In what is now known as Somaliland, an event occurred that is not given the justice it desires. In 1988, Siad Barre, the leader of a government rebellion, became President of a nation in chaos. During his reign, Barre forced a foreign tribe, Ogaden, onto Isaaq territories; which then caused the Isaaq to begin to arm themselves in defense and in turn formed “the Somali National Movement” , Barre then armed and will, eventually, “order the Ogaden refugees”(Combat Genocide Association) to kill all Isaaq. Multiple sources label, what should be called a genocide, a 'rebellion' and an 'uprising’; when, clearly, this event should be considered a genocide due to the fact that it meets the criteria to be labeled …show more content…
as one. Due to the nature of how the killings of the Isaaq tribe took place this event should be labeled as a genocide. Yet other foreign nations tend to say the ‘rebellion leader’ Siad Barre, rather than commit genocide, committed a “systematic killing” (Hassan) of the Isaaq tribe. They changed the term from genocide to “systematic killing” and “purposeful murder” because the Somali government did not want to deal with the repercussions that follow the acts of genocide. It can be inferred from the source,‘(Hassan)’, that the purpose of the article was to sway international opinion towards the events that occurred under siad Barre in 1988, as it appears to be written by a native or descendent of Somaliland who was not a part of the Isaaq tribe. By doing so the government most likely desired to remove any connotations between themselves and the large massacres of the Isaaq tribe, as to avoid the blame of the deaths of hundreds of thousands. To further the previous point, not only do the majority of sources support the Somali government rationale for the killings of the Isaaq; but some, such as the source ("Somalian Revolution"), paint Barre to be the protagonist during this should be genocide.
One of the ways that Barre was portrayed in this light was through utilizing the way the Isaaq felt, as they supposedly felt “deprived as a clan ”("Somalian Revolution") which would remove any doubt that they would not be the ones to spark any unrest with them and the new government. Now this wasn’t entirely without basis as there were some cases of “Isaaq outbursts against the central government [which] had occurred sporadically since independence” from the previous democratic government, before Barre had taken over. In response to the ‘violent’ Isaaq’s “The military regime conducted...reprisals against the Isaaq” and in many situations acted in an extremely violent manner, some of these acts include “destruction of water wells and grazing grounds” ("Somalian Revolution") Barre was aiming to cripple the Isaaq tribes, either by killing them off, or forcing them out of the country. There was a great amount instability on both sides as neither had total support from another foreign power. In the case of the Isaaqs, according to the Barre government “the dissidents had been gaining strength”("Somalian Revolution"). This claim makes the Isaaq out to be the enemy and instigator of any and all conflict that would occur …show more content…
within the nation. Due to his position in power, Barre was able to promote propaganda, as well as twist the circumstances surrounding his order killings of hundreds of thousands of innocent Isaaq, in order to preserve outward appearances with neighboring or allied nations. Barre maintained control over the Somali state through the political support of the U.S. who supplied them with weapons, supplies, and political support. The U.S. decided to support the Barre government as it opposed the Communist government of Ethiopia, as well as allowed the U.S. government to utilize “bases..(which) were used for… intervention”(Stephen Zunes) by the U.S in the Middle East. With seemingly endless military resources pouring in from the U.S., in return for being able to use the bases, Barre’s “authoritarian regime” (Stephen Zunes) continued to grow; but at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. As this went on, any concern the U.S. had with the rapid growth of Barre’s power fell away, with bigger problems arising with the start of the Gulf War in 1991. Soon thereafter, the U.S. severed ties between themselves and Somali in an attempt to avoid any political or humanitarian blame for, not only endorsing Barre’s deadly government but, not preventing the slaughtering of the Isaaq tribe. To take it one step further, the U.S. stated that the Somali government was a “sovereign country”, which means the U.S. had no jurisdiction over how “(Somalia) [chose] to spend [U.S. military aid]” (Stephen Zunes), therefore it is Somalia’s own fault for “(hurting their) people, and [destroying] their own economy”(Stephen Zunes). In layman’s terms, no nation involved with the support of Barre’s authoritarian regime, in this case the U.S., wanted to be at fault for not intervening at an earlier time, so any countries involved resolved to putting the blame on Somali in it of itself. When looked at objectively it is easy to see why the events that occurred in Somalia in 1988 should be considered a genocide, Leader Siad Barre clearly targeted one ethnic group and ordered that they be exterminated completely using extreme and violent measure to ensure his word was followed.
Sadly though this ‘rebellion’ is treated not as a genocide due to the powers working within and outside of the Somali government. Somali officials state that the Isaaq tribe is to blame for the action taken upon them due to their violent reactions to the Ogden Tribe, meanwhile foreign nations seemingly ignore the notion to label the event as a genocide due to the amount of blame they themselves would be responsible for. It is and unfair and unjust series of events that occurred towards the Isaaq people and should be rectified immediately and have it classified as a
genocide.