Interdependence is the foundation of today's international system. No action or inaction by any country can be deemed marginal because it fundamentally affects the greater global confederation regardless of the initial perceived degree of impact.
Unfortunately, they too often dismiss catastrophic woes—especially those of underdeveloped nations—that do not have an immediate direct influence upon developed nations as ""trivial."" The dismissal of such issues has served as a canvas for the smearing of the paint composed of mass pandemonium in the form of terrorism.
Concerns and needs of individual countries left unattended only end up culminating and creating significant discord and strife for all. The United States, it seems, has completely ignored this important fact, instead turning a blind eye to issues it sees as not affecting itself directly.
An example of this is Somalia—which has had a lengthy history of being manipulated by countries in power for their own gain, leading them to their modern ill-fated predicament.
During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union backed an oppressive military regime, taking turns flooding the country with arms. The United States gave millions of dollars in aid, mostly in the form of foodstuffs, and eventually Somalia became dependent on the handouts.
Then, in 1991, internal tensions reached a boiling point due to competition for resources and power by rival clans. This, in turn, led to a massive famine and the United States and United Nations intervened in order to restore peace and ensure the delivery of needed provisions. However, after a bloody day of hostilities ended in the deaths of 18 U.S. soldiers in 1993, we abandoned the impoverished and destitute nation.
The United Nations took the primary role in aiding Somalia and severely under funded an attempt at nation building, which took place after U.S. departure. This transitional quasi-democratic effort has not been able to provide stability for the ravaged nation, which only added fuel to the fire of anarchic disruption.
Somalia, out of desperation and necessity of survival, has had no choice but to arrest the principle of rationality and shut it away in a dark cellar. In doing so it chose stability over democracy for the sake of self-preservation.
Currently, tensions run high as the impotent UN-backed government stands futilely against an oppressive Islamic fundamentalist group that has siphoned off the few democratic liberties offered by the administration in order to enhance its own power.
The result: a safe haven for al Qaida members in some of the key strategic areas of the country. The tragic irony is that the United States exited Somalia in order to wash its hands of this mess, only to find itself caught in the quandary of consequences of apathy.
This is not to say the United States should have entrenched itself in Somalia and, as it has in Iraq, made ardent attempts at nation building. Instead, a transition should have been made in U.S. foreign policy to one that fostered independence within underdeveloped countries in order to promote economic and political stability and democracy. This is an essential step in the path leading to lasting peace.
Although critics may say this kind of foreign policy holds the United States to an unrealistically high standard of selflessness, this is not the case. In fact, if the United States would benefit from mutual cooperation if it was to act in the best interests of the collective global good.
Additionally, the situation in Somalia serves to clearly highlight that ignoring dire needs of countries that are not ostensibly key global players can be a self-deprecating type of foreign policy that ends in a suffocating quagmire for all.
Hopefully, at the very least, a lesson may be learned from this by developed nations and be applied to relations with other chaotic, war torn countries, such as Sudan, in order to prevent another Somalia.
