One of the more recent heckling techniques adopted by government apologists of all stripes is to point to the Horn of Africa, usually while chortling, and say, “There! You don’t like government? You want anarchy? Well, what are you waiting for? Move to Somalia!”
Indeed, the mainstream press have painted Somalia with the broad-brush catchphrases “anarchic,” “lawless,” and “chaotic.” This, however, could not be further from the truth.
Since U.S. troops deposed the dominant governmental regime in the early 1990s, Somalia has been a hotbed of would-be, wanna-be, and actual governments all vying for uncontested rule over the populace. At present, the U.N. and U.S.-backed “official” government is capable of controlling only a few blocks of Mogadishu surrounding its immediate headquarters. African Union troops, headed by the ruling elite in Ethiopia, have thus far proven wholly ineffective in stomping various warlord-run militias and hardline Islamic rebels out of existence. To the contrary, such heavily armed bands roam about the countryside, often entirely unopposed, seizing territory while looting, raping, and killing the inhabitants. Even al-Qaida affiliated or sympathetic groups are now increasingly drawing the attention of U.S. special forces military units, determined to bring the “War on Terror” to yet another front.
Meanwhile, the “civilan” Somalis attempt to live and work and trade with some semblance of normalcy, erstwhile under a hail of bullets, missiles, and bombs – both from factions domestic and foreign. The devastation and accompanying squalor on land drives many Somali men to piracy off the coastline, which prompts the U.S. Navy and armed vessels of other nations to step up their presence in the region, escalating the tensions and hostilities even further.
No, there is no “anarchy” in Somalia – not as that word is properly used; to denote an absence of rulers. While there may be many ways in which Somalis under such conditions are not hampered by the institution of taxation, and are thus free to trade what goods and services there are to be made or had on a voluntary, consensual basis, such conditions are not precisely conducive to optimum commerce. With a constant barrage of different warring factions running amok, each competing fiercely to be the one, uncontestable ruling force, there is only an atmosphere of impending statism with no current group of guerilla fighters able to muster enough firepower to snuff or drive away all of the others.
True anarchy – market anarchy – contemplates free and unbeholden individuals dealing with each other as peaceful traders for mutual benefit. If you want to do good business and turn a profit, you don’t go around killing current or potential customers, suppliers, partners and employees. You compete to be the best at providing quality goods and services at reasonable prices – not with threats and violence. Anarchism is, contary to popular belief, strictly a peaceful philosophy. Governments do and can only rest on violence as their ultimate defense. Markets, in and of themselves, don’t and can’t operate that way.
The truth is that there is nothing anarchic about Somalia. It is at present a rat’s nest of governmental (i.e. criminal) muscle-flexing, all ultimately to the ill of the Somalian people, and the world at large. It’s time the world learned this indispensable lesson.
For what it’s worth, my own view is that that there is no “market anarchy” that’s distinct from anarchy properly understood. Anarchy is anarchy. Market anarchism, as I see it, is an important emphasis in anarchist theory that provides better explanations of how and why a stateless society could work.
However, I would suggest that there were a few short years in which something akin to "anarchy" did exist. They were relatively quickly snuffed out by internaitonal statists, but it makes it difficult to use as an example. People think you are talking about "now" if you say SOmalia is an example of anarchy, when in reality it was for about four years between the end of the civil war and the first attempt of the international "community" to impose a new state.
Also, when I was reading up on it, it struck me that Somalia did indeed have a very good, and thousand year long, example of anarchy – well, rather a kratarchy – the traditional polycentric legal system that flourished from the seventh century right up until European colonization – the "Xeer" law.
I think this article misses the point. Of course anarchists want a peaceful society based on nothing but voluntary interactions, but that is irrelevant to the point being brought up by critics who use Somalia as an argument against anarchism. What they are trying to establish is not that Somalia is an anarchy as properly understood by libertarians, but to use Somalia as an example to prove that a society without government CANNOT be peaceful because government is necessary to keep the peace.
Well, that started out okay, but you have the history so badly wrong I've stopped reading. The USA did not overthrow the dominant government in the early 1990s.
Here's what happened, briefly. The USA government began to back the communist dictator Siad Barre in 1978 when he found out that the Soviet Union was backing the Ethiopians in his war to re-claim the Ogaden (and its vast reserves of natural gas). Between 1978 and 1988 they lent or caused the International Monetary Fund to lend, or encouraged others to lend, around $2.6 billion to Barre. He promptly used this money to slaughter tens of thousands of his own people, round up thousands more and put them in torture chambers, and had guys like Dahir Riyale run those torture prisons. The 1988 massacre of about 30,000 civilians in Berbera by Barre's troops was the last straw – most of the foreign aid stopped.
Several independence movements then overthrew Barre in 1991. They forced him into exile early in that year. By April they had given up on forming any new government. The logic of the situation to them was, they had tried Western colonialism (1895 to 1960) and Western-style corrupt democracy (1960-1969) and communist dictatorship (1969-1978) and pro-Western dictatorship (1978-1991) and they didn't like any of it. So they went back to their former style of local, ad hoc, clan based kritarchy. Which, to a large extent, is how most Somalis are governed today.
What happened in 1993 is that one clan leader, Mohammed Farah Aideed, objected vehemently to the UN invasion. Aideed knew that Boutros Boutros Ghali was a former Egyptian diplomat who was close friends with Siad Barre, and suspected that the UN invasion intended to (a) restore Barre to power or (b) install some other puppet government to tax the Somalis to pay off the billions owed by Barre. The Somalis had refused to establish a successor in interest, in part, because they didn't want to assume those debts.
In May of 1993, the UN sent troops to capture a radio station operated by Aideed's clan, the Habr Gidr. Aideed's troops killed the Pakistani troops and eviscerated the bodies.
In June of 1993, the UN ordered and the US military provided, nineteen helicopter gun ships to slaughter 200 members of the Habr Gidr clan having a peaceful clan meeting where they planned to appoint emissaries to sue for peace. Firing TOW missiles and 30 mm cannon into the meeting, the USA military ruthlessly, brutally, deliberately, and knowingly slaughtered dozens of clan elders, essentially preventing the peace movement from taking hold. Other clans found this brutal action to be inconsistent with their interests, and joined the Habr Gidr in seeking the ouster of the evil UN occupation forces. That is the context of "Black Hawk Down" which you'd understand better if you read Mark Bowden's series of reports in the Philadelphia Inquirer – still online and linked from the wikipedia entry on Black Hawk Down among other places.
By 1995, the USA military actually air lifted Aideed to a peace conference in Nairobi. Aideed agreed to form a new national government and be interim president. His clan elders decided that he was exceeding his authority as the clan's war leader and had him killed. His own bodyguard killed him about two weeks later.
Since 1995, there have been dozens of attempts by the UN to force a central government down the throats of the Somalis. I suspect much of the motivation is to force someone to collect taxes and pay off that foreign debt. But the Somalis won't have any of it. They kill the tax collectors and even the census takers when they come around – what is the point of a census but to find things to tax?
There are about 74 identifiable clan groupings in Somalia. These group into about 14 clans and about six great clans. But it is completely wrong to suppose that any of these so-called national governments or transition federal governments are governing all of Somalia. At best they can claim to be mayor of Mogadishu, or of some blocks in Mog, for a time. An exception would be the aforementioned Dahir Riyale who runs the republic of Somaliland, consisting of Samaron and Isaaq clan territories in the north, and having ambition to be the government of the entire territory of the former "crown protectorate" of British Somaliland.
Okay, now that I've straightened out this lunacy about "U.S. troops deposed the dominant governmental regime in the early 1990s" let me go on and see what else you've said.
There are very few actual Somali pirates. Some of the clans have been patrolling their shores for the last few decades. They object to foreign ships dumping their bilge or dumping toxic waste in their waters, and they have also objected to fishing in their territorial waters. A small number of these efforts have turned to demanding fees and ransoms for those in their clan's waters – fees which any other national group is free to charge, of course.
Try moving pharmaceuticals through USA territorial waters and see how fast you are boarded by pirates demanding your cargo, putting you in a cage, and demanding extortionate fees for ransom.
You are certainly correct in surmising that the Somalis don’t have anarchy. They also don’t want it. The vast majority of Somalis are Islamic, Sunni, and they like their religion – though they clearly practice it in their own way. They aren’t Arabs and they aren’t Wahhabis except in a very few instances.
The correct term for their ad hoc clan system of governance is kritarchy. As in “rule of judges.” A picture of how a society was ruled that way for many centuries is found in the books of judges in the Hebrew bible. I’m particularly fond of how Samuel characterised the Israeli decision to have a king. You could look it up.
It would be badly mistaken to equate their system of government with anarchy. If you actually want to know more about how Somalis rule themselves, you might look at “The Law of the Somalis” by my late friend and mentor Michael van Notten.
Or, you know, ask someone who has ever lived there.
I find it unlikely that Denmark has no ability to charge fees, nor inspect the cargo, of any ships in Danish waters. I'm not really sure what the history lesson about Western colonialist brutality toward China in the 18th Century is meant to prove.
I find for example that Denmark has a flag of convenience registry, has had a navy and merchant marine since the 14th Century or earlier, and has squadrons of ships for foreign and domestic affairs. Some Danish military functions include "maritime defence and sovereignty of Danish, Greenlandic and Faroese territorial waters, surveillance, search and rescue, icebreaking and oil spill recovery and prevention. It has provided units for international tasks, such as the environmental recovery vessel Gunnar Seidenfaden for the cleanup after the Prestige oil spill and the ocean patrol vessel Thetis for the protection force programme of WFP chartered ships at the Horn of Africa."
It seems extremely unlikely that Denmark would have any difficulty finding some pretext for interdicting the passage of a ship in its waters, such as claims of use in drug running, e.g., and seizing the vessel. But, of course, being a state, that isn't regarded as piracy.
Planetaryjim wrote “A small number of these efforts have turned to demanding fees and ransoms for those in their clan’s waters – fees which any other national group is free to charge, of course”.
No. For instance, Denmark has been prevented from levying fees on shipping transitting in and out of the Baltic Sea since the 19th century, and Captain Anson’s flotilla refused to pay Chinese harbour fees in the 18th century.
For centuries, the sea lanes between the Danish islands and between them and Jutland were considered Danish waters, and the Danes levied tolls on ships passing through them – particularly on the Great Belt channel. However, in the 19th century the great powers insisted that they were not Danish waters after all but part of the high seas, and that the Danes were forbidden to levy tolls. These days ships can go straight past Copenhagen on that basis, and do. Don’t just tell us that you find it improbable, go and check.
And there was nothing of “Western colonialist brutality toward China in the 18th Century” on Anson’s part at all. That was in an era long before that, when the local fortresses had far more firepower than European ships, and he simply didn’t have anything to threaten with. He simply insisted on the usual courtesy extended to naval vessels in Europe of not being subject to commercial fees, and the Chinese on the spot didn’t want to look bad to their superiors by having a confrontation.
I have demolished your argument that the Danes could not levy any fees nor conduct any inspections in their territorial waters. You have refused to address my comments, which seems like typically zany British stupidity. I guess it’s “fuck everyone” for the Brits, still? You and your thieving government plan to return the Elgin marbles, ever?
The Danes do in fact levy fees, conduct inspections, interdict shipping, and do so both in their territorial waters and in other waters. Your unfamiliarity with the facts doesn’t make your argument true, and you repeating your argument in typically British “everyone else is ignorant” style is nasty. Why don’t you and the Hanoverian usurpation spend some time burning in perdition?
As for the filthy scum pirate Anson, here are some thoughts from wikipedia on the topic.
“Anson’s reappearance in China was greeted with disbelief and alarm by both the Chinese authorities and the European merchants. On his previous visit, the Centurion was clearly in distress but now with the battered Covadonga in tow, it confirmed Chinese fears that he was using their port as a base for piracy or warfare while the Europeans worried that their trading privileges might be revoked and that the loss of the galleon’s cargo would ruin the trade with Manilla.
“On reaching Macau, Anson sent 60 or 70 prisoners ashore before the Chinese stopped him unloading the rest and then made way for Canton, intending this time not to be trifled with by the Chinese. The mandarin in charge of the fort at Bocca Tigris came aboard but was intimidated by the ships heavy guns and instead tried to persuade the hired pilots to misguide the ship through the shoals. On learning of this, Anson threatened to hang one of them if the ship ran aground.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Anson%27s_voyage_around_the_world#Back_in_Canton
His activities appear to me to have everything to do with colonialist brutality toward China, and British imperialist brutality toward everyone else. It seems to me that the world would have become a much better place if John Paul Jones had landed marines in London and slaughtered every fucking Brit in the country. There’s still time to see it turned into a sea of glass.
Rule by warlord is not anarchy or even rule by judges, it is the strong ruling the weak. As the article states, that is not anarchy.
Yes, Michael, that’s why rule by the president of the United States, who has both civilian and military power, is the strong ruling the weak. That is not anarchy, but tyranny. You were thinking of the USA and its warlord, yes? Because that’s all the term means.
I gather because she opens parliament and has an official role with the military’s hierarchy, the Queen of whatever shite the Hanoverian usurpation is calling itself these days, is also a warlord.
war·lord (wôrlôrd)
n.
A military commander exercising civil power in a region, whether in nominal allegiance to the national government or in defiance of it.
http://thefreedictionary.com/warlord
I am very disappointed with the Hanovarians – not because of their power but because they read whatever is put before them – even the Tory claptrap about restricting basic rights. Mrs. Mountbatten is royal in name only. None of my Tudor or Plantagenet ancestors would have cooperated with such bullshit.
I’m all for bringing the troops home and letting them get real jobs, but to do the world must first adopt mutualism or something akin to it. Oddly, multinational corporations can be the agent of this change if only their unions insist on having the ability to control the operation and then behave like success is about profit, not about job protection. Extending worker ownership to overseas subsidiaries will change those markets and lead to civil society as the workers, having had basic needs met, will not longer cooperate with tyranny. When no one cooperates with tyranny, the military can be hollowed out until its not there any more. Demilitarization abroad and mutualism at home are the only way to ending government.
"There are very few actual Somali pirates. Some of the clans have been patrolling their shores for the last few decades. They object to foreign ships dumping their bilge or dumping toxic waste in their waters, and they have also objected to fishing in their territorial waters. A small number of these efforts have turned to demanding fees and ransoms for those in their clan's waters – fees which any other national group is free to charge, of course. Try moving pharmaceuticals through USA territorial waters and see how fast you are boarded by pirates demanding your cargo, putting you in a cage, and demanding extortionate fees for ransom."
Supposed learnedness is useless is if you put it to serve one agenda and ignore reality. You have just excused piracy. Pure equivocation. The fact that pirates violently, forcibly, randomly, arbitrarily, and without any prior notification violate property rights of passing ships should disturb any observer, particularly if they hold anarchist views. The fact that you virtually endorse such behaviour by falsely equivocating it with the behaviour of nation states says much about the views you hold. Views that belong behind a desk, not on the real world where hundreds of people are victim to your "very few actual Somali pirates". Pure equivocation, again.
"but to use Somalia as an example to prove that a society without government CANNOT be peaceful because government is necessary to keep the peace."
My thought exactly. I think this is potentially refutable by the anarchist, though. The ones who recognize that people must value liberty for it to work are consistent; simply trying to dismantle a state against those who support it is doomed to fail. Now, I don't think that the majority of people will ever find anarchy desirable, but from an anarchist's point of view it at least makes sense.
SEC investigated Steve Cohen about insider trading but didn't find anything so far.
Somalia is in what is thought of as anarchy by most citizens. It also illustrates what happens when 'no effective government' is combined with 'lots of groups with weapons'. 'true anarchy', defined as 'free citizens cooperating without a government' is always subject to breaking down the way Somalia has as long as some armed groups are willing to ignore cooperation in favor of bullying.
That is why we need governments which are allowed to have and enforce a monopoly on deadly force!
It is a sad effect of sinful humanity.
. . . Maybe so. In this world hopes sometimes fail and things fall apart. But I notice that Somalia had a government immediately before things "broke down" into civil war, and that the present conditions of the civil war seem to have a lot to do with the concerted actions of several different governments, including at least one directly claiming the right to rule Somalia. So why is Somalia an illustration of the propensity of anarchy to break down into civil war? It seems rather like an illustration of the propensity of government to break down into civil war, since that is, you know, what happened, and what sustains conditions as they are.
You got it all wrong the Xeer is tribal based thing there are no rulings there are no troops its respectful thing. The same sort of system applied in Scotland 6th century. You don't understand Somalian society.
What you fail to understand is the judges are the community of that tribe like jury but a large one where everyone has a say in it depending on how big the family and sub clans are.
No all of Somalia is the same where are you talking about north, east, south??
From where i'm from anarchy has prevailed greatly with the same tribes living in the same area and having religion unite people not by force but by their own will which makes it peaceful. The main problem if you asked me about Las Caanod is there is no tax, therefore there is no development in the city and volunteering aid is rare. There are also no jobs everyone east, sleeps, and shits with free trade and private police. Las Caanod can be quite boring at times as there are nothing new if no one does nothing the city can remain stale for years and you won't even realise it until you look at the calender. Las Caanod has free electricity and telecommunications with internet service that's is really great and what is so funny is its at free will voluntary no told these self-established Somali based companies come to this free city and provide coverage for these people.
Then again this is the north and not the only anarchy city of state in Somalia. The major problem is we need people to go and live in Somalia and see shit for real. If a foreigner can to Las Caanod people would be intrigued as Danish water companies came several times and American to improve the cities water supply network. Especially i would say the district towns is the perfect example of anarchy. Somaliland claims they have control over Sool, Sanag, and Cayn but its lies you could go there now and realise the truth.
^This. This is why the non-porn bits of the internet exist.
sudo kudos