it was clear that the UN Secretariat saw Somalia as only the first in a series of potential military operations in African states threatened by social breakdown, civil war, and famine. Mozambique, Liberia, Sudan, and Angola were among the other failed states in perilous condition, and even before U.S. troops landed in Somalia, a State Department team was in Africa surveying problems far beyond Somalia's borders.

Despite political pressure to do something about Somalia, many in Congress were wary of the proposed military operation. Up to the day before the authorizing resolution was passed, serious doubts were expressed about the operation, whose first phase would be carried out under U.S. command and in whose second phase the United States would participate but not command. Senator Hank Brown (R-CO) spoke for many when he pressed questions about command of the troops and the rules of engagement, including the authority of U.S. leaders to decide when to withdraw.

The United States and the United Nations were entering new territory. Who would define the goals of a UN force? Who would decide when the job was completed? Who would determine the relationship between national and UN command? Peacekeeping in a war zone was a new idea with many unknowns.

Even the day before the Security Council passed Resolution 794, which authorized UNITAF, no agreement on the major questions had been reached. Boutros-Ghali continued to state his preference for a military operation under the control of the UN Secretariat and the secretary-general, but Bush knew that the Secretariat lacked the resources and
experience to command a military operation of that size and complexity, and he refused. Boutros-Ghali acquiesced, but demanded that once UNITAF had established a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian aid, the military command would be turned over to the United Nations. He emphasized that
countrywide
disarmament and enforcement was required, not just the establishment of order at ports, and that “member states would have to be ready to accept that the United Nations would command and control the operation.”
⁴⁴
Bush stated his doubts that the UN had the military capacity to carry out such an operation, but the secretary-general countered that China would veto any operation under U.S. command.

The Bush Phase in Somalia: Resolution 794

Even after Resolution 794 was passed on December 3, 1992, disagreement persisted on its wording and interpretation. The resolution featured a military dimension that called for the use of “all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia.”
⁴⁵
The United States agreed to deploy approximately twenty-five thousand troops to satisfy this condition, alongside twelve thousand troops from other countries. The resolution called on member states to contribute troops and establish mechanisms for coordination between their military forces and the UN. By this point President Bush had lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton, but the president-elect quickly endorsed the new resolution: “The United Nations has provided new hope for the millions of Somalis at risk of starvation. I commend President Bush for taking the lead in this important humanitarian effort.”
⁴⁶

The next day, Bush took to the airwaves to announce Operation Restore Hope to the American people, announcing that the United States had decided to intervene in Somalia because 250,000 Somalis had died from famine and war and 1.5 million more were threatened, and because the humanitarian organizations couldn't handle the problem alone. Bush explained that the United States would lead an international coalition, providing it included clear Chapter VII authorization enabling U.S. forces to defend themselves effectively, and with the understanding that
the UN would take over as soon as possible. He emphasized the limits of the undertaking, and its humanitarian purposes:

On December 10, he wrote to the leaders of Congress:

The Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Thomas S. Foley, promised congressional backing for Bush's stance. “There is strong bipartisan support among the leadership for the action the president is taking,” he told CNN. “I think that should be reemphasized. It should also be emphasized again that there is going to be international participation in a major way, including not only the present military operations but the carryover activity of the peacekeeping forces following our departure.”
⁴⁹

Early signs were encouraging. The first U.S. Marines and Navy Seals entered Somalia on December 8; within a week, they had secured the airport and the port of Mogadishu without casualties. French, Turkish, Egyptian, and Algerian forces soon joined the U.S.-led coalition. Five hundred UN security personnel were assigned around Mogadishu. Eventually, there were twenty-five thousand American troops in Somalia and nine thousand troops from approximately twenty-eight other countries.

A CBS poll showed that 81 percent of the U.S. public supported the operation, 50 which the American people saw as a humanitarian relief mission, not a use of force or an act of war. Most Americans probably never noticed the difference between Bush's description of the mission
and Boutros-Ghali's statement to the people of Somalia on December 8, in which he promised that “the unified military command…comes to feed the starving, protect the defenseless, and prepare the way for political, economic, and social reconstruction.”
⁵¹
In a letter to Bush on the same day, Boutros-Ghali again sought to expand the U.S. commitment, emphasizing the need to disarm the lawless gangs and neutralize their heavy weapons to ensure security throughout Somalia.
⁵²
He told the
New York Times
of “private commitments” made by the United States to pacify the country, implying that Bush was reneging on those commitments.
⁵³

But Bush had made it clear that he had always envisioned Operation Restore Hope as a brief operation with a clear goal: the rapid delivery of food to starving Somalis. His intention was to make the port, the capital, and the surrounding areas safe enough to deliver food. He was not willing to take on the more complicated and dangerous tasks of disarming the clans, undertaking political reconciliation, and creating a civil administration.

Bush believed that an effort to disarm Somalia—even if it were possible—would lead the United States deeply into the country's internal politics, and burden the United States and the UN with broad responsibilities for nation building. He stated as much when he first made the decision to send troops to Somalia. In his December 4 address, he said, “To the people of Somalia…. We come to your country for one reason only: to enable the starving to be fed.”
⁵⁴
He knew Congress would not support an open-ended commitment. As one senior official of the Bush team said, “If we go out and try to physically disarm people who don't want to be disarmed, we're talking about going to war against all the factions in Somalia. That isn't what we came over to do.”
⁵⁵

In spite of Bush's efforts to be clear about the mission, however, misunderstandings multiplied between his administration and the UN Secretariat. And both had underestimated the difficulties of the operation and the amount of weapons in Somalia. What Eagleburger had called a “doable” operation seemed less doable every day.
⁵⁶
Almost everything proved more difficult than expected. The extent of social, political, and economic collapse in Somalia came as a surprise to the Americans. The U.S. troops were more vulnerable to attack than expected, confronted by
looters and armed bandits in Mogadishu and elsewhere. From the start of the operation, journalists raised concerns that the U.S. and UN forces would be inadequate to the task. Still, airdrops of food quickly made the difference between life and death for the starving Somalis, and these immediate results made U.S. officials eager to deliver the food and get out.

As the clock was running out on Bush's term as president, the Somalia initiative he had begun still had a clear, narrow,
⁵⁷
and concrete goal—to clear and protect the channels for relief supplies—and a timeline: the U.S. forces deployed to Somalia were due to be under American command and control until they were replaced by a UN force early in 1993.
⁵⁸

Yet the UN replacements were slow to arrive, and the bandits of Mogadishu had more weapons and ammunition than anyone had realized, putting the troops in the path of guerrilla warfare. Nonetheless, the Bush administration continued to insist that its role was limited to providing relief, not disarming warring factions. Early in January, Democrat John Murtha led a congressional delegation to visit U.S. troops in Somalia and sharply criticized the UN. “The UN is doing nothing but dragging their feet,” he observed. “I'd like to see the Americans out of here as soon as possible, because the longer we're here, the more involved we get.”
⁵⁹

Repeated efforts were made to establish a cease-fire. On January 4, Boutros-Ghali gathered leaders of the fourteen factions together in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and called on them to put aside their rivalries. Some criticized the inclusion of all fourteen leaders (especially Aideed, who was blamed for much of the violence), but a top UN official commented that there was no alternative. “These are the power brokers. It is like dealing with [Serbian president Slobodan] MiloÅ¡ević in Yugoslavia.” After many negotiations, they agreed on a truce—which did not hold.
⁶⁰

The U.S. special envoy to the meeting, Robert Oakley, was the most effective mediator and facilitator on the scene, in part because he could back his commitments with American resources. “The United States is in here big time with a lot of resources, whereas the United Nations is not,” Oakley told
Washington Post
reporter Keith Richburg.
⁶¹
Another, perhaps more important, reason for Oakley's effectiveness was that he worked hard to promote agreements among local leaders.

A NEW ADMINISTRATION

As Bill Clinton prepared to take office, the situation in Somalia was relatively stable. Humanitarian relief was being delivered, and leaders of the warring clans had agreed to attend a peace conference. U.S. forces were scheduled to withdraw within three months, troops from other nations would arrive, and the operation would be transferred to UN supervision. On the day of Clinton's inauguration, U.S. Marines began leaving Somalia.