There are questions about civilian deaths in this operation, and it remains to be seen whether this will actually dampen the terrorist strategy in Africa or will catalyse it”. But Menkhaus, who was in Somalia last December and is the author of Somalia: State Collapse and the Threat of Terrorism, disapproves the position of the EU too: “Had Europe provided a more impressive level of commitment and effective diplomacy in Somalia, its criticism of  the U.S. policy would carry more weight. European Union’s policy has been captured by parochial interests. Everyone has failed Somalia. Everyone.”

In Somalia are we facing a clash of civilizations?

Absolutely not, I hate that concept, the whole business of Christianity versus Islam. In the case of Somalia, this is the kind of analysis that serves the interests of the few who want to portray it either as jihad or a clash of civilizations. Everyone knows that it is far more complex and has much more to do with geopolitics than it has to do with religion or civilizations.

In your opinion what are the reasons behind the American intervention?

I need to preface it by saying that we don’t have all the information we need to make an authoritative conclusion about U.S. policy. However, in my opinion what the U.S. did, I mean the air attacks in southern Somalia, was that they seized an unexpected opportunity. I don’t think that this was part of a plan with Ethiopia to flush out foreign al-Qaeda operatives and then hit them with air strikes, for the  simple reason that no one foresaw that the Union of the Islamic Courts (UIC) would dissolve and its remnants forced to flee to Mogadishu south. Everyone expected them to regroup in Mogadishu and fight an asymmetrical urban war there which they could win (or which at least could produce a stalemate). So the unexpected collapse of the UIC, due to its own internal fissures and mistakes, created an unexpected opportunity in which the three foreign al-Qaeda operatives and others that the U.S. has been concerned about were exposed in the open country. The U.S thought they had an opportunity to kick them out. That’s my assessment of why they did what they did. Whether that was a good idea or not, is another matter. I think it was risky for a number of reasons.

What reasons?

It’s risky because it now directly links the U.S. with the Ethiopian intervention. Somalis are going to hold the U.S. directly responsible for the long-term impact of this intervention if it goes badly. There are questions about civilian deaths in this operation, and it is all very confusing to try to verify. It remains to be seen whether this will actually dampen the terrorist strategy in Africa or will catalyse it. Time will tell.

This unilateral American intervention has been strongly criticized by the EU and the United Nations. Are their criticisms valid?

There have been different statements made by the U.N. and certain members of the European Union. I prefer to respond to the individuals. The statements made for example by the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon were very general, expressing concern about the use of force and no one can disagree with an expression of concern. Condemnation of the attacks from certain European countries needs to take into account the fact that the three individuals that the U.S. is pursuing blew up the U.S. embassies in Dar-es-Salam and Nairobi, at an enormous cost of human lives, mainly Kenyan. And they are still on the loose. In a context where there’s no effective sovereign state in Somalia, had Europe provided a more impressive level of commitment and effective diplomacy in Somalia, I think its criticism of the U.S. policy would carry more weight. When you look at the record of European diplomacy in Somalia over the past few years it does not give Europe a lot of moral high ground. It has been inconsistent. European Union policy has been captured by parochial interests. I personally don’t think that any outside power right now has a lot of moral high ground to stand on with regard to anyone’s policy. Everyone has failed Somalia. Everyone.

How did the African Union behave in this situation?

The African Union lacks the resources to conduct this proposed peacekeeping intervention. It runs the risk of lacking neutrality because its policy is seen as taking an approach favourable to Ethiopia, while the Arab League’s approach is seen as favourable to the Courts. So there are problems of neutrality in terms of diplomacy and there are problems of capacity in terms of peacekeeping. We can’t ask the African Union to do more than it can do in Somalia.

Why is Africa becoming so strategically important for the U.S.?

I don’t know if it is that much more strategically important than it was before. There are portions of Africa that are more strategically important either because they pose greater security risks or because of their major oil resources. But most of Africa remains relatively low priority compared to other parts of the world.