Leading article: A foolish stance that will inflame tensions

For 15 years, Somalia has been the epitome of a failed state. There has been no functioning government in the country since 1991, when the dictatorship of Mohamed Siad Barre was deposed. Since then the country has been sucked into a cauldron of lawlessness, clan warfare and misery. Life expectancy has declined dramatically, and thousands of refugees leave the country each year. But there are signs that Somalia's power vacuum is, at last, being filled.

A coalition of Islamist militias, supporting a group known as the Islamic Courts Union, took control of the capital, Mogadishu, this month, driving out the warlords who had carved up the city between themselves. The ICU's forces have since taken control of two other Somali towns. Somalia still nominally has an official government, led by President Abdullahi Yusuf, but this has no real hold over the country. The Islamists are now widely acknowledged as the dominant power in the land.

This has stung Somalia's neighbours, threatened by the emergence of a radical Islamist government on their doorstep, into action. The African Union is considering a request from President Yusuf for the deployment of peacekeepers. Ethiopian troops are massing on the Somali border. The Horn of Africa is becoming a powder keg. And the results of a major regional conflict centred on Somalia could be devastating. The head of the United Nations refugee agency warned yesterday that it could trigger a humanitarian disaster.

The priority for the international community should be to ensure, first of all, that it does nothing to make the situation worse. Yet this is precisely what the last remaining superpower has been doing. On the premise that the Islamists are a greater threat to international security, America has been channelling substantial sums to the warlords. It has also publicly accused the ICU of links to terrorism. This has been a disaster. The warlords are hated by the Somali population for their failure to deliver stability. By backing them, the US has damaged its own reputation, almost as much as it has discredited the warlords. America's interference has succeeded in creating the worst of both worlds. It has strengthened the Islamists and intensified resentment among ordinary Somalis to outside interference.

It is vital that the international community puts as much distance between itself and this US policy as possible. Of course, it would be folly to rush into the arms of the Islamists. The conciliatory letters sent to the US and the international community by the leadership of the ICU should be treated with caution. The Islamists are by no means a homogeneous group. There is no guarantee that the more radical factions will not gain the upper hand. The possibility of a Taliban-style haven for terrorists taking root in the country cannot be discounted.

Yet it is important for the rest of the world to acknowledge that the Islamists are providing a level of security that Somalis have not known for many years. They certainly have the strong support of the local business community. All the indications are that the Somali people prefer the rule of the Islamists to any available alternative at the moment.

It will do the US no good if it continues to vilify the ICU or channel funds to the warlords. The Bush administration has made a prison for itself by its refusal to countenance holding any dialogue with radical Islamist groups. The rhetoric of the "war on terror" can only inflame the situation in this dangerous corner of Africa. It is time for the rest of the world to take a lead. Pragmatism is the only way to alleviate the suffering of the Somali people - and to enhance the security of the wider world.