Somalia

James Nachtwey's “Inferno”

Pictures from an exhibition -- in hell.

  • more
    • All Share Services

James Nachtwey's

Inferno,” the recently published book by photojournalist James Nachtwey, is big (11 by 15 inches, two-and-a-quarter inches thick), heavy and covered in black cloth, costs $125 and contains 382 large, vivid and extraordinary black-and-white photographs on its 480 pages. And it’s not pretty. Indeed, it’s a guided tour of hell, or at least the past 10 years of hell as it’s been played out in places like Romania, Somalia, India, Sudan, Bosnia, Rwanda, Zaire, Chechnya and Kosovo.

The book opens with this epigraph from Dante’s “Inferno”: “Through me is the way to the sorrowful city. Through me is the way to join the lost people.” And then, following a short, elegant introduction by Luc Sante, off we go, into the Inferno, accompanying Nachtwey on his nightmare mission. It’s heartbreakingly bad stuff and grotesquely exquisite, too. It’s the worst news there is and, needless to say, continues at this moment.

Nachtwey, born in Syracuse, N.Y., in 1948 (he grew up in Massachusetts), is one of the world’s most widely published and abundantly honored photographers. He has received the Robert Capa Gold Medal an unprecedented five times, he’s a contract photographer for Time, where much of his work is first published, and he’s a member of Magnum Photos. “Inferno” is his first book since 1989′s “Deeds of War,” which is now out of print.

On a recent afternoon, we talked for nearly an hour about “Inferno” and his experiences as a documenter and archivist of human catastrophe. Reticent about discussing his own life beyond the basic facts, he’s clearly one of those rare characters who focus singularly on their work with a missionary-like sense of purpose. “I don’t want people to be concerned about me,” he told me. “I want them to be concerned about the people in the pictures.”

First, let’s talk about the book itself, as an object. In your afterword, you say that most of the pictures were originally used in mass publications — newsmagazines, such as Time. Now they’ve been packaged in this very elegant, rarefied form — a large, expensive and lavishly printed coffee-table book. Is presenting these harrowing, photojournalistic images in this way at odds with your original intent of making them as broadly available as possible?

Not at all. The primary function of my photographs is to be in mass-circulation publications — during the time that the events are happening. I want them to become part of people’s daily dialogue and create public awareness, public opinion, that can help bring pressure for change. That’s the first and most important use of my work. A secondary use is to become an archive, entered into our collective memory, so that these events are never forgotten. That’s the purpose of “Inferno.”

It’s meant to immerse the viewer in a reality that’s relentless. We wanted to make the actual dimensions of the book quite large so that it has a physical weight and physical impact. It’s awkward. You can’t really put it anywhere. And you’ve got to reckon with it.

We had quite a discussion about the physical production of the book. We didn’t want to do a small book that was produced cheaply and you could forget it and toss it off. The quality of the printing is a product of the respect we wanted people to have for the subjects in the book.

In looking through these images — they’re really pictures of hell on Earth, many of the worst human catastrophes that have occurred over the last decade or so — I also found myself thinking of the person behind the camera: you. And it occurred to me that, while the photographs are in black and white, you’ve seen these scenes in color. I know it’s odd to ask, given that the people you photograph have been so terribly damaged, but what has it taken out of you?

You’re right, whatever I’ve had to bear is nothing in relation to what the people I photographed have had to bear. What’s happened to me is not important.

Why not?

Because I’m a messenger. I don’t want people to be concerned about me. I want them to be concerned about the people in the pictures. I try to use whatever I know about photography to be of service to the people I’m photographing. I’m trying not to create photographs that viewers will look at and think: “What a good photographer he is,” or “Look what an interesting composition he can make.” I want the first impact, and by far the most powerful impact, to be about an emotional, intellectual and moral reaction to what is happening to these people. I want my presence to be transparent.

How do you manage to keep going back into these horrific situations?

You have to have a sense of purpose.

What’s given you that sense of purpose?

It was, in fact, why I became a photographer in the first place — to do this kind of work, to be a war photographer, to deal with social issues and struggles. I felt it was the most worthwhile thing I could do. For me, it has become a tool of social awareness, not something for the sake of photography itself. And doing it has reconfirmed my initial inspiration.

Have you ever had any resistance from editors who say, “This photograph is too terrible to publish”?

None of the editors I’ve worked with have ever asked me to pull my punches. They’ve never asked me to give them anything other than my own interpretation of events. But it is an issue worth considering: What can people take? How much can they bear? And I think it’s important to give people credit for being able to cope with the truth, cope with reality, deal with it and have some kind of genuine, worthwhile response to it.

I believe it’s a disservice to a readership to condescend, be patronizing and feel that the whole world can’t really take knowing what’s going on. I think people can. I think they want to know. And to go into a situation that is deeply tragic, that’s incredibly painful, and publish an image that is generic and easy to look at sends the wrong signal. It becomes a mere illustration.

If there is something occurring that is so bad that it could be considered a crime against humanity, it has to be transmitted with anguish, with pain, and create an impact in people — upset them, shake them up, wake them out of their everyday routine. People should be aware that something highly unacceptable is taking place, and think about it and talk about it with each other.

You see yourself primarily as a photojournalist, rather than as an artist. You don’t necessarily want people to think, Oh that’s a beautiful composition, when they see your work.

That’s right.

Yet in going through the book, every now and then I’d be startled to find an image beautiful. And then I’d quickly realize I was looking at a nightmare. For example, there’s a photo you took in Rwanda. The first thing I noticed were the big heart-shaped, veined leaves. It’s a nature photo; it could be by Wynn Bullock or Edward Weston or Eliot Porter — that was my first impression. But then I saw a corpse lying face down in the grass under those beautiful big leaves.

I don’t think tragic situations are necessarily devoid of beauty. That’s one of the paradoxes of life, and one of the themes of art and literature. And it’s perhaps a way in which images become accessible to people. I try to record moments of beauty between people. I think that you’ll see, running throughout this book, images where people are reaching out to each other, where they’re caressing each other, or making contact in a tender way — expressing human beauty in the midst of suffering. This is what I think gives “Inferno” its underlying hope. I find it uplifting to see people transcending their own agony to reach out to others, and I see it continuously in these situations.

That reminds me of one picture, which I believe you took in Romania at an orphanage, of a young boy feeding a slightly older boy from a bowl.

Yes, I was in an orphanage in Romania in which the children were being kept in inhuman conditions. Many of them didn’t have clothes; many were confined to the same bed and surrounded by their own filth. There were very few of what I would call “keepers” — I wouldn’t even call them attendants, they were just keepers. Anyway, there were very, very few of them. So the children had to take care of each other. And this particular boy, the younger one, had a terrible physical handicap: His knees locked the reverse way and he had to move with just his arms; he couldn’t use his legs. But he had tremendous energy and charisma, and actually took care of a lot of the children who were in worse condition than he was. He’d feed them and look after them.

I understand you paid your own way to go and do the Romanian project.

That’s right.

How did you hear about it?

There were early press reports after the fall of Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989. Some journalists had gotten in there and begun to report on an AIDS epidemic in orphanages in Romania, caused by injecting children with adult blood. It sounded horrific. And there was an opportunity, shortly after Ceausescu’s fall, to actually go into Romania. There was no government anymore, so therefore there was no accountability for the authorities; the secret police were in hiding. And there was what you might call a moment of openness when, as a journalist, you could go in and explore the legacy of this dictatorship. I was very curious about it — and especially curious about the AIDS epidemic.

I went there, began to travel around and found a kind of gulag of these horrible orphanages throughout the country. These weren’t orphanages for normal children, but for children who had some kind of perceived mental or physical handicap and who were kept in ghastly conditions. I was able to find these places and gain access to them quite easily — much more easily than I would have thought. I think I was discovering something that even most Romanians didn’t know existed.

Later in the book, there’s a picture taken in Somalia of one person using a pot of water to clean another very emaciated individual who’s lying on a tile floor. Tell me about that photograph.

That’s an image of washing the dead. Somalia is an Islamic country. And even in the face of the worst chaos, the total breakdown of society and tremendous hardship and suffering, the ritual of respect for the dead continued to be carried out. The famine victims would be brought to a collection point where a group of volunteers, local people, would wash the dead and then sew them into shrouds and take them to a mass grave.

Was there any resistance or reaction to your photographing this activity?

No. Virtually every picture in “Inferno” was made at close range. I like to work in the same intimate space that the subjects inhabit. I want to give viewers the sense that they’re sharing the same space with a photo’s subject. These pictures would have been impossible to make unless I was accepted by the people I was photographing.

How do you achieve that acceptance?

When I approach people, I do it with respect, with deference; I do it slowly and gently and I think about the way I move, the way I speak and the way I use the camera. I let them know that I respect them and what they’re going through. Also, almost everywhere I go, people understand that I’m going to show the outside world what’s happening to them and give them a voice that they wouldn’t otherwise have. They become a participant in the picture. I could not make these pictures without their acceptance and participation.

There’s a very striking picture you took in Bosnia of a massive column that has toppled, and in the foreground are two men in white working on a man whom I presume is dead. What was happening when you took that photograph?

The toppled column is actually a minaret of a mosque that had been broken by Serbian shelling; it was in a small village outside the town of Breko, which was one of the major points of conflict during the Bosnian war. The dead man is a young soldier from that village, who was brought to a makeshift morgue set up in front of the mosque where, again, because it is an Islamic society, the bodies of the dead are washed before burial.

I stayed in the village for a couple of weeks; I became part of the community to record what was happening to the people. And almost every day the dead would be brought to the mosque, and the townspeople would assemble there and try to identify them and discover their own sons and family members who had been killed in battle. Slowly the population of young men of the town was being wiped out.

Have you ever been injured in the course of your work?

I’ve been injured very slightly a few times. I was extremely lucky in every case. The injury itself could have been much more grave. A couple of times I could actually have been killed. I’ve been very lucky so far.

Have you ever been in a situation where you put down your camera and interceded in what was taking place in front of the lens?

That’s happened several times. But most often, when there’s a soldier wounded, they’re tended to by their own comrades or a combat medic, in which case my getting into it would be superfluous. My job is to record it and communicate it. And I stick to that except in those cases where I’m the only one who can make a difference — if there isn’t someone there to help or there aren’t enough people to carry the wounded to a safe place. Once in Haiti and once in South Africa, I rescued people from lynch mobs, from being beaten to death. I tried to do the same thing in Indonesia but wasn’t able to save him. When it’s clear to me that I’m the one person who can make a difference, I put down my camera.

Some of the most disturbing pictures in the book were taken in Rwanda, during the massacres in 1994. One image looks like it was taken at the church where villagers decided to leave the remains of the massacre victims where they fell, as a memorial. This particular photograph is of a skeleton — or a near skeleton — lying on the ground outside the church, and the white statue of Christ is above the door.

Yes, that’s the church at Nyarabuye near the Tanzania border. At that time it wasn’t yet decided that it would become a monument. The war, in fact, wasn’t over yet. So things like monuments hadn’t been decided upon yet. Since then, I believe, it has become a monument.

What goes on inside of you when you’re dropped off somewhere like that Rwandan church, filled with corpses. You arrive at this place, this hellish scene, and you pull your camera out of your bag and you start photographing. How are you able to function in such circumstances? Most of us would just freeze up in shock or go to pieces.

My job is not to go someplace and fall apart. I would fall to pieces if I was an emergency room doctor, but thankfully there are people who are trained to handle that kind of trauma and handle it well. My training is to channel emotions — my feelings of anger, of anguish, of disbelief, grief and frustration — to overcome them and channel them into my work. If I let those emotions paralyze me, then I shouldn’t go there in the first place because I’d be useless. I go there with a purpose and I have to take those emotions and, with a sense of purpose and discipline, use that emotional content and put it into the pictures.

Some of the pictures look almost biblical, like classical religious art. For instance, there’s one taken in Zaire of what appears to be a mass burial. It’s a mound of bodies, partially covered in dirt, and it looks like Auguste Rodin’s “Gates of Hell” or part of the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel.

It was indeed a mass grave, in Zaire, where people were dying of cholera so fast they had to be bulldozed into the earth. To me it was the gates of hell. Only hell was where those people had just come from.

These were the gates out of hell, rather than into it?

Yes. It’s interesting to me that so many photographs, not only my own but also those of my colleagues, resemble classical or biblical motifs — a mother grieving for a dead child resembles a Piet`; a mass grave resembles Rodin’s “Gates of Hell”; carrying a wounded man resembles the Deposition from the Cross. It’s absurd to think that we go around trying to imitate paintings of the past — that’s preposterous. What’s closer to the truth is that those painters and sculptors from the Renaissance and classical periods were creating their art from life itself. The way a mother grieves for her child is universal. Those studies from life were then put into a biblical or classical context. I believe that we are now witnessing the same thing that the artists of the past witnessed. These are universal symbols of life itself. And I think that by painting them as classical or biblical scenes, they sanctified life itself and what happens to ordinary people on this Earth.

I want to go back to what we were discussing earlier, the idea that things can be both horrible and beautiful, and that beauty is often found in these horrible situations. Given that, what is your take on artists who work that area of intersection but not in a journalistic way. I’m thinking of people, for example, like photographer Joel-Peter Witkin and late British painter Francis Bacon. What is your impression of their work?

I find Joel-Peter Witkin extremely disturbing. But he is not going to those places; he is creating situations in a studio. So it’s different. I had a very hard time accepting his work for quite a while. I don’t think I really understood what he was doing; I was so horrified by the fact that he was actually manipulating cadavers and body parts. I couldn’t quite get over that.

But I now understand that in a way he’s trying to tell us that the gods who we want to believe are so benign might not be. Maybe the gods themselves are depraved; the forces that rule the universe are not benign in the way we like to comfort ourselves by thinking that they are. Perhaps, in fact, they’re depraved and cruel and twisted and tortured themselves. It’s not necessarily my belief, but I think it’s a valid subject for an artist to explore. Given the results of some of the scenes I’ve witnessed, it certainly leaves it open to debate. But Witkin’s not really dealing in other people’s tragedies.

In “Inferno,” there’s a sequence of four photos taken in Chechnya, the first of which is a man’s bloody hand on a plastic shopping bag. Then below it is a picture of two men in fur hats. One is slipping a carton of L&M cigarettes into his coat.

There are several spreads throughout “Inferno” where I tell a story within a story.

Some of them are almost cinematic, like stills from a movie.

Yes, within the larger framework of a situation, I’ll focus on what’s happening to one individual and follow it for several frames. It is a kind of cinematic experience, where you’re seeing this story unfold in a few frames. In that particular sequence, the dead man was returning from some kind of expedition to acquire supplies, and while he was out in the open he was blown away by a Russian mortar shell. He was discovered by a woman who had been his neighbor. As you can see in the second frame, she is upset and being consoled by a group of men who had come along. And then one of the men scavenges the dead man’s carton of cigarettes. And in the final frame, the dead man’s left in the middle of the pathway; his hat’s gone, his bag is gone and he’s been left and forgotten.

And you just happened to be there?

Yes. It was as if they didn’t even see me. Although I was standing right next to them, they just ignored me.

In the Zaire pictures taken during the cholera epidemic, there are several images of big tractors scooping up bodies for mass burial, with masked relief workers standing nearby. You’ve now seen so many of these situations with the United Nations or Red Cross, or whoever it is, coming in and trying to manage or clean up after these catastrophes. What is the mental and emotional condition of these people, the relief workers?

The mass burials in Goma, Zaire, were being carried out by the French military. I suppose they were under orders and did what they were told to do by their commanders. Those images underline the biblical scale on which the deaths were taking place. As for the relief workers, I believe they are motivated by a sense of purpose. They understand they’ve got a job to do. They understand the value of that job. And they’re very focused on doing it.

One of the most surprisingly powerful pictures in the book — because it’s so apparently benign and banal — is of a man’s loafer, a shoe, sitting in weeds, filled with water.

That was in Kosovo. It is a very personal image, very instinctual and intuitive. It’s a relationship between myself and what I was experiencing. Somehow that man’s shoe, full of water — and you can see leaves reflected in the water — spoke to me as an emblem of the destruction of everyday life as we know it. It’s a perfectly good loafer. And it was once worn by a living man, and now there’s just a pool of water because the man’s been blown away. I thought it to be eerie and emblematic.

Then there’s a double-page spread in the section on Rwanda. It’s just a vast pile of machetes. Especially given what we know now, it’s a very chilling photograph.

The pile of machetes was such a spectacular thing to see — thousands of them. And they were the weapons with which the genocide in Rwanda was carried out. Hundreds of thousands of people were murdered at close range with these primitive weapons, by hand. It was a lot of work and it required a great deal of determination and organization. It is something beyond my understanding. I saw the evidence of it, I know it happened and yet, to this day, I don’t understand how it could have been done. And that picture of the machetes, I think, sends a chill through you because it does indicate how massive was the genocide and with what instruments it was performed.

Is there anything further you want to say about your work?

Yes, there is one thing that is important for people to understand — that’s perhaps a misconception about how the press works in these situations — and that is, especially in the case of famines, when we’re photographing victims of starvation, we’re not just walking away from them and leaving them there without food or help. We’re photographing the famine victims in feeding camps and feeding centers that have already been established by humanitarian organizations. They are already being helped as much as they can be helped at that time.

If there has ever been a time when I’ve discovered someone during a famine who was not at a feeding center, who couldn’t reach it or couldn’t find it, I would take them myself. And I think any journalist would.

Douglas Cruickshank is a senior writer for Salon. For more articles by Cruickshank, visit his archive.

Can a photograph still change the world?

NYT editor explains why the paper ran an unforgettable photo. But will it effect change?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Can a photograph still change the world?

Readers of the New York Times this morning, whether in print or online, were perhaps shocked by the searing image of an emaciated Somali child, whose skin was wrapped so tightly around his body that the contours of a skeleton were clearly visible.

The accompanying story, written by Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman, detailed a group of Somali insurgents accused both of blocking Western aid to the country, resulting in a severe famine, and of imprisoning refugees trying to flee to safety. Half a million Somali children are “on the verge of starvation,” Gettleman reports. The photo itself — by Times photographer Tyler Hicks and spread large across four columns on Page One — was taken in Banadir Hospital, which Gettleman described as such:

Every morning, emaciated parents with emaciated children stagger into Banadir Hospital, a shell of a building with floors that stink of diesel fuel because that is all the nurses have to fight off the flies. Babies are dying because of the lack of equipment and medicine. Some get hooked up to adult-size intravenous drips — pediatric versions are hard to find — and their compromised bodies cannot handle the volume of fluid.

The image has generated its fair share of buzz today. And it raises some interesting questions about the enduring role (and value) of still photographs in the modern-media landscape:

Why did the Times run that photo?

The graphic quality of Hicks’ photo certainly matches the stark portrait painted by Gettleman’s reporting. And executive editor Bill Keller told Salon that the choice to feature the image so prominently was uncontroversial in the Times newsroom: “We’d already decided to front Jeffrey’s powerful story, and it would have felt like journalistic malfeasance not to include Tyler’s powerful photography,” he said. “I know many readers found the picture disturbing. That’s good. The deaths of thousands of Somali children ought to disturb us, at least.”

Keller argued that the use of graphic photography does not equate to sensationalism: “We prize photographs that deserve and demand attention. Sometimes they do it with unusual composition, sometimes with wit or incongruity, and sometimes they do it by looking at death, hunger, disease or other misery close up.”

The United Nations declared a famine in Somalia two weeks ago, but the story has largely been overshadowed here by the debt-ceiling debacle, the Norway massacre and allegations of phone hacking at a Rupert Murdoch tabloid. (The Atlantic Wire notes the disparities in coverage of all these stories in convenient graph form.) According to another Times story, which ran Monday, humanitarian groups have struggled to raise money for aid, in part because of the famine’s limited media profile.

“I’m asking myself where is everybody and how loud do I have to yell and from what mountaintop,” said Caryl Stern, chief executive of the United States Fund for Unicef, a fund raising arm for the organization. “The overwhelming problem is that the American public is not seeing and feeling the urgency of this crisis.”

But is the photograph enough to change anything?

Some of modern history’s most significant moments are writ large through iconic photographs. Try, for example, to imagine the Vietnam War without the self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc, or without the horrific reality shown through “Murder of a Vietcong by Saigon Police Chief.” And photography has often brought new awareness to under-covered tragedies, as it does now for Somalia.

But one question that lingers over the Hicks photograph — along with many others in a post-9/11, post-Abu Ghraib world — is how much punch a singular image still packs. It’s remarkably simple to avoid unpleasant images in the modern media landscape. You can imagine the number of people who simply gloss over stories showing servicemen and -women in fatigues, because of wariness toward depressing combat stories. And the media often operates in lockstep. As Al Jazeera veteran Paige Austin noted this week [via HuffPost]: 

It is well documented that when it comes to war and tragedy abroad, the American media’s tendency is to sanitize violence, showing none of the outrage and carnage evident in media accounts outside the United States.

Perhaps the attention generated by the Hicks photograph — an arresting image that’s hard to avoid if you’ve been anywhere near the Times today — will help generate more attention for the atrocities in Somalia. It’s certainly boosted awareness of the famine. But maybe we’re attaching too much significance to a photograph on its own. More important is that people understand the story behind the picture, argues Susie Linfield, NYU professor and author of “The Cruel Radiance: Photography and Political Violence.” 

“One of the problems with an image is that it can’t explain [context]. You can see a child starving, but you need the words to explain who is the culprit,” which, in this case, was Somali militants. “[The Times piece] was a very effective combination of image and text.”

The fate of the child from the photo is unclear. “[Gettleman and Hicks] said they were operating under tight constraints and weren’t able to follow up on the extreme cases like the child in the photo,” according to Keller. “They think the prognosis was not good.” 

Continue Reading Close

The secret war in Somalia

Who the U.S. is fighting in the Horn of Africa, and why

  • more
    • All Share Services

The secret war in SomaliaA car burns outside Hotel Madina during a protest in support of Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, in the streets of Somalia's capital Mogadishu, June 10, 2011. Two boys were shot dead in Somalia's capital Mogadishu on Friday during a second day of protests against a deal to extend the mandates of the country's president and parliament, residents said. REUTERS/Feisal Omar (SOMALIA - Tags: CIVIL UNREST POLITICS)(Credit: © Feisal Omar / Reuters)

Writing in the Nation this week, Jeremy Scahill revealed that the CIA is running “a counterterrorism training program for Somali intelligence agents and operatives” at Mogadishu’s airport and also using a secret prison in the beleaguered Horn of Africa nation.

The revelations come just two weeks after media reports — sourced to unnamed American officials — of a U.S. drone attack in Somalia on members of the Islamic militant group Shabaab, which was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department in 2008.

The Washington Post noted that Somalia is now the sixth country — joining Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen — where the Obama administration has launched drone attacks.

For context on the secret war in Somalia, I spoke to Daveed Gartenstein-Ross of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. A regular lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School, he studies Shabaab and recently wrote about the strategic implications of the historic drought that is devastating communities across the Horn of Africa.

What is the current government of Somalia and where did it come from?

The government of Somalia is called the TFG, the Transitional Federal Government. They’re a group that, when you go back to 2006 when the opposition Islamic Courts Union was the dominant force within the country, was hunkered down in Baidoa, a city in south-central Somalia. They were surrounded by Islamic Courts Union forces who were threatening to wipe them out, and were protected by a fairly small contingent of Ethiopian forces.

After the country was invaded by Ethiopia with the purpose of pushing back the Islamic Courts Union, the TFG was able to control territory — albeit briefly — in Mogadishu and throughout Somalia with Ethiopian support. But today, they only control a small amount of territory in Mogadishu itself. The TFG is now led by Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, a former leader in the Islamic Courts. Certain outside powers who are supporting the Somali government pressured them to broaden the representatives in the TFG to include a number of Islamists (of which Sharif is one) with the goal of fostering reconciliation in the country.

Who is it that the CIA is training in Somalia?

There are two different factions that we’re training. One of them is AMISOM, the African Union Mission in Somalia. Uganda and Burundi are the two countries that provide forces to AMISOM, which helps to explain why Shabaab carried out terrorist strikes in Uganda last year during the World Cup, and why it’s threatening to do so in Burundi. They are basically peacekeeping forces, though there is no peace to keep. In the past few months, AMISOM forces have actually made a great deal of territorial gains, though I question whether those gains are sustainable. You see that in Jeremy Scahill’s recent report on Somalia, where he claims the Somali government is believed to hold about 30 square miles of territory in the Mogadishu area.

Thirty square miles doesn’t sound like very much. How much power does the government really have?

Not very much. But, in fact, 30 square miles is significantly more than they controlled six to eight months ago. At that time most people would say they only controlled a few city blocks. Somalia has the weakest government in the world; it is the most failed state. Hands down. Period.

Who controls the rest of the country?

That differs from area to area. In the north of the country there are two autonomous regions that are governed far better than southern Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland. When you move to southern Somalia, there are several factions that control territory. But the faction that’s of biggest concern, and I would say the dominant faction, is al-Shabaab. To understand them, let’s take a brief look at Somali history.

Somalia is about 100 percent Muslim, but it was previously welcoming to other forms of practice and the predominant practice of Islam was a peaceful form of Sufism. You first started to get Islamist movements in Somalia — those that wanted the state to impose religious ideals on people — in the 1960s and ’70s. That’s when Somalis started to travel and study abroad and were exposed to Saudi Arabian Wahhabism, and to a lesser extent to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Around 1983 a group called Al-Ittihad al-Islamiya was founded in Somalia, a precursor to both the Islamic Courts Union and Shabaab. It opposed the then-ruling regime, and when that government collapsed in the early 1990s, Al-Ittihad tried to take control of parts of the country. Mostly those attempts didn’t hold very long, but they did in the town of Luuq on the border of Ethiopia. One of the things this group — and others — believes is that Somalia has a right to territory beyond the colonial borders, including to areas in Ethiopia that have a Somali-speaking majority. Now, Al-Ittihad started to carry out strikes into Ethiopia and in response the Ethiopians went into Luuq and smashed Al-Ittihad. This helps explain why the Ethiopians saw the Islamic Courts, which were the next major Islamist group to arise after Al-Ittihad, as a threat.

And what is the Islamic Courts?

They were originally a confederation literally of courts. They provided an adjudication mechanism and some stability in anarchic areas of the country. They believed in implementation of a strict version of Sharia law. They shot and killed people for watching the World Cup, people were arrested for watching movies, music was banned at weddings, and so on. Of concern to U.S. policymakers is that there were connections at a leadership level between the Islamic Courts and al-Qaida. Shabaab was originally regarded as being the youth wing of the Islamic Courts; al-Shabaab literally means “the youth” in Arabic.

Ethiopia had its own reasons for seeing the Islamic Courts’ rise as a threat: They thought that, like Al-Ittihad before it, the Islamic Courts’ control would lead to attacks on Ethiopia. So Ethiopia first protected the Somali transitional government; then in December of 2006, when it looked like the Islamic Courts were about to overrun Baidoa, where the transitional government was holed up, Ethiopia intervened. They invaded the country.

What was the U.S. role in that invasion?

There are two different views. One is that the U.S. actually encouraged Ethiopia to invade, planned the invasion with them, and assisted from the very outset. The second view is that the U.S. was surprised, but that once it saw that Ethiopia was invading, it decided to jump in and help out. What is clear is that by January 2007 you had U.S. special forces on the ground, and the U.S. was providing air support. Since then there has been much more U.S. presence on the ground in Somalia than has been reported and much more than most people realize.

Why have both the Bush and Obama administrations seen getting involved in Somalia militarily as in the U.S. interest?

If you look back to 2006, there clearly was some connection between the Islamic Courts and al-Qaida at leadership levels. There’s a legitimate debate about how strong those connections were. But moving forward to where we are now with Shabaab, the group is clearly connected at its top levels to al-Qaida. There have been multiple statements coming out of Shabaab’s leadership that they align themselves with al-Qaida. One Shabaab leader, Omar Hammami, issued a manifesto a few years ago explaining the split between Shabaab and the other insurgent factions. He said that part of the reason was that the other factions were committed to the colonial borders, but in contrast Shabaab was dedicated to reestablishing the caliphate, which is one of al-Qaida’s goals. Other leaders have come out and pledged their allegiance to bin Laden or al-Qaida more generally. So this is why the U.S. sees what’s going on Somalia as of concern to the U.S. national interest. Couple that, of course, with the experience of Afghanistan pre-9/11 where a safe haven in another part of the world ended up allowing terrorist strikes to occur here.

So even though Shabaab has never actually attacked the U.S. — correct me if I’m wrong on that — it’s seen as a possibility?

Absolutely. The only attacks they’ve carried out outside of their own territory were the World Cup bombings in Uganda last year. But we’ve seen other examples of groups that haven’t struck the U.S. and then suddenly they do. 

Continue Reading Close
Justin Elliott

Justin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica. You can follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin

British targets found near body of al-Qaida leader

Mastermind of 1998 U.S. embassy bombings considered attacking London's Ritz Hotel and elite private school Eton

  • more
    • All Share Services

British targets found near body of al-Qaida leaderEDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT - This photo taken Wednesday, June 8, 2011 shows Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, left, and another unidentified man lying dead in Mogadishu, Somalia. A Somali official says the al-Qaida operative behind the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania has been killed. The spokesman for Somalia's minister of information, Abdifatah Abdinur, said Saturday June 11, 2011 that officials have concluded that a man security forces killed late Tuesday was Fazul Abdullah Mohammed. Fazul had a $5 million bounty on his head for allegedly planning the 1998 embassy bombings. (AP Photo/Farah Abdi Warsameh)(Credit: AP)

The Ritz Hotel in London and the elite private school Eton were among a handful of possible British terror targets that a senior al-Qaida leader was considering before he was killed in Somalia last week, a British security official said Thursday.

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 people, was killed when he failed to stop at a routine checkpoint outside of Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has called the 38-year-old’s death a “significant blow to al-Qaida, its extremist allies, and its operations in East Africa.”

British officials have said they see al-Qaida affiliates in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula as being a significant threat to British interests.

“He was a fairly big player, but there is nothing to suggest that any reconnaissance had been done or that any of the attacks were imminent,” a British security official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity in order to discuss intelligence matters.

It was not exactly clear how officials found the information on the British targets. There was no immediate evidence to suggest that Mohammed was working with British contacts or that he even understood where some of the intended targets were.

Eton College, Britain’s most elite private school where Prime Minister David Cameron and other politicians have been educated, is an hour outside of London.

Officials would not disclose details of the plots or other British targets, but said “now that he has been taken out, there’s even less risk.”

British intelligence officials have said dozens of youths have traveled to Somalia in recent years to attend terror training camps. Few have returned.

In 2009, a 17-year-old suicide bomber from the London suburb of Ealing blew himself up in a car bomb attack at a hotel in central Somalia, killing more than 20 people. Two Somali asylum-seekers were also among four men convicted of the failed attempts to bomb the London transport system on July 21, 2005 — just two weeks after four suicide bombers killed 52 commuters during morning rush-hour attacks in London on July 7.

Mohammed, a native of the Comoros Islands, is also believed to have played a key role in the 2002 attack on the Paradise Hotel in Mombasa that killed 13 people, and the failed missile strike on an Israeli charter flight on the same day.

He had been on the run for more than a decade.

Continue Reading Close

1998 U.S. Embassy bomber reportedly killed

Somali government says the man responsible for two deadly bombings was shot to death at a police checkpoint

  • more
    • All Share Services

1998 U.S. Embassy bomber reportedly killedAU peacekeepers take cover behind sandbags, right, as AU tank standby during clashes with Islamist insurgents in southern Mogadishu's Bakara market neighborhood on Friday, May 27, 2011. The U.N. Security Council is warning Somali leaders that they risk losing financial support if they can't agree on how to carry out upcoming elections. Somalia's government depends on international support for almost everything, including the salaries of soldiers and lawmakers. Around 9,000 African Union troops are stationed in Mogadishu to prevent the government from being overrun by militants. (AP Photo/Farah Abdi Warsameh)(Credit: AP)

The al-Qaida operative behind the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania has been killed, a Somali official said Saturday.

Somali officials have determined that a man killed by security forces on Tuesday was Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, said a spokesman for Somalia’s minister of information, Abdifatah Abdinur.

“We’ve compared the pictures of the body to his old pictures,” he said. “They are the same. It is confirmed. He is the man and he is dead. The man who died is Fazul Abdullah.”

Abdinur said the government is planning to issue a statement confirming Mohamed’s death.

Mohamed had a $5 million bounty on his head for allegedly planning the Aug. 7, 1998 embassy bombings. The blasts killed 224 people in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania combined. Most of the dead were Kenyans. Twelve Americans also died.

Members of Somalia’s most dangerous militant group, al-Shabab, have pledged allegiance to al-Qaida. Al-Shabab’s members include veterans of the Iraq and Pakistan conflicts.

Hundreds of foreign fighters are swelling the ranks of al-Shabab militants who are trying in vain to topple the country’s weak U.N.-backed government.

Somalia has been mired in violence since 1991, when the last central government collapsed.

Continue Reading Close

Pirate threatens India after capture of 61 pirates

Indian captured dozens of Somali hijackers after they abandoned vessel under fire on Monday

  • more
    • All Share Services

Pirate threatens India after capture of 61 piratesIn this photo released by the Government of India Press Information Bureau, Indian naval officers distribute food to the captured pirates aboard an Indian naval ship in the Arabian Sea, off the coast of Kochi, India, Sunday, March 13, 2011. The navy captured 61 pirates from a hijacked boat after a brief gunfight in the Arabian Sea, the military said Monday, March 14, 2011. (AP Photo/ Press Information Bureau) EDITORIAL USE ONLY(Credit: AP)

Five dozen pirates living on a hijacked ship serving as a roving pirate base jumped into the Arabian Sea on Monday after the Indian navy fired on the vessel in self-defense, the navy said Monday.

The navy captured 61 pirates fleeing the battle and the fire that broke out aboard the hijacked vessel. The battle is the latest example of the piracy trade’s turn toward increased violence.

A pirate in Somalia threatened Indian sailors and the government with targeted attacks in retaliation for the arrests.

The Indian navy said a patrol aircraft spotted the mothership Friday while responding to another vessel reporting a pirate attack. The pirates aborted the hijacking attempt and tried to escape on the mothership.

When the Indian ships closed in Sunday night, the pirates fired on them. The hijacked vessel caught fire when the Indian navy returned fire, the navy said.

The pirates had hijacked the Mozambique-flagged Vega 5 in December and had used it as a mothership. Indian sailors rescued 13 crew members from the Vega 5 Sunday night about 700 miles (1,100 kilometers) off Kochi in southern India, the statement said.

The pirates were carrying about 80 to 90 small arms or rifles and a few heavier weapons, likely rocket-propelled grenades, it said. The statement did not describe any casualties among the navy, the fishermen or the pirates in Sunday’s clash.

The pirates were being taken to Mumbai, India’s financial capital, to be prosecuted for attacking the Indian ships.

Piracy has plagued the shipping industry off East Africa for years, but violence and ransom demands have escalated in recent months. Pirates held some 30 ships and more than 660 hostages as of February.

A self-described pirate in Somalia who gave his name as Bile Hussein said the arrests will lead to “trouble” for Indian sailors and ships.

“They better release them, considering their people traveling in the waters, or we shall jail their people like that,” he said. “We are first sending a message to the Indian government of releasing our friends in their hands or else they have to be ready for their citizens to be mistreated in the near future.”

The Indian navy’s third anti-piracy operation this year followed the capture of 28 Somali pirates last month and another 15 in January. Both groups are to be prosecuted in Mumbai.

Indian warships have been escorting merchant ships as part of international anti-piracy surveillance in the area since 2008.

Several nations, including the United States, are prosecuting pirate suspects captured by their militaries. But other suspects have been released as countries weigh legal issues and other factors.

The prosecutions, the growth of criminal gangs participating in piracy and the ever-increasing ransoms have heightened confrontations.

Five Puntland security forces and two pirates were killed earlier this month during a failed attempt to rescue Danish captives taken from their hijacked yacht to a pirate stronghold in the semiautonomous northern region of Somalia.

Weeks earlier, four Americans on a hijacked yacht were killed by pirates under circumstances that are still unclear. Four U.S. Navy vessels were shadowing the captured boat at the time, and 15 pirate suspects were taken into custody after the gunfire.

The owner of a Bangladeshi-flagged ship that was held for more than three months said that the vessel and 26 crew members were released Monday.

Mehrul Kabir declined to say whether any ransom was paid for the release of the M.V. Jahan Moni, which was seized off the Indian coast while transporting nickel ore from Indonesia to Greece, but the media in Bangladesh reported the pirates were paid $4.2 million.

“All the crew members on board are safe,” Kabir told reporters in Dhaka.

Ashok Sharma reported from New Delhi, India.

Continue Reading Close

Page 1 of 5 in Somalia