Will Al-Shabaab Negotiate with the Federal Government?

In his 2024 Oslo Forum speech, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud of Somalia highlighted the government's struggle with international terrorism and recent military successes. He underscored the commitment to peaceful means, including political engagements and amnesty for those renouncing extremism. During a debate in Oslo, he reiterated his readiness for dialogue with al-Shabaab, emphasizing that "peace cannot be achieved by force; it can only be achieved by understanding." His stance reflects a commitment to exploring alternatives beyond military strategies to address the security challenges posed by al-Shabaab.

After two years of fighting al-Shabaab, it seems President Mohamud is back to square one, confronting the same formidable challenges that have plagued his administration and the country.

Criticisms of Negotiation

The idea of negotiating with al-Shabaab has sparked significant debate and criticism. Key criticisms include:

1. Legitimizing Terrorism: Critics argue that negotiating with al-Shabaab could inadvertently legitimize the group's violent tactics and extremist ideology. Engaging in dialogue may be seen as recognizing al-Shabaab as a legitimate political entity, undermining international efforts to combat terrorism. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger noted, "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose," reflecting the asymmetrical nature of such conflicts.
2. Undermining Security Efforts: Opponents believe that negotiations could weaken the resolve of Somali and international security forces fighting al-Shabaab. There is concern that talks might lead to a reduction in military pressure on the group, allowing them to regroup and strengthen their operations. Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's quote, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last," underscores the fear that negotiating with extremists can embolden them, leading to greater instability.
3. Risk of Incomplete Peace: Negotiations with extremist groups often risk achieving only partial or temporary peace. Al-Shabaab's deeply entrenched ideology and transnational jihadist connections make it unlikely they will fully renounce violence and integrate into a peaceful political process. This could lead to peace agreements being violated, resulting in renewed violence.
4. Moral Hazard: Engaging in negotiations with al-Shabaab might set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that violent insurgency is an effective strategy to gain political concessions. This could inspire other extremist groups in the region to adopt similar tactics, leading to increased instability. Former U.S. President John F. Kennedy stated, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate," highlighting the delicate balance between negotiating and maintaining a strong stance against terrorism.
5. Non-Recognition of the Constitution: Al-Shabaab does not recognize the country's constitution, which is the law of the land. This fundamental rejection of Somalia’s legal and political framework poses a significant barrier to meaningful negotiation. It is unlikely that al-Shabaab would agree to terms aligning with constitutional and democratic principles upheld by the Federal Government, undermining the rule of law and efforts to establish a stable society.

Comparing Al-Shabaab and the Taliban

Understanding the unique challenges of negotiating with al-Shabaab involves comparing them with the Taliban:

• Origins and Goals: The Taliban originated in Afghanistan with the goal of establishing an Islamic Emirate under their strict interpretation of Sharia law. Al-Shabaab also aims to establish an Islamic state in Somalia but has a more transnational agenda, with strong ties to al-Qaeda and ambitions extending beyond Somali borders.
• Territorial Control: The Taliban have historically controlled significant territories in Afghanistan, establishing quasi-governmental administrative structures. Al-Shabaab, although controlling some regions in Somalia, operates more as an insurgent group with less stable territorial control.
• International Reach: Al-Shabaab has a broader transnational jihadist agenda compared to the Taliban. Their operations have included attacks in neighboring countries like Kenya, indicating a wider operational scope and more global jihadist outlook.
• Severity and Tactics: Both groups are notorious for their brutal tactics, but al-Shabaab has been particularly ruthless in targeting civilians. Their attacks on public spaces, schools, and markets demonstrate a level of brutality that often exceeds that of the Taliban. Incidents like the 2013 Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, the 2015 Garissa University attack in Kenya, and the 2017 Soobe 1 incident in Mogadishu underscore al-Shabaab's willingness to inflict mass casualties on civilians.

Will Al-Shabaab Negotiate?

While President Mohamud has expressed willingness for dialogue, al-Shabaab's response remains uncertain. Their main goals and ideology include:

• Overthrowing the Central Government: Al-Shabaab seeks to destabilize the Somali Federal Government and replace it with its own rule.
• Expelling Foreign Forces: The group aims to remove foreign military forces from Somalia.
• Establishing an Islamic State: Al-Shabaab’s ultimate goal is to create an Islamic state governed by its interpretation of Sharia law.
• Transnational Jihadist Agenda: With ties to al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab aims to extend its influence beyond Somalia and support global jihadist movements.

Given these goals, it is unclear whether al-Shabaab would genuinely engage in a negotiation process that might require them to abandon their core objectives. Historically, the group has shown little inclination to compromise or seek peaceful solutions, making them a particularly challenging entity for peaceful negotiations.

Conclusion

President Mohamud’s initiative for dialogue reflects a commendable commitment to peace but is fraught with complexities and risks. The international community and Somali citizens remain divided on the merits and potential outcomes of such negotiations. The critical question is whether al-Shabaab will negotiate in good faith or exploit the talks to further its agenda. Lasting peace in Somalia likely requires a multifaceted approach, including dialogue and decisive security measures. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far," highlighting the need for balance in peace efforts.

Sources:

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, keynote speech at the 2024 Oslo Forum.

"Somalia: Deadly Bombing Strikes Mogadishu," The New York Times, October 15, 2017. Available at: The New York Times

"Al-Shabaab Attack on Garissa University in Kenya," START Background Report, April 2015. Available at: START

Author: Said Noor