US President Donald Trump loves signing executive orders. During his first year in office, he has signed dozens of controversial orders on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from national security to trade.

Some of these executive orders, such as the ones on the Muslim travel ban and the Mexican border wall, received a lot of media attention and triggered protests around the world. But many other decisions by the president, causing death and destruction in faraway places like Somalia, went considerably unnoticed.

Only weeks after taking office, Trump signed a directive declaring parts of Somalia an “area of active hostilities”. This declaration relaxed some of the rules aimed at preventing civilian casualties when the US military carries out counterterrorism strikes in Somalia.

The Pentagon claimed that this order expanded its targeting authority “to defeat al-Shabab in Somalia” in partnership with the African Union and Somali forces. But, in practice, what this order did was little more than allow US soldiers to “kill at will” and with impunity within the borders of Somalia.

This is illegal, immoral and counterproductive.

An illegal order
The US aerial bombardment of Somalia started during George Bush’s “war on terror”, but the number of civilian casualties was minimal back then. Since the current US president “relaxed” the rules of engagement, the number and scope of these attacks increased dramatically, leading to many civilian casualties.

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there were 32 to 36 reported US drone strikes in Somalia between 2001 and 2016. In 2017, 34 air and drone strikes were carried out, killing more than 200 people.

Al-Shabab, an al-Qaeda-linked militant group, is the official target of most US drone strikes in Somalia. Its ultimate objective is to overthrow the government in Mogadishu and establish a new state in its place. Several African nations have been battling the armed group for over a decade, but Western nations, including the US, are now overtly leading the fight.

In the process, Washington appears to be relying on backdoor dealings and violating the sovereignty of an independent nation. It is not clear who authorises the air and drone strikes the US is conducting.

Somalia is not the “failed state” it once was – it is no longer a playground for uninvited foreigners. Today, there’s an internationally recognised administration in Mogadishu with functioning judicial, legislative and executive branches, and this administration, not Donald Trump, should be the one “authorising” the measures that can be used in the fight against al-Shabab in the country.

Somalia’s constitution clearly states that the country’s sovereignty is inviolable. Its legislative and executive branches are responsible for the security of the nation and only they can decide on military action. Without their approval, attacks are in violation of the nation’s sovereignty and are therefore illegal.

Immoral attacks on innocent civilians
The US cites its national interests and security as a pretext to conduct attacks on alleged al-Shabab bases in Somalia. No one is denying some of those killed as result of these strikes are indeed al-Shabab fighters, but the vast majority of the victims are civilians.

We know this because al-Shabab usually confirms the deaths of its senior commanders and fighters. We have witnessed this when Sheikh Ali Jabal, a senior al-Shabab commander in Somalia, was killed in a US strike in August last year. “The cowardly American enemy planes tried to strike him,” the group said in a statement circulated on social media. “The first missed him and the second hit, making him a martyr.”

Al-Shabab leaders do not try to hide the deaths of the group’s commanders and members, because they know that this would be a hard and futile task. Information about these deaths can easily surface through the clans and communities their fighters hail from.

So, when we see statements by US forces declaring that they killed dozens of “terrorists” in Somalia and hear no confirmation from al-Shabab leadership about these deaths, we question the validity of US claims about the identities of the victims.

Most civilian deaths do not get global attention because the attacks take place in al-Shabab-controlled areas. This makes it impossible for journalists and international human rights groups to investigate.

Sometimes local media publish photos and names of the civilian victims of US attacks. But even this depends on the victim’s clan. If a victim belongs to a minority clan that holds no political power, the government will easily dismiss them as “terrorist sympathisers”.

On August 17, 2017, the US launched three precision air strikes in the southern town of Jilib. US Africa Command released a statement claiming to have “killed terrorists”. However, the victims, seven of them, were civilians from the same family. Photos of their bodies and the remnants of their house were widely published in Somali media. But the victims belonged to a minority clan that has no power and influence in Somalia, and their relatives’ desperate plea for justice perished soon after they buried their loved ones.

A few days later, another US-led military raid took place in Bariire village, 45km from Mogadishu, killing 10 people, including children. Again, the Somali government and the US claimed that they only “killed terrorists”. This time, however, the victims hailed from an influential clan. Survivors and relatives challenged the false official claims about the attack.

To prove their case, family members took an unprecedented step and transported the victims’ bodies to the capital city to put them on display. Due to the pressure, government officials met relevant clan elders, apologised and agreed to pay compensation.

Despite the solid evidence and a confirmation from the Somali government, the US administration still insists that victims of this attack were not civilians. By denying facts, the Trump administration is damaging US reputation as a nation that respects human rights and the rule of law.

A counterproductive campaign
The US military campaign in Somalia will not yield any results.

Bombs dropped from the sky will certainly take out a few al-Shabab commanders; two of their former leaders were already killed by the US. They may also force their operatives into hiding or restrict their movements. But killing a few commanders and fighters isn’t going to bring the demise of the group.

After all, al-Shabab’s success is not based on individuals – it’s based on an ideology and you cannot defeat an ideology with bombs.

Somalis won’t be outraged over the fight against al-Shabab and the killing of the group’s fighters. People in the country understand these men have signed up to kill or be killed.

But the indiscriminate killings of civilians is antagonising Somalis. This gives legitimacy to the militant group as a resistance movement, especially within communities living under its rule. Every innocent person killed by the US is a gain for al-Shabab. Victims’ family members and fellow clansmen will seek retaliation. To them, revenge is an act of justice.

Most of the victims of US military operations in Somalia are farmers and nomads who have no animosity towards the American people. US bombardment is forcing many to flee their homes. In recent months, we have seen “drone refugees” arriving in Mogadishu’s overcrowded camps for the internally displaced. Children are traumatised by the constant fear of bombs falling from the sky.

Mr Trump, your bombs are breeding the next generation of suicide bombers in Somalia. Fight al-Shabab but stop terrorising innocent Somalis. To achieve any success, you must respect international and Somali law, reverse your immoral actions and rethink your strategy in Somalia.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

I was at a restaurant in Mogadishu in 2014 when a man approached me and unexpectedly confessed to having been part of the gang that attacked my home in Mogadishu in 1992 in which my 18-month-old daughter, Yasmin, was brutally killed.

The man then fervently and remorsefully begged for my forgiveness, saying the matter had troubled him for many years. Initially, I felt so much anger with memories of my lifeless daughter flooding back to my mind. I felt like killing him on the spot to revenge my daughter’s death.

But after some moments of silence, I felt some calm return to my heart. I then told him I had forgiven him. The man hugged me and we both couldn’t hold back tears. Immediately after the incident, I felt as if a huge weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I felt whole again. This personal incident, if nothing else, strengthened my conviction about the need for reconciliation to heal Somalia.

No doubt, Somalia is making modest progress in rebuilding itself from the destruction wrought by decades of catastrophic civil war but the crucial agenda of grassroots truth, justice and reconciliation is not receiving the attention it desperately deserves.

The civil war not only precipitated the meltdown of state institutions and destruction of infrastructure and the economy, but also the unravelling of the social and cultural fabric of the country. Without deliberate efforts to rebuild the shattered trust and goodwill and address deep-seated grievances between individuals, families and communities at the grassroots level, reconstruction efforts will not be sustainable and durable.

Somalia is one of the few countries in Africa with a homogenous population that shares language, religion, bloodlines and culture but the widespread violence, human rights violations and injustices during the civil war exacerbated social divisions and disharmony mainly along clan lines.

Until now, not much has been done to repair those relationships, build bridges and address underlying grievances thus eliminating common spaces for dialogue, accommodation and coexistence. There have been many conferences since the early 1990s ostensibly to bring about reconciliation between various segments of the Somali population but they have hardly had any impact in the grassroots.

This is partly because the initiatives have largely been dominated by politicians and clan leaders, including warlords, without much involvement of the people in the grassroots who should be the main drivers of such initiatives in a bottom-up way. In fact, the conferences have been more about power-sharing between clan leaders than fostering genuine grassroots truth, justice and reconciliation.

Searing

The searing impact of the Somali civil war has been so widespread that it is difficult to find a Somali national who is not nursing deep-seated grievance and trauma due to the killing of loved ones or loss of property or dignity. That’s why the time for Somalia to have its own indigenous process of truth, justice and reconciliation is long overdue.

The process will give space to the people to explore the full extent of the crimes and violations that occurred in the civil war and continue to occur; come to terms with the pain, anger and grief as well as look into appropriate avenues of justice, compensation, forgiveness and reconciliation.

‘When the incident was reported by local media, similar incidences also emerged in various parts of the country. That’s why since then I have been keen to use that personal story with a hope of promoting grassroots reconciliation in Somalia. However, there is a pressing need for a more structured process so that the Somali nationals can explore the dark past together and come to terms to it.

Somalia can benefit from the experiences of countries such as Rwanda which deployed traditional methods of justice and reconciliation to address the aftermath of the 1994 genocide. Somalia too has rich traditional and religious systems that can be tapped to successfully address to rebuild the shattered social fabric in the war-torn country.

Before Somalia can take its rightful place in the community of nations, it must bravely face and address the horrors and dark corners of its history during the civil war through a grassroots truth, justice and reconciliation process.

By Ambassador Mohamed Ali Nur

Ambassador Nur (Americo) is a former Presidential candidate in Somalia (2017) and former Somalia envoy to Kenya (2007-2015) [email protected]

The security of the Red Sea has historically been an integral part of Arab national security, because this strategic waterway was the target of all colonial powers. Given the number of Arab states that have coasts on that sea, it is no exaggeration to call it an Arabian lake. The Red Sea has three important waterways: The Suez Canal, the Straits of Tiran and the Strait of Bab El-Mandeb.

Arab coordination in the October 1973 war is a good example of the “Arabian lake” concept, because the blockade of the Strait of Bab El-Mandeb was a painful blow to Israel, turning Eilat — its only Red Sea port — into a ghost town and tightening the siege of the sea.

The blockade was part of a tactical and secret Egyptian plan in which islands controlling the Strait of Bab El-Mandeb were studied, and locations for Egypt’s navy on these islands were carefully chosen to block the strait. The plan was executed in coordination with all other Arab countries bordering the Red Sea. Israel did not know of the plan until Egypt announced the blockade of Bab El-Mandeb to Israeli ships.

The Red Sea remained peaceful until security in Somalia deteriorated as the state could no longer control the warring parties, and for the first time in the region’s history, armed pirates began intercepting international ships crossing Bab El-Mandeb.

Egypt immediately took action along with some European countries and the US, and a joint counterpiracy task force was established. Within a few months, the influence of Somali pirates was curbed and security was relatively restored in Bab El-Mandeb, although surveillance continued in the area to ensure the pirates do not return.

But as the situation deteriorates in Yemen, the Strait of Bab El-Mandeb is exposed again. Yemeni militias were smart enough not to come near Bab El-Mandeb, since they know the international community would have turned against them if they had. The strait will not be secure again until legitimate Yemeni forces take control of the area.

The security of the Red Sea has historically been an integral part of Arab national security, because this strategic waterway was the target of all colonial powers.

The entry of new parties has begun raising real questions about the Red Sea’s future. I would not be surprised if it turns into a conflict zone in which parties fight over influence or divide influence among countries on its shores.
The latest development is Turkey’s strong and public presence in the Red Sea via its recent bolstering of relations with Sudan. I would not be inclined to accuse the two parties of conspiring against Egypt, but the dispute with Qatar is impacting the sea awfully.

It would be naive to believe what Qatar’s chief of staff said about his visit to Sudan coinciding with that of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his chief of staff, so they seized the chance and held a meeting.

The problem does not solely lie in Erdogan’s announcement in Khartoum that Sudan had allocated Suakin Island in the Red Sea to Turkey for rebuilding and administration for an indefinite period of time. Suakin is Sudan’s oldest port, and is mostly used for transporting passengers and goods to the Saudi port of Jeddah. It is also Sudan’s second port after Port Sudan, which is 60 km north of it.

The Ottoman Empire used Suakin Island as a center for its navy in the Red Sea. The port also housed the seat of the Ottoman ruler in the southern Red Sea region between 1821 and 1885. Despite this, Suakin is merely a reference to a more important matter: Erdogan’s statement in Khartoum that there was a secret matter that he did not discuss with Sudan. We must not forget Turkey’s hostility toward the Egyptian regime and its announced aim to overthrow it.

• Abdellatif El-Menawy is a critically acclaimed multimedia journalist, writer and columnist who has covered war zones and conflicts worldwide.