Kampala bombs

The bombings last night in Uganda's capital Kampala provide a frightening reminder of how vulnerable east Africa is to attacks. The police in Kampala and many analysts are already pointing the finger at Somalia’s Islamist al Shabaab militia. 

This is why: Uganda has thousands of peacekeepers in Mogadishu as part of the African Union AMISOM force; al Shabaab has threatened Uganda before; coordinated attacks are a hallmark of al Qaeda – in February, al Shabaab and a smaller southern miltia joined forces and swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden’s group; one of last night's targets was an Ethiopian restaurant (Ethiopia invaded Somalia in 2006 to oust an Islamist group from Mogadishu. The troops later withdrew but Somali insurgents have repeatedly accused Ethiopia of meddling in the blighted country’s affairs); and al Shabaab and the smaller Hizbul Islam banned Somalis in the areas they control from watching the World Cup (Last month, Hizbul Islam killed two people and arrested dozens of others who defied the ban).  

In the past few days, there has been a flurry of new warnings about the presence of foreign fighters in Somalia. Last week, Kenyan Foreign Minister Moses Wetangula told the AP that fighters from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan  were relocating to Somalia. Then on Saturday, Somali President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed told Reuters that he was worried aobut the growing number of foreign jihadists in his country. 

The presence of foreign fighters in Somalia is old news. The anarchy there makes it a perfect spot to train fighters from other regions. But perhaps the numbers are rising or, more worryingly, the training is done and these fighters are ready to spread the chaos beyond Somalia's borders.

IGAD (the Intergovernmental Authority on Development which includes  Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti) agreed last week to send 2,000 more peacekeepers to Mogadishu. But the 6,000 already there are not making much headway against al Shabaab and its allies so it’s not clear that putting more boots on the ground is really an effective answer.

It seems that until there is a comprehensive strategy (military and political) with a very large budget behind it, the conflict in Somalia will drag on. And it looks like African nations need to step up to the plate and really make this happen. For now, the international cavalry is not coming, and in a way, why should they? Their domestic populations are not at risk. One could try to argue an international financial interest:Uganda and Kenya are finding more favour with international investors seeking good returns in a global downturn that corporate Africa seems to have weathered relatively well. But at the end of the day, bombs in bars won’t keep investors away, especially in the case of Uganda, which is expected to start pumping oil next year.

The next few years are potentially dangerous ones for East Africa. There is the risk of political instability in Kenya with the run-up to the next elections, expected in 2012, and ongoing efforts to bring those responsible for the 2008 violence to justice at the International Criminal Court. Uganda has presidential elections in February next year, with the promise of oil raising the stakes. South Sudan is due to hold a referendum on independence in January next year. And there are rumblings of political discontent in both Rwanda and Burundi. This is a fragile region, with big challenges and an expanding threat from Somali Islamist militias could be the spark that lights the stacked gunpowder kegs.

Reuters recently reported on a massive recruitment drive by al Shabaab in Kismayu in southern Somalia. “They are getting hundreds of volunteers who are joining them because there is no work and they (rebels) pay some money,” resident Ali Yusuf said. There are more stories about this here.

In an opinion piece written for Foreign Policy, Somali Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke makes the case against “constructive disengagement” and in favour of more international financial support. 

If you turn the Somali problem on its head, you could see war as a symptom of poverty, desperation and need, rather than the cause of these things. Tackling the latter might be a more effective way of halting the conflict by robbing the militias of the one thing they need more than anything else – young desperate fighters with nothing to lose.