Taleexi

Nomads
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    5,587

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Taleexi

  5. Posted

    Different views of the same country

     

    Mohamed Mukhtar

    February 05 , 2006

     

    Words are not merely used to describe the realities around us, but they enable us to shape what we see and form our attitude towards it. When people look at a big object, everyone standing around that object has his or her own unique view. Thus how people look at a country like Somalia greatly depends on from the angle one views. Some people see Somalia as a petri dish in which extremism breeds and develops. A war-torn country with no prospect to pull itself out of a fatal dive towards state failure. A state dominated by clan-based warring factions and groups with no economic development opportunity. A land sprinkled with sharia courts where the society is patriarchal and women do not enjoy the same benefit generously applied to their male counterparts.

     

    While others may consider Somalia as a place where extremism lacks general approval. A nation whose people have shown an incredible resiliency to survive under a collapsed economy that even challenges conventional ideas about economy. A nation state that has emerging strong civil society that can lead the country back to normality. A territory where women are not only valued for their reproductive capacities but are considered to be the backbone of the society.

     

    None of the above views is new and the aim of this article is not to explore why people may have different views of the same object or country. However, the above descriptions give different ways of explaining the peculiar circumstance in Somalia and they are not mutually exclusive.

     

    Somalia has been hotly debated and speculated upon since the demise of Siad Barre’s government. The civil war in Somalia and its effects raised the profile of Somalia in the worst way possible and the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001 led some countries, analysts and journalists to consider Somalia as a failed country, which terrorist networks use as a safe haven.

     

    In the early 1990s, the world was undergoing an unprecedented transformation because of the sudden arrival of cutting edge technology and the end of cold war. Unfortunately, Somalia was failing as a state during that period, but it has not remained immune from the globalisation trend and its society has been utterly unprotected from the advantageous and disadvantageous of globalisation. Somalis have managed to survive utilizing the country’s geographical location between Africa and the Middle East. The seaports of the country play a key role in the transhipment of consumer goods to Kenya, Ethiopia and beyond.

     

    Since there is no viable government that maintains the rule of law or has power over its borders, the country is regarded to be the breeding ground in which trans-national and non-state security threats can easily get a foothold. The uncontrolled ports and borders that promote commercial activities are also said to attract illegal activities including terrorism.

     

    It is widely suggested Somalia’s problems can infect other countries in the region and once trans-national criminals become established in Somalia, it is easy for them to infiltrate and expand their operations in other countries in the region.

     

    To counter this, Somalia is reported to be at or close to the top of the list of countries where war on terror is fought. However, Somalia is not subjected to a bombing campaign like Afghanistan, as there is no government that harbours any terrorist or meaningful targets to be bombed at. That leaves Somalia to be at the centre of invisible war – mainly covert operations such as snatching operations, and speculation.

     

    The impact and extent of terrorist activities and counter-terrorist measures are hard to tell since they are done in secret. In July 2005, a report published by the International Crisis Group noted, “… away from the spotlight, a quiet, dirty conflict is being waged in Somalia: in the rubble-strewn streets of the ruined capital of this state without a government, Mogadishu, al-Qaeda operatives, jihadi extremists, Ethiopian security services and Western-backed counter-terrorism networks are engaged in a shadowy and complex contest waged by intimidation, abduction and assassination.â€

     

    However, speculation is rampant. The terrorist threat in Somalia has been thrown into wide-ranging speculation. The ICG report said, “A March 2005 UN report portrayed Somalia as home to an ‘army’ of Jihadi fighters supported by a network of at least seventeen terrorist training camps. In reality, jihadism is an unpopular, minority trend among Somali Islamists.â€

     

    It is not only the international organisations that have a number of different theories and perspectives from Somalia. Most of Somali political leaders have tried to exploit the war on terror to enhance their political positions. Ken Menkhaus, a professor of Political Science, wrote, “local and regional authorities in Somalia are falling over one another to establish themselves as the trusted local ally of the West in the war on terrorism. Several set up antiterrorist task forces within days of September 11, in hopes that cooperation with the United States would increase their importance to us and, hence, the likelihood of foreign aid and/or political recognition.â€

     

    Somalia is not the first failed state or in complete turmoil. Soon after the cold war, many countries failed to function without the support of the superpower countries. Unfortunately, Somalia found itself in a ping-pong position between neighbour countries and offshore friends. In the dark, many countries meddle Somalia’s internal affairs, and in the light, the same countries express their willingness to help Somalis to form a government as if they had no self-interest or strategic reasons.

     

    Therefore, it is no wonder that several attempts to reconcile the warring Somali factions have failed. The outcome of the Somali National Reconciliation Conference held in Kenya is gasping for air now and it seems that it is going to follow the same trajectory as the one held in Djibouti since many of the same dynamics that were present at the previous government seem to be at play within the current government. Equally, it is little wonder that the fight against terrorism is interpreted differently.

     

    Surely, a failed state on the doorway of its neighbours or a country that can export terrorism is a grave matter, but looking at Somalia from one angle only and speculating the rest would definitely lead us to fail piecing together the big picture, which is the disappearance any vestiges of a central government.

     

    The circumstance of Somalia reminds us the story of the blind men who were asked to describe an elephant after they had felt the elephant. The first one described the elephant as a wall after he had touched his broad and sturdy side. The second depicted the elephant as a spear after he had touched the tusk. The third one believed an elephant to be a snake after he had stroked the trunk. The moral of the story is whether one describes Somalia as unruly place imbued with terrorists or bad country ruled by warlords, Somalia is a country without a viable government. However we view, Somalia is only accountable when there is a functioning government.

     

    Mohamed Mukhtar

    London

    Email:mohamed323@hotmail.com

    source: wardheernews.com

  8. Posted

    Nowadays possessing an AB has became paramount for any nation due to the arrogance behavior of the big nations. I also think the outcry is not whether Iran acquires a nuclear bomb or not, but there is business lucrative at stake if you can read between lines, the rich nations have already complete control over the so-called international institutions namely; IMF, WTO, World Bank and Zetra, in the same token they are also after monopolizing the enormous source of energy that can be generated from the nuclear powers. I strongly believe, having more countries with nuclear weapons will eventually make the world safer place to be. Let it be remembered that this is an exceptional because generally the accummulation of bad things don't produce positive results.

  9. Posted

    This only shows the gaping gulf between our values. Sool has a history of supporting Somali cause. Others have a history of stabbing Somali causes in the back. This is where I part company with Guled and cite the holy Quran where it says
    “Lakum diinukum waliya diinâ€

    This above quote is open to a debate. However, Mr. Mohsen dealt and handled pretty well bringing to the surface the enormous fallacies of Mr. Guled's argument.

  10. Posted

    Sool gains, Somaliland loses

     

    Mohsin Mahad

    January 28, 2006

     

    An article by Guled Ismail in Awdalnews (22 January), entitled “Sool Losesâ€, should not be allowed to pass without response from those who are the subject of his sometimes patronizing platitudes. The crux of his argument is that Sool is the loser in not joining the secession spearheaded by SNM in 1991. Reading between the lines, this judgement is based on his argument that Sool is so poor that it had been hitherto sustained economically by apparently other richer regions now subscribing to the secession- a privilege Sool would lose, according to the writer, having decided to remain in Somalia rather than join Somaliland. If the cost of remaining in Somalia is the loss of economic benefits from Somaliland, as Guled would have us believe, one has to ask him what were those generosities that were graciously proffered on poor Sool in the past but will no longer be available in the future? As I will argue later, the contrary was the case: that it was Sool that had contributed much to the economy of Somaliland rather than the other way round.

     

    Seen from the other side, Sool had never to face any choice between Somalia and Somaliland. It made its irreversible decision in July 1960 when, together with all other Somalis in former British and Italian Somalilands, they all decided to unite and establish the Somali Republic. Until the recent onset of secessionism in the North under the banner of the SNM, the union was held by almost all Somalis as a blessing, an act of faith that ended the artificial division imposed on them by the colonialists for nearly a century. The fact that the secessionists do not share this sentiment anymore in no way diminishes the virtues of union over separatism and disunion.

     

    A united country like Somalia, at peace with itself, with its unique homogenous population, having larger open single market, and enjoying common legal and administrative systems, offers undeniable benefits that could contribute to economic and social development as it would to greater national security. Sool, Eastern Sanaag and Cayn (SSC) like the rest of Somalia, have been sharing these benefits that accrue from a united greater Somalia. On the other hand, a Somalia that split would offer less of these advantages. But it is Somalia that offers more than the barren secessionist entity that the international community had refused to recognize. It would be the hight of folly and irresponsibility for SSC to give up all that they enjoy under Somalia and blindly place their destiny on a wild horse. Even if one were to ignore nationalistic considerations, there is much economic and security reasons in favour of being part of Somalia. However, economic benefits are not every thing and our nationalism and belief in Somalia outweigh all other considerations. That, more than anything else, is why Sool is previlaged to be part of Somalia. If any one is the loser, it is the separatists.

     

    In the past, Somalis used to see their enemies as those across the border and not from within. All that changed when the SNM declared the North as an independenct country separate from Somalia. Suddenly, roles have been interchanged whereby the former enemy, Ethiopia, was adopted as a god father and the rest of Somalia jettisoned as demons. For the secessionists, any price is worth paying as long as it helps them to delink from Somalia. As for Ethiopia, it is a dream come true as they enjoy the sight of various parts of their enemy, Somalia, all outdoing one another to win it’s favour even if they have to end up as its vassals. For what it is worth, Somaliland is the leading champion in this ignominious sell-out. The Ethiopians have no specific love for Somaliland but it simply uses them to accompolish its own long-standing national objective to de-stabilize Somalia if not dismember it.

     

    The only thing that Somaliland retains which is Somali is the name of the country, which they had to adopt for historical reasons. In every other respect, they had renounced all values and sentiments that the rest of Somalis hold dear to their Somalism and nationalism. It is an irony of history that a Somali from Somalia proper is now considered persona non grata in Hargeisa whereas an Israeli or an Amhara fellow from Wollo is given the red carpet. Nothing better crystallises this ant-Somalia phenomena than Faysal Ali Waraabi’s recent statement that an Amhara boy born in Addis is closer to him than a Somali one born in Mogadishu. This is not an isolated, one-off remark by a loony politician carried away by his anti Somalia hysteria. He speaks for many in Hargeisa although they may prefer a whisper to his outlandish public statement. Thank God that SSC are no part of a Somali-hating entity.

     

    Regarding Sool being an economic burden on Somaliland, brother Guled cannot be taken seriously. What have they given to Sool? If only Guled knew how much he owes Sool!! No one denies that Sool and the rest of the North are poor by any standard with scarcely any natural resources and hardly any industrial development. Apart from limited seasonal subsistence farming in some parts of Awdal region, the rest of the territory is semi desert that can only sustain a precarious nomadic way of life. Animal production constitutes the backbone of the economy and here SSC are undoubtedly better blessed than other regions in the North. Their animals used to represent a large proportion of the livestock exported through Berbera. Much of the employment, tax revenue and foreign exchange earnings from such exports accrued to Hargeisa during the colonial times and to a lesser extent since then. Such money has been used to build schools, hospitals, roads and pay government civil servants in Hargeisa with hardly any trickling to the source of that income namely Sool,

     

    Nowadays, the North’s income is supplemented by remittances from the Diaspora and aid from international humanitarian and development organizations. Though they had missed out on international aid, thanks to Hargeisa’s vindictive opposition to any aid for SSC as punishment for snubbing the secession, yet these regions receive higher per capita remittances from their Diaspora than other regions in the North. The standard of living of the ordinary person in SSC is certainly no worse than that in other regions in the North if it is not even better. I have only talked about animal production and have said nothing about underground natural resources that await to be tapped. When that happens, Mr. Guled and his company will be knocking on the gate. He can be assured that, unlike them in Hargeisa, no Somali will be turned back even if he is, or has been, a diehard secessionist.

     

    Turning to the economy of Somaliland, it is reeling from self-inflicted wounds. For one thing, the invasion of Sool had spurred SSC trade with the rest of Puntland with almost all its external trade channelled through Boosaaso. For another thing, the secessionists shot themselves in the foot when they shamefully handed innocent ******is to the Ethiopians and detained others alleged to be members of the ONLF. As a reprisal, the ONLF went for the jugular and hit Somaliland where it hurts most: disrupt and destroy the trade routes from Somaliland going through their territory. The loser is Somaliland while Puntland and Boosaaso are the main beneficiaries of this folly. With their trade links with neighbours in the doldrums, Somaliland is becoming increasingly dependent on remittances and international handouts. That does not sound much like a country that can spare a dime for poor Sool. What is the wisdom of seeking friends from the outside world, from Ethiopia, Israel and all sundry, while at home antagonizing all their Somali brothers all the way from Somalia, ****** and Djibouti? Sooner or later, the chicken will come home to roost

     

    Coming to Sool’s loyalties, Guled makes the statement that the loyalties of Sool people are divided and that there are Sool residents who are committed Somalilanders. There are indeed some who support Somaliland but they are not in Sool contrary to what Guled claims. All such people, thank heavens, are exiles in Hargeisa. No doubt, some are there for what they can get out of it, while others are motivated by a more honourable reason. What ever the financial cost to Somaliland, they reckon this is recouped by the propaganda message it conveys to the outside world that all the clans of former Somaliland are fully behind the secession. Of course they fool no one but themselves. All the same, just as the Iraqi exiles in America fooled America that their forces invading Iraq would be welcomed with flowers, the Sool exiles must have equally fooled their hosts by telling arm-chair warmongers in Hargeisa that invading Sool would be a picnic.

     

    Mr. Guled mentions the bond that Sool people share with the rest of the territory. True, such bonds do exist. But it seems to be incomprehensible to Guled and to almost all secessionists that Sool shares a far closer bond with those in the rest of Puntland. As every clan in the Horn has bonds with its neighbours, there is nothing unique of the bond that exists in the North. But why invade Sool when you acknowledge such deep-rooted bonds:? Why not engage in dialogue? Why send your army as the British used to do whenever they want to pacify a rebellious tribe or region? There might have been certain ambivalence among the Sool people towards the secession before the invasion. That blunder has however dispelled whatever hesitations people had before and united them fully behind Puntland and Somalia.

     

    It is heartening to hear Guled say that the regime in Hargiesa is no longer keen on the military option in Sool. This is not out of any kindness to Sool. It is the military reality that has opened their eyes. As the Americans have learnt to their cost in Iraq, it is easy to invade a country or other people’s land, but it is damn difficult to get out of. It is a catch 22 situation for the Somaliland forces stuck in Adhi Cadeeye. They can not move forward to accomplish mission nor can they pack up and go home without appearing defeated with their tails between their legs. The Puntland defending army can afford just to block them and let them sweat it out.

     

    Finally, Guled describes the Sool people as ones who have a “history of making wrong choices in Somaliland politics†and to have a “taste for following the ambitious tribal chieftains from other ****** clans….â€As an example, he mentions the support they gave to Sayyed Mohamed Hassan unlike the other opposing Somaliland clans. For the Sool people, the Sayyed’s war with the British was nothing less than a holy war against what they considered to be alien infidels occupying their territory and hence saw it as it as their religious and national duty to join the Jihad. Those who died have Allah’s promise of paradise and those who survived had been proud of their sacrifices. Mr. Guled’s clans, on the other hand, had served as mercenaries for the British and he seems to be proud of it. This only shows the gaping gulf between our values. Sool has a history of supporting Somali cause. Others have a history of stabbing Somali causes in the back. This is where I part company with Guled and cite the holy Quran where it says “Lakum diinukum waliya diinâ€

     

    Mohsin Mahad

    UK

    Email:Mohsinmahad@yahoo.co.uk

     

    source: wardheernews.com

  11. Posted

    The Sool loses

     

    Sool is an unlikely place to fight over. In an extraordinary moment of reflective wisdom, the Commander of the Puntland forces facing the Somaliland army in the disputed territory said as much. In a POW exchange ceremony, the battle hardened former Somali National Army man said to his Somaliland counterpart “We should never fight again…over such barren hillocksâ€

     

    Sool typifies the deprivations and hardships the Somali has to endure: Its very name means `extreme thirst’.

     

    But Sool also lies at the very heart of how Somaliland sees itself. Is it going to succeed in its bid to re-establish the colonial borders it inherited at independence or is it going to reshape itself into a new entity free from the confines of those arbitrary lines on the desert?

     

    There is no doubt that most Somalilanders are keen to revive the geographical Somaliland they inherited from the British empire which included all of what is now Sool. But the reality on the ground today is a different one to that of June 26 1960 when former British Somaliland Protectorate gained its independence from Britain.

     

    There is little doubt the loyalties of Sool people is divided. The capital of the region Las Anod has been taken over by radical sympathisers of Puntland in 2001 and it remains in their hands to this day. The Somaliland authorities confined their attempts at regaining the capital of what they officially claim as part of their country to rhetoric flourishes rather than military adventures. This is to their credit, and at wider level perhaps proves the concept that democrats - as Somaliland is, are generally reluctant to fight. They even took to the airwaves rather than to the battlefield when the Somaliland President was shot at and chased out of Las Anod in 2002. The Deputy Defence Minister of Somaliland issued strong warnings and threatened to invade Puntland’s capital, but his men remained firmly in their barracks. Perhaps he knew his dirt-poor electorate preferred road improvements in his own capital to fratricidal adventures in the far reaches of Puntland.

     

    But there are Sool residents who are committed Somalilanders. The colonial powers did not create Somaliland out of vacuum they merely institutionalised in laws and official borders a bond that was already there. That bond remains. It is cultural and social and economic. It only needs to be revived, strengthened and reinvigorated. Or so was the thinking of those who re-established Somaliland in 1991.

     

    The late President Mr Egal fought hard to keep Sool in the Somaliland fold. Sool Somalilanders like Fuad Aden Adde, The Minister of Environment and Mr. Qeybe the former Speaker of parliament, risked the wrath of their Sool clansmen to champion the cause of Somaliland.

     

    But it appears the fight for Sool has now been given up by sections of the Hargeisa political establishment. One can understand the ruthless realpolitik at work here: the Sools had made themselves too irrelevant to the power struggles of Somaliland’s more densely populated heartlands to the west. Most of them refused to participate in the successful democratisation processes that is now entrenched part of the Somaliland political dynamics. They noisily condemned as a traitor any Soolian who suggested working with Somaliland. And as it has no significant economic value; Sool had wasted its only bargaining chip: its political voice.

     

    Sool is now viewed by the Hargeisa government the same way Peshawar is viewed by Pakistan: too wild and too far to the east to the matter to the centre.

     

    By siding with Puntland against Somaliland, the sool’s have chosen a lesser party by any objectively measurable standards. Not only is Puntland far poorer than Somaliland and its infrastructure far less developed – it is also politically less stable. Law and order is shaky at the best of times and Las Anod the Capital of Sool became almost completely lawless ever since Puntland supporters took over. Murders are disturbingly commonplace and the ill-trained, unpaid police act more like criminals when and if they act at all. It is only the interventions of clan elders preventing a complete meltdown of law and order

     

    Puntland, which never really cared too much about the `northern’ Sools, has lost all interest ever since its ambitious founder Mr. Abdulahi Yusuf set his sight on the bigger prize of ruling the whole of Somalia. The shift of his attention southwards has completely sidelined Sool making the blighted region more rudderless and more lawless than ever.

     

    There are unmistakable signs of panic among the radical pro-Puntland clique in Las Anod. They tried and failed to stop all economic links with Somaliland. In desperation they turned their attention to enforce social apartheid by putting a ban on sporting activities and such between Sool and the rest of Somaliland. This didn’t work either. They recently raided and confiscated a truck carrying life-saving vaccines for sool’s children because it was supplied by UNICEF through Hargeisa! When a normally pro-Puntland local radio station complained, it was shut down and its staff imprisoned.

     

    The Sool political limbo has many losers. In Somaliland the biggest immediate loser is the KULMIYE party which has its supporters in the eastern regions adjacent to Sool. If sools’ voted in large numbers in support of KULMIYE(as they will be expected in Somaliland regional politics), KULMIIYE’s veteran leader Silanyo will be in Hargeisa’s Presidential palace today.

     

    But by far the biggest losers are the people of Sool. The Sools are noble, resilient and wise clansmen in the mould of the archetypal Somali nomad. But they have a history of making wrong choices in Somaliland politics. They have a taste for following ambitious tribal chieftains from other ***** clans who abandons them in ignominy when he inevitably loses crazy wars or unlikely political games against badly chosen foes. The Sools are left to face the local political music on their own.

     

    They chose(most of them) The Sayyid Abdille Hassan movement over the majority Somaliland clans. Mr. Hassan lost and fled to his remote homeland in Ethiopia where he died in peace. But the consequences for the Sools has been disastrous as the local clans exacted their revenge. The sools then sided with Siyad Barre, yet another ***** chieftain on an inevitably losing trip. The Sools commitment to his cause was typical: wholehearted, determined and courageous to suicidal standards.

     

    When that project and the whole of Somalia project got unhinged they were left with nothing. Although siyad Barre appointed few Sools to run his secret services agencies or man his crack army units detailed to destroy his enemies, he actually did not invest anything in Sool itself. He knew he can count on their unquestioning loyalty under all circumstances. In Siyad’s world as in that of other autocrats national resources are used to appease potential enemies as much as to gain or keep friends. Better spend your money to keep wavering allies onside rather than waste it on eternally loyal subjects.

     

    Today history is repeating itself. The Sools threw their political lot with Abdullahi Yusuf probably the most selfish of all ***** chieftains. He is on a guaranteed losing trip and yet they still take the ride. Only on this occasion he feels they have done their bit- time they got off the power train.

     

    Lets hope they have the wisdom to understand this and the courage to learn from it. On our part we should not give up on them. They are too close, too noble, too part of our culture and heritage. They are us.

     

    Guled Ismail

    Halyey@btinternet.com

  14. Posted

    The elections went smoothly in Palestine and as some international observers noted there was no any significant mismanagement to mention regarding the process in which local elections were executed.

     

    With all that above, Bush administration had already taken a position about this success story, and guess what they said, the elections were democratic and transparent but wrong people won in a landslide and must be isolated. This rings a bell to me, as supposed to what happened in Algeria in the early nineties therefore my question to my fellow nomads is; is democracy for everybody or solely for privileged groups.

  19. Posted

    Paragon, what about the rights of the people who reside in the plains, valleys, mountainous areas in between from Buhoodle to Bosaso , from Erigavo to Garowe, in your dictionary they've no right whatsoever but by default reer Hargeisa and Berbera have the divine right to claim other's territories and what therein, I must say that you are implying implicitly that God is not just based on your argument put forth, you endorsed the secessionists' agenda while you denied others' political aspirations, what a hypocrisy!.

     

    I personally could care less, had they (the secessionist) limited their experimental administration within their triangle cities (Buroa, Hargeisa and Berbera) rather than attempting executing their detrimental land expansion policies and power hungriness.

  21. Posted

    ''Somaliland and the Issue of International Recognition''

    Dustin Dehéz ,PINR,23 January 2006=

     

    When the regime of Siad Barre was ousted from power in Mogadishu in 1991, it left a power vacuum that could not be filled by the many varying and still belligerent Somali factions. Somalia in its modern boundaries was formed by a unification of the two former colonies Italian Somaliland -- the southern part of present-day Somalia -- and British Somaliland in the north. The different forms of colonial rule adopted by the British and the Italians left Somalia with very diverse colonial legacies.

     

    For Italy, colonies were a question of national pride and status, its colonial policy aimed at the total assimilation of the colonial territories. British Somaliland, on the other hand, was only of marginal importance to the British Empire and was used as a logistical supply outpost for British ships sailing to India or the Gulf of Aden. The British colonial praxis there could best be described as indirect rule and, as a result of this soft approach to indigenous political systems, the traditional order stayed largely intact.

     

    Additionally, the relationship between north and south Somalia has always been difficult. Only days after gaining independence in 1960, the two countries unified and Somalia has since been dominated by the southern part of the country. After the bloody 1977-78 ****** war between Ethiopia and Somalia, the government of Siad Barre became more repressive, and more Somalis from the former British Somaliland protectorate called for national sovereignty free from Barre's rule.

     

    Due to the Barre regime's violent repression, Somalilanders, encouraged by Ethiopia, took up arms and formed the Somaliland National Movement (S.N.M.) in 1981 to resist Barre. In the late 1980s, Barre virtually lost control of the province and ordered the air force to bomb Hargeisa, today's capital of Somaliland. The bombing and subsequent raids of government troops claimed tens of thousands of casualties. However, by the end of the 1980s, what has become the unrecognized Republic of Somaliland was nearly totally under the control of the S.N.M. The vacuum left by the collapse of the central government in Mogadishu in 1991 had, therefore, less effect on Somaliland than it did for the rest of the country.

     

    Somalis, although belonging to one nation, are organized along clan lineages; traditionally, conflicts are solved by local clan elders. After state collapse in 1991, clan leaders and elders in Somaliland gathered in a traditional meeting, a so-called Guurti, and proclaimed Somaliland's independence in May 1991.

     

    Since then, Somaliland can be regarded as a relatively stable region. With little foreign help, it has managed considerable progress in consolidation of statehood: in a nationwide referendum held in 2001, the country introduced a new constitution with overwhelming support from voters. In April 2003, voters were again called to the polling stations for the election of a new president. The ballots in which Dahir Riyale Kahin was elected president were comparatively open and fair.

     

    The consolidation reached a climax at the end of September 2005 when the country held parliamentary elections. Although far from being perfect, international observers from the Catholic Institute for International Relations called the elections free and fair. Furthermore, more voters in recent elections turned out to vote for candidates from different clans, a clear signal that Somalilanders are beginning to trust their political system. But the consolidation of statehood has so far not been followed by international recognition from the international community.

     

    Somaliland in the International Arena

     

    Although Somaliland managed stability and continuity in domestic policy, its foreign policy has been less successful. Part of the problem is that the new president of the Transitional Federal Government (T.F.G.) in Somalia, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, is a former warlord from Puntland, the northeastern part of Somalia. Puntland and Somaliland were already at war in early 2004 over the provinces Sool and Sanaag. While Somaliland claims that on the basis of the colonial boundaries these provinces belong to Hargeisa, Puntland is determined to take hold of all areas in which its fellow clansmen live (Somaliland is predominantly inhabited by the ***** clan, while Puntland is inhabited by the ****** ).

     

    A success in the peace process in southern Somalia between Yusuf and Speaker of Parliament Sharif Hassan Sheikh Adan would inevitably lead into another conflict between Somaliland and Somalia in which Puntland undoubtedly would hold a dominant position. Thus, the resolution of Somaliland's status is a prerequisite for success of the peace process in overall Somalia. [see: Somalia's Uncertain Future]

     

    On a local level, Somalia's strategically key position in the Horn of Africa between the Arab peninsula and the African continent is adding its part to the ongoing struggle. Many Somalis believed that efforts for the resolution of continuing state failure in their country would come from the Arab countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa. But for the time being, the countries keenest to bring stability back to Somalia are the East African countries that have formed the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (I.G.A.D.). These members consist of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya and Sudan.

     

    I.G.A.D. is committed to Somalia's unity since it fears that a successful secession of Somaliland could be quoted as a precedent by other secessionist movements in East Africa. At the same time, Somalia and subsequently Somaliland have become theaters for proxy wars. Arab countries are trying to balance Ethiopia's influence in the Horn. Yemen, for instance, supported Jama Ali Jama, a rival of Yusuf in Puntland, as Yusuf is regarded by many Somalis and Arabs as being overly tied to Addis Ababa.

     

    Furthermore, Yemen serves as an important transport hub for small arms to Somalia and Somaliland despite a United Nations arms embargo and despite a maritime presence of U.S.-led military forces engaged in the "war on terrorism." During the 1998-2000 border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, Somalia became the theater for a proxy war between the two countries. Eritrea channeled weapons to Somali warlords in the Ethiopian ****** region in an attempt to open a second front in the war. A unified Somalia is the only country in the Horn that, potentially, could become a rival to Ethiopia's dominant role. Therefore, Eritrea rejects the recognition of Somaliland since it still hopes that a single, unified government for all of Somalia could emerge which would not be under the influence of Ethiopia.

     

    Ethiopia, on the other hand, maintains good relations with Somaliland as well as with Yusuf and the T.F.G. With Eritrean independence in 1993, Ethiopia lost access to the Red Sea and is since dependent on the port of Djibouti for crucial imports and exports. Somaliland's port at Berbera might very well offer an alternative trade route if officially recognized and Ethiopia repeatedly showed a willingness to establish diplomatic links to the government in Hargeisa. Djibouti, on the contrary, feels uneasy; on the one hand it doesn't want to promote a competitor for its main source of revenues -- its port facilities -- but on the other hand it is relieved that the commonly shared border is relatively safe.

     

    Meanwhile, the question of Somaliland's independence has created a row between the two former colonial powers of Somalia, Italy and Great Britain. Italy has strongly emphasized the importance of Somalia's unity and is subsequently supporting the T.F.G. headed by Yusuf.

     

    American sources mentioned in the Economist in December 2005 recently indicate that Italy is even funneling weapons to the provisional government despite a United Nations arms embargo. Britain, as the former colonial power of Somaliland, is said to develop a much more open approach to Somaliland and has repeatedly encouraged Hargeisa's process of democratization.

     

    The United States also pursues this more open approach. The U.S. State Department announced that it "welcomes the September 29 parliamentary elections in Somaliland." Furthermore, a report published by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies issued a number of recommendations for strengthening U.S.-African policy, in which it called Somaliland's capital Hargeisa a strategic location in the global war on terror and criticized the lack of a U.S. presence there.

     

    At the same time, the conflict about Somaliland's secession between the former colonial powers is making it difficult for the European Union to develop a common stance towards Hargeisa.

     

    Conclusion

     

    While Somalilanders voted for their right of self-determination, the subject of state secession is still a matter of ongoing conflict. With a transitional government in southern Somalia reluctant of accepting Somaliland's independence, neighboring countries deeply divided on the issue, the regional organization I.G.A.D. unable to endorse any solution, and a European Union paralyzed by the quarrel between the U.K. and Italy, Somaliland's future remains to be seen.

     

     

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader

  22. Posted

    Somaliland and the issue of international recognition: a response

    Ali Geeleh

    January 23, 2006

     

    I am responding to an article by Dustin Dehéz entitled ''Somaliland and the Issue of International Recognition''(dated 23 January 2006) which appeared in the magazine PINR and also reprinted at WardheerNews.com. The writer has rightly applauded Somaliland for its relative peace and successful elections and referendum in the country (not all by any means) which makes such a contrast to most of lawless Somalia. However, Mr. Dehéz obvious empathy for the secessionists/separatists amounts to advocating recognition for a rebel entity.

     

    Judging by Mr. Dehèz's presentation, the ordinary reader unfamiliar with Somalia would be forgiven to conclude that Somaliland is a distinctive separate country that has freed itself from alien rule just as Kosovo broke away from Serbia’s tutelage. Mr. Dehéz may not concur with this interpretation but that is how most Somalis/readers will see it. As one from the area but whose regions do not subscribe to this treacherous secession, let me, for the benefit of your readers, set out the true historical perspective to the issue of Somaliland and Somalia.

     

    The Somali people in the Horn of Africa were, and still are, the most homogenous people in Africa below the Sahara. They have the same religion, race, culture, language, blood ties and common homeland. Following the European scramble for Africa, the Somali homeland in the Horn of Africa was divided into five parts, creating British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, French Somaliland (now Djibouti), Ethiopian Somaliland, and the North Eastern region of Kenya (NFD).

     

    The consequence of these colonial conquests was that artificial boundaries were imposed on the Somalis in which clans found themselves divided among the various colonial territories. In the case of British Somaliland, the ****** clans, who inhabit the regions of Sool, Sanaag and Cayn (approximating over 40 percent of the geographical area of the so-called Somaliland), were separated from their fellow clan cousins in Southern Somalia (Puntalnd). So were the ********** and ***** whose regions border Djibouti and Ethiopia. Thus, there are no particular common denominators among the clans in former British Somaliland that distinguish them from clans in other neighbouring Somali territories other than the British rule. Rather, they had less blood ties amongst themselves and more with those across the artificial borders in Italian, French, and Ethiopian Somalilands.

     

    It is the artificial division of the Somali homeland in the Horn that served as the driving force for Somali nationalism and the struggle for Somali independence and unity. The five-pointed star of Somalia's national flag symbolizes the aspiration of Somalia's divided people to be free from foreign occupation or domination and that they will eventually unite as one country. The independence of former British and Italian Somalilands and their unity on July first, 1960 was the first realization of this dream. To suggest as Mr. Dehéz does that there were problems soon after independence is an exaggeration. It is true that there were initially some teething administrative problems as was to be expected given that the territories were under colonial powers with different administrative systems for nearly a century. It is also true that the ***** clan were somewhat grumpy about losing their former dominance of the North during the time of the British rule. All other clans were indeed very happy to be part of Somalia. If there were problems, they had nothing to do with the Union per se but to historically inherited difficulties or to the wrongs of Somali leaders as later happened.

     

    When the Somali rebel movements succeeded in 1991 to topple the government of the late dictator Siyad Barre, with military help from Ethiopia, the ***** clan in the North Western region of Somalia declared their secession from Somalia and adopted the old name colonial name of Somaliland. They had been successful to the extent of propagating the lie that all the other clans in the territory are fully behind this secession. That is a blatant travesty of the facts.. The ****** clans in the territory remain as loyal to their membership of Somalia as they had been since July 1960 when the former British and Italian Somalilands united. So are the overwhelming majority of ******* and *****. But unlike the ******* in Sool and Sanaag who can fight off the secessionists and repulse any intrusion into their territory, the ********** have no such advantages. They had suffered atrocities in 1991 from the ****** rebel movement (Somali National Movement) and are understandably not keen for the time being to provoke any military reprisals from the ******, unless thy can count on the support of an effective and functioning Somali government in Mogadishu which can come to their aid.

     

    The impression created by Mr. Dehèz that there is a “dispute†over Sool and Sanaag between Puntland and Somaliland is ludicrous. Puntland (including Sool and Sanaag) is part and parcel of Somalia just as the rest of Somaliland is. To suggest that there is a dispute between Somalia and Somaliland is to imply that Somaliland is itself not part of Somalia. It also implies that the people in the area under “dispute†do not exist or else that their voice/wishes do not count. Most likely this writer may be a victim of the secessionist’s disinformation that Puntland had grabbed regions belonging to Somaliland. This interpretation is possible since writers or journalists visiting Hargeisa rarely ever go to the regions in question; Sool and Sanaag and ascertain for themselves what the true facts are: that it is the people in Sool and Sanaag regions who took the initiative to join the Puntalnd administration rather than the other way round.

     

    A rebel entity, based on one clan, has no legal basis to claim regions belonging to other clans, whose inhabitants had repeatedly made clear that they have nothing to do with the secession. Sool, Sanaag and Cayn regions had never participated in the elections and referendums organized by the secessionists which Mr. Dehéz wrongly describes as having been nationwide. How “wide†is the question?

     

    Mr Dehéz makes contradictory observations regarding support for Somalia's unity. On the one hand, he points out that the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), comprising of the East African countries of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya and Sudan, as being collectively “committed to Somalia’s unityâ€. On the other hand, he states in his conclusion that "neighbouring countries [supposedly IGAD] are deeply divided on the issueâ€. The fact of the matter is that IGAD, the African Union, the European Union, the UN, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Conference have all reaffirmed Somalia's unity.

     

    Mr. Dehéz misrepresents the British position when he suggests that the former colonial powers, Britain and Italy, do not see eye to eye about the Somalia’s problem and its solution. Nothing Britain has said or done can be interpreted that way. On the contrary, Britain has always joined other UN security members and its EU members to support Somalia unity. So has Italy. Britain had never given any false hopes to the secessionists regarding possible recognition. On the contrary, it has repeatedly advised them to settle their problems with their fellow brothers in Somalia.

     

    Finally, Mr. Dehéz says that a “resolution of Somaliland's status is a prerequisite for success of the peace process in overall Somaliaâ€. There is no dispute or question about Somaliland’s status. It has no other status other than being a region of Somalia. That is the status that the international community recognizes as of now. If Mr. Dehéz is suggesting otherwise, meaning that the area be recognized as an independent country separate from Somalia, that is not the way to peace. It is a sure prescription for fanning the flames of the Somali civil war. Inevitably, there will be war between the ******* and the ******* over Sool and Sanaag. One can also envisage intervention by the Somali government – assuming it overcomes its present difficulties That augurs ill for the stability of the Horn and Africa as a whole. It is in the interest of peace that the clan-based secession be discouraged.

     

    In today’s Federal democratic Somalia, regions have more or less self autonomy. The ***** -dominated secessionists in the North have everything to gain by playing their full part in Somalia. To refuse unity is to unite the rest of the Somali people against them. Sooner or later, there is bound to be action from a future more effective and powerful government in Somalia. This time, the secessionists will not be facing Siyad Barre and its dreaded regime but the rest of the Somali people. It is a pity that Mr. Dehéz who appears to have empathy for the secessionists did not venture to give them such simple home truths.

     

    By Ali Geeleh

    Email:Aligeeleh@yahoo.co.uk

    _______________

     

    No explicit qabiil terms, baliis

     

    [ January 25, 2006, 01:17: Message edited by: Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar ]

  24. Posted

    Rape: A Conspiracy of Silence

    Yameen Maxamuud

    January 22, 2006

     

    “We will enforce without fear of favour the laws against rape"

     

    Ellen Johnson Sirleaf

    The newly elected President of Liberia

     

    Background

     

    Warring factions have always used rape as a weapon of war to control the minds of enemies particularly through the bodies of woman. Women in general pay a higher price in civil wars. Invading women’s bodies the enemy leaves a permanent legacy of suffering much after the battlefields have ceased. Women often suffer from the hands of those they hold dear and close, sometimes never understanding the reason men whom they share lineage, culture and religion with as well as men who are allien to them equally use rape to shame their opponents through their bodies. Many ask the question why, but simply put women have always been the easiest target to dishonor and torment the enemy. Rape in the context of war is a very murky and complex phenomenon. Much scholarly research has revealed that rape, as a weapon of war has been a permanent episode of torture where men demoralize their male enemy to perhaps increase fear and create a feeling of power.

     

    Somali women have suffered their share of rape during the civil war, and afterwards, and until today as refugees in foreign camps. It is a four-letter word that many shun for one reason or another, but for women who have to bear the ugly pain of rape, it is a life sentence handed to them by neighbors, friends and their compatriots. A taboo topic that needs to loose the walls of disgrace that hide its raw truth. It is simply a mere luxury to avoid it and to hope it shall never appear on the horizon of debate for reasons of guilt and infamy of those who have perpetrated it and the many others who have contributed their share of indignity by silence.

     

    Rape and the way it has been shunned in the Somali community as if it has never occurred is inhumane and unmerited. For the women whose dignity, humanity and self respect has been stolen through rape, avoiding the topic when all other aspects of the war are discussed is simply an unfair, and chauvinistic marginilzation that warrants some debate to shed light on the horrendous ordeal that has transpired on the bodies of the most innocent and meek of society. No amount of Justification can ever grant evenhandedness for the havoc that has transpired on women when men caused one of the merciless civil unrest for reasons of greed and arrogance.

    In the least, the topic warrants an awareness to disgrace those that partook the painful infliction of everlasting dishonor on daughters, mothers, sisters and grandmothers, even children as young as nine years of age.

     

    Victimized to Silence

     

    Rape for Somali women did not appear on the onset of the civil war. For many years before the start of the civil war, a group of young men from the ruling elite of the time has wreaked mayhem on the streets of Mogadishu on the heydays of the Barre tyranny. Since rape is not discussed openly, for some cultural/traditional reasons, the families whose young daughters have vanished as a direct result of it only know the numbers of young women raped by these thugs, but the sad stories that are whispered in the privacy of homes are many. In particular, two young women’s saga has recurrently been told for years because of the pure brutality and wicked cruelty involved.

     

    One particular girl was gang raped in the late eighties by a number of these delinquents headed by a Micheal Maxamed Sh. Cusmaan aka Michael Jiis, the son of the then powerful finance Minster General Maxamed Sheekh Cusmaan, and the son of a prominent business man (Xoosh) who had close shady ties with Barre. She was a college student at the Somali National University, the victim’s name passes through as “Ina Carys Ciise†having lineage to the great Somali poet and Radio personality Carays Ciisa Kaarshe.

    They cooperated to jointly rape the girl. Luckily, due to the famous name she hailed from. The entire city of Mogadishu blistered with the news as the businessman and the Minister did the unthinkable and smuggled their sons out of the country to Europe within the space of a week of the incident.

     

    Another young woman has also suffered in the hands of this elite unforgiving group, rather viciously. This young girl named Subeyda Sh. Ibrahim God bless her soul came from a prominent religious family. She lost her life around December 1990 through the rape that finally claimed her precious young life. Her limp lifeless body, which was intended for a discard to the high seas of Jazeera beach, was latter transported to Medina hospital where the assailant carried the body to rid himself of it when an attempt to abandon the body at the ocean proved impossible due to the presence of others. The attendants at the hospital, also from the ruling elite admitted the lifeless body, later informing the parents of Subeyda of her death. What took place immediately following the brutal rape of Subeyda is a travesty of justice as the family was given the run around.

     

    In this particular case according to Subeyda’s brother, the rapist was non other than Kooshin Caano Geel the son of the Chief of the CID with close family ties to Barre. This time the assailant was not even smuggled out of town, but continued his business in Mogadishu. The family of Subeyda demanded justice to prosecute the rapist; unfortunately, justice was nowhere to be found, as the police slammed every door shut on their faces. A true injustice indeed.

     

    In the heydays of the totalitarianism, raping young innocent victims by the sons of the ruling elite was the norm. The criminals are splashing the scenes of cities around the globe alongside their participatory families. They assume normal lives pushing aside the saga of the horrendous rape they have committed against incident civilians from their new lavish lives while the families of the victims buried their violated daughters muted by the authoritarian government and its supporters.

     

    Using Somali women’s bodies as a terrain of war, rape took an animalistic and sadistic form when gang militias in Mogadishu began to rape women in the most inhumane, immoral, cruel hostile manner. At the advent of war, women were raped not only in their homes, but also in the holly Masjid where they sought refuge. The violence of rape was committed in the presence of children, mothers, fathers and community elders. An unrelenting militia gangster groups wrecked the homes of many innocent less protected groups such as reer Xamar & Barawani women in in Mogadishu, Merka, Brava and elsewhere in the region. These groups were preyed upon for their defenselessness and for being innocent victims of a war they had never partook. Pregnant women were knifed to death to spill the guts that contained live fetuses to end the continuity of one particular group or another.

     

    There are stories of women who were inserted battery carbon and other objects to extend the pain and torture of war. Many other incidents that have transpired on the bodies of innocent victims are too painful to describe. The gang rapes came from militia groups that used women to prove their manhood and torment their enemy. Some of the warlords turn ministers in Mogadishu were at the helm of some of these militias. The attacks were committed often with intension of shaming entire communities. With rape, not only community values but also cultural, spiritual and sisterhood values are perpetually hampered.

     

    Some of the militia who execute such vile, whose immorality led to raping old women in mosques, has since fled the scene as refugees. They may be your next-door neighbor anywhere around the globe as a refugee or worse, they could be preaching to your children as religious figures. Others continue to profit from the ambiance they have created where younger males who have known nothing but war and violence in their lives continue the vicious cycle.

     

    In more recent times in 2004, a rape ignominy was committed against a sixteen-year-old prisoner by the name of Samsam Dualeh who has suffered multiple rapes in the hands of various CID members in Hargeysa. Samsam personally named the men who raped her repeatedly while she was in their custody. They are Siciid foolxun, Ibrahim, Cabdi Jilic, Faracade and two others who cowardly covered their faces while they committed rape against the sixteen year old. All are members of Hargeysa’s CID.

     

    As you read these lines, another Somali refugee has just suffered the wicked act of rape in Dhadhaab and other camps in Kenya where vigilantes menace to gang rape women who travel to the outskirts of the camps to gather firewood for survival. It is a well-documented problem, which many NGOs and International Organizations such as the UN wrestle with. Far from any help with the need of family, they are often gang raped, knifed, beaten and shot into submission. The statistics of rape in Dhadhaab have been going up and women of all ages risk the incidence of rape every time they venture out to collect firewood to survive. Most of these women do not report the rape for fear of being ostracized by their communities and are stigmatized to silence. With no other alternatives they venture out knowing they could come back violated. Their husbands, brothers and fathers are aware of the dangers that lie ahead in these woods. They say they are unable to come up with a solution, in the words of one man “gathering fire wood is a women’s task, there is nothing we can do about itâ€, such is the sad nonchalant attitude most men hold about rape on women, simply no feeling.

     

    Psychological Stigma

     

    The gross underreporting of the rape brought about by the guilt and stigma attached to rape halts any physical and physiological treatments necessary for a rape victim. Rape victims risk a more acute transmission of sexually transmitted diseases such as the HIV virus that causes AIDS.

     

    Women suffer silently as the psychological impacts of rape are profound and never dealt with for cultural reasons. There are feelings of isolation, shame, and a continuous blame. Pain and suffering is stamped on entire families as the devastation of rape erodes the fabric of the community. The suspect and hate that these reprehensible acts against women have created are evident in all Somali communities today where there is much mistrust and polarization.

     

    Whether rape was committed by elite ruling parties as an arrogant leisurely activity or by waring factions as a psychological war tactic, rape is a criminal act. The perpetrators of rape are splashing many cities in the Diaspora leading comfortable lives. Law and justice may lag slowly but it will finally catch up to these criminals. Families who have suffered in the hands of the criminals deserve the backing of the community to finally have their day in court and bring the criminals who have robbed their innocent daughters to justice.

     

    Conclusion

     

    These acts are horrendous and inhumane; they defy human normalcy, Somali humanity and goodwill. It still brings tears to the eyes of many especially the elderly grandmothers who still pray against its remembrance. Some may regard the violent acts of rape war against women during the civil war to be more appalling and atrocious when in fact carrying out rape under the watchful eye of a sitting government in the case of the Barre days and the current administration in Hargeysa are more vulgar, because the thugs seem to have the blessings of their leaders. The rope of despair that has been thrown to these women has stolen their rights and humanity.

     

    The great words of wisdom from the recently elected first woman president in the continent linger with hope for victims of rape. She bravely embraced a taboo issue by most standards and extended optimism to the multiple violated victims of rape. It is indeed a heroic step for President Sirleaf as she chooses a topic, which has been ignored by many on the fore of the agenda. It is with great sadness that various female parliamentary members of the current TFG have chosen to employ a Margaret Thatcher style politics where they ignore social issues that are dear and near to women. They seem to have abonded the cause all together as they align themselves with various warlords. Even worse, is Madame Foreign Minster who seems to hop around the world preaching venom instead of making a difference in the lives of women after all isn’t her only expertise as a nurse to attend to the affairs of the family?. These women should take a cue from the wise words of President Sirleaf. In addition, for the victims of rape, we all hope one day they will have their day in court and justice will prevail. In the mean time, we need to encourage them to come forward with their stories to begin some sort of healing that may remove the stigma of pain that has wretched their hearts for years and place humiliation, abhorrence and immorality its rightful place.

     

    Yasmeen Maxamuud

    E-Mail: Yasmeen_Maxmuud@yahoo.com

    Contributing Editor, WardheerNews.com

     

    Reference:

    Mary Anne Fitzgerald and Shep Lowman

    from THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, Paris

     

    For Somali Refugees No Safe Heaven

    By Karl Vick

     

    Breaking the silence – why do soldiers rape in war?

    Report from a conference organised by the World Veterans Federation’s (WVF) Committee on African Affairs held in Rabat, Marocco, March 12, 1999.

    Marius van Niekerk

     

    C.C. Affey

    WWW.somalitribune.com

     

    WWW.Agabso.com (Listen to the entire Samsam interview)