Somaliland Chief of Staff Major General Ismael Shaqale and the chief of operations for Somaliland forces Brigadier General Abdullah Haji Jama accompanied by unspecified number of senior officers have left the country headed to Ethiopia.
Although the exact reason of the visit is still unclear unconfirmed sources indicated top military officers representing both countries are thought to be holding discussions on how to find ways of strengthening existing military cooperation between the two countries.
The visit to neighboring Ethiopia by top echelons in Somaliland army comes amid the recent awarding of ranks to senior officers by President Silanyo which introduces the previously absent administrative leadership structure that not only marks categorical status while instilling discipline amongst the ranks, but is also an incentive catalyst of (and for) enhancing performance within the service by individual servicemen.
Every year Somaliland sends more 150 cadets to the Combined Army Academy in Awash, Ethiopia and Somaliland cadets are known for performing exemplary well in Ethiopian Military Academies.
President Ahmed Mohamed Mahmoud (Silanyo) has met with the CEO of a Turkish oil exploration company GENEL Energy Mr. John Hayward in London, UK Capital.
Top officials of the Turkish owned company hosted a luncheon in honor of President and entourage at the headquarters of Genel Energy in London.
During the luncheon President Silanyo spoke of the potentials Somaliland holds in terms of natural resources which currently remains unexplored by the outside world.
President Silanyo also took the opportunity to reiterate his government commitment to work with all those who are ready to invest in the country by saying “Somaliland is open for business”.
The chief executive late last year while visiting Somaliland reiterated that the company will kick off the oil exploration and in which the company pumped more than invest forty million dollars into the project. He thanked President Silanyo and people of Somaliland,he added” We(Genel) expect that the project will bear fruit and that we will successfully produce oil for Somaliland people by the year of 2014,.
The Turkish owned Genel Energy entered the farm in agreement on the 12th of November 2012 after both sides agreed to farm for 50 per cent of Jacka Resources Limited’s (“Jacka”) license interests so as to explore for and produce oil and gas in the Odewayne Block, this paves way for Genel Energy to substantially increasing its acreage position in Somaliland.
If Somalia is to survive as a nation-state and having at least a normal functioning government with even average bureaucratic operations, it must urgently find effective solutions to the epidemic of Kat addiction among its population as a national priority. The problem is more than socio-economic issue. It is a grave national security threat. In the summer of 1997, I was a member of a delegation of the now defunct National Salvation Council (the NSC, aka Sodare Group) from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to Mogadishu, Somalia. The delegation members included NSC Co-chairmen, Ali Mahdi Mohamed and Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed as well as Council members, Mohamud Mohamed Guled (Gacmadheere), Duuliye Sare Abdi Osman Farah among others. We numbered about 13 men and one female. We were on our way to meet with an Italian delegation led by then Deputy Foreign Minister for Africa, Senator Serri, who was about to visit Mogadishu for the sole purpose of mediating between disputing Mogadishu warlords despite many other problems of Somalia. The vision of the Italian delegation on Somalia was not beyond the Banadir Region at that particular time. Abdullahi Yusuf’s intention in the mission was to disrupt the Italian visit (which he did successfully) while Ali Mahdi’s was to win over the Italian favor against Hussein Aidiid and Osman Ali Atto. We made a two-day stop-over in Djibouti. The Prime Minister of Djibouti then, Barkat Gourad Hamadou, honored us with a lavish luncheon with tender baby-goat’s meat and other delicacies of Djibouti at his residence. After the lunch, we were taken to a large and well furnished room with an Arabic seating with soft cushions specifically designed for long-time session comfort for Kat indulgence, gossiping experience, news and secrets debriefing under the “high” influence of the stuff. In front of every person a bazooka-like wrapping was placed, a large silver tray full of the tools of the trade: A big and tall golden tea thermos, crystal glasses, shining and engraved tea-mugs, various branded cold soft drinks in plastic Coca Cola –type bottles and commercially distilled water in gravines with swimming crystal clear ice rocks, all to be consumed in the breezing air-condition of the room- an artificial weather hide-out from the environment of burning heat of the City of Djibouti. After a few chit-chats, Prime Minister Hamadou noticed that none of the members of our delegation was using the stuff as they were all non-chewers at least at that period of time. The Prime Minister was a bit annoyed and asked: “Why are you in civil war then, if there is nothing to fight for?” I guess we spoiled the daily indulgence session for our generous, high-level Djibouti guest. Luckily, the conversation didn’t break up as we a had had a lot to discuss on Somalia, Somalia-Djibouti past and future relationships and the Horn of Africa, in general. During those few years, I discovered, in separate sessions, that Ismail Omar Gheleh, the current President of Djibouti, was pondering about his desire to join his tiny country with Ethiopia as he was desperately convinced that Djibouti would not survive on its own. There was rampant corruption in the seaport, the main revenue generating enterprise besides high spending men of the French legionnaires at Djibouti night clubs. The City of Djbouti was on the verge of being taken over by the influx of Ethiopians, who needed no immigration papers to come in. It was only Puntland help in 1999 to commit him to Somalia’s National Reconciliation process, encouraging him to take it over from Ethiopia, an AU and IGAD Mandated Country for Somali National Reconciliation Process, while President Abdullahi Yusuf convinced President Daniel arab Moi of Kenya to support President Ismail Omar Ghueleh to play the role. It was undoubtedly a diplomatic success that pushed Ethiopia aside from the Somali issues. One may guess already why Ethiopia was not happy with President Yusuf lately. The second help came to Djibouti from post-9/11 World Order. Besides God’s wish, it was only these two factors that saved Djibouti from voluntary union with Ethiopia. Unfortunately, he betrayed Puntland State during the initial phases of the Arta Conference, a rift that eventually undermined the TNG of Abdulkassim Salad Hassan to pave the way for holding Embagati (Kenya) all inclusive and broad-based Somali National Conference and final the establishment of the Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic (TFG) in 2004, transforming it into the Somali Federal Republic in 2012. Suddenly, the Prime Minister shared with us the socio-economic devastation Kat consumption has been causing on Djibouti at the time. He informed us that Djibouti was paying Ethiopia a hundred thousand US dollars daily, and that was only the portion of the payments that goes though from bank to bank. Think about residents who buy the stimulant on their own from individual Chat traders on the top of train and air passengers who also bring sacks of the green leaves to their families, relatives and friends in Djibouti cities. On a number of occasions, I stopped over in Djibouti for a short stay. On multiple times, arriving at Djibouti International Airport, I used to see popular demonstration-like commotion at the gates of the airport-population rushing to the airport when Kat cargo delivery from Ethiopia is delayed for only a few hours. One would see custom and passport control officers whose mouths are asymmetrically filled with Qat and chewing it on the job. Think about the officers’ mental judgment and decision-making capability under the influence of the hyper-leaves at country’s highly sensitive and main border entry point. The situation is even worse in Somalia with a few millions of US dollars spent every day on the habit. With no credible fiscal statics available, the country may be fast sinking into public and personal bankrupt. A failed state desperately trying to recover from decades of civil war and total collapse of public services and institutions, has also population wholly consumed by the epidemics of daily Chat use, effectively destroying the socio-economic fabric of its society, abysmally curtailing manpower productive hours and bringing havoc to family livelihoods and relationships while it is also at same sometime constitutes an instigator and main source of corruption and loose social morals. A country with the geographical size larger several times than Italy or UK with porous long borders with Ethiopia and Kenya requires alert and non-Chat chewing security personnel and efficient bureaucracy. The irony is that Somalis nowadays like to talk about safeguarding their sovereignty and territorial integrity, while at sometime allowing their neighbor states to dump poisonous addictive Kat to their citizens, drain their economy, disable their manpower and threaten their vital national security interests. Think about the real double-talk and double standard with a proverbial ostrich attitude! Somalia has to come up with a solution to the menace of the Qat. While fully it is understandable that it is tough to try to ban the habit outright, at least a committee of experts should be immediately setup to study the problem and submit recommendations to competent bodies for, at minimum, regulating it and eventually outlawing it. Massive public education and media programs relating to its dangerous hazards to personal and public health should be initiated and launched immediately to stop the spread of the habit to young generation. Somalia cannot afford to continue to ignore its greatest, silent killer of its productive members of the society and the gravest national calamity posed by Kat trade. Please wake up! Ismail Haji Warsame E-mail: ismailwarsame@gmail.com Blog: Ismail Warsame
Mogadishu, Somalia – The car barely came to a stop when a hand softly knocked at the tinted passenger seat window. The window rolled down, revealing a tall, skinny figure wearing a half-buttoned, baggy polyester shirt, a red sarong, and pink sandals – and holding a rusty AK-47 in his left hand.
“Seven-hundred fifty dollars,” he said in a firm voice, barely making eye contact, before dropping the fully loaded gun onto this reporter’s lap. Another 10 men came rushing from nearby shops and sheds, each screaming out the price of the weapon they were trying to sell.
To the untrained eye, the scene may have looked like a kidnap-in-progress.
In fact, this is the traffic-congested, heavily potholed Zobe area of Mogadishu, a new arms market just a short walking distance from the offices of Somalia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry.
Before the al-Qaeda-linked group al-Shabab retreated from Mogadishu, weapons were sold in the open at Bakara Market, the city’s main business hub that was then under their control.
But a lot has changed since those days. The government, soon after taking control of Bakara Market, ordered weapon traders to cease selling their wares.
A lucrative business
Although the traders closed their shops, they haven’t disappeared completely. Instead, they have resurfaced in areas like Zobe. Despite having no shops to sell their wares from, business isn’t bad. In fact, it’s better now than before for those still selling guns to make a living.
Ahmed Ilka’ase – the man behind the car’s tinted window – has been an arms trader for the past 15 years. For him, the business has never been more lucrative. “There are only about 30 of us selling guns here. But in Bakara Market there were hundreds of us. Less sellers mean less competition and higher prices.”
The price of guns has more than doubled. Two years ago, a second-hand AK-47 used to cost $350. Now it costs $750. The price of bullets has also shot up. A single AK-47 bullet used to retail at $0.50, but now costs $1.
Ilka’ase said he makes at least $50 profit for each Ak-47 he sells – more than many earn in a month in Mogadishu. “I sell at least two guns a day, so on a quiet day I take home $100.”
Somalia’s more than 20 years of civil war has left the country awash in small arms. The exact number of firearms in the hands of civilians is unknown, although it is estimated that the figure is about 550,000 to 750,000 , and only about 14,000 of them are registered.
Between 2004 and 2011, the United Nations Monitoring Group reported almost 50,000 instances involving the transfer of small arms and light weapons in Somalia. To protect civilians and curb the flow of weapons to those involved in the Somali civil war, the UN imposed an arms embargo in 1992.
With support from its international partners, Somalia’s new internationally recognised government – in office since September 2012 – is tirelessly campaigning to have the embargo lifted.
But human rights groups are concerned that lifting the ban will exacerbate the conflict in the Horn of Africa nation.
“To lift the arms embargo would allow even more unregulated weapons into Somalia with no safeguards and no controls,” said Gemma Davies, Somalia researcher at Amnesty International. “We believe that the government still lacks the capacity to prevent the diversion of substantial quantities of its own weaponry and military equipment to other armed groups and to Somalia’s domestic arms market.”
The Somali government says they need weapons for their poorly equipped army, which continues to fight al-Shabab. They claim no government weapons will fall into to the hands of the wrong group: “After the ban is lifted and before we buy any weapons, we will put in place checks to prevent weapons going to anyone other than our soldiers. That’s number-one priority for our government, and we are already working on that,” said deputy defence minister Abdirahman Kulmiye Hirsi.
‘I pray God gets rid of them’
Not everyone in Zobe neighbourhood welcomes an illegal arms market in this busy commercial centre, but no one dares to say so in public. Most don’t want to speak about the new traders here, and those who do lower their voices to almost a whisper. Fartun Mohamed owns a popular ice cream shop a few metres away from where Ilka’ase and his business friends are standing. “They stand here all day selling bullets like it’s biscuits,” she said. “Sometimes shots go off, scaring our customers away. I pray God gets rid of them,” she added, while selling extra-sweet vanilla-flavoured ice cream to children in school uniforms.
In the course of 30 minutes three cars pull up. Two buy brand-new AK-47s and the remaining one buys a used Belgium-made pistol.
“I bought this pistol because I just came back from the Netherlands and don’t feel safe in Mogadishu. I also can’t afford having personal security guards,” said the bulky, bald man who bought the pistol, refusing to give his name.
The weapons traders want to see their trade licensed, not banned. “We will like our trade to be licensed, like they do in Yemen and America. We don’t think banning the sale of guns will make guns disappear from Somalia,” said Ahmed Noor, an older gun trader in Zobe.
But that’s not a view shared or entertained by the government. “No, that won’t happen. Our government policy is for arms not to be in civilian hands, and those selling guns to civilians are lawbreakers and will be dealt with. We won’t offer licenses to those breaking the law,” asserted Hirsi.
“Our biggest priority is to get those arms in civilian hands in government hands, and we have already started doing that in Hiiraan province with help from AMISOM [the African Union Mission in Somalia].”
Ilka’ase says he is in this trade purely for profit. “If I’m given another job that guarantees me at least $100 a day, I will consider it. But until then I will buy and sell guns.”
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — A Somali journalist is being detained without charge in Somalia for speaking out against the imprisonment of a fellow reporter, said an international human rights group.
Daud Abdi Daud has been held without charge since Feb. 5 and his detention is sending a broader message to Somali journalists to stay silent, said Human Rights Watch in a statement released Tuesday.
According to the rights group, Daud’s arrest stems from an incident last week when a Mogadishu court handed down one-year prison sentences to a woman who said she was raped by security forcesand a reporter who interviewed her. Daud spoke out in court saying that journalists have the right to interview people.
After Daud reportedly added that he would even seek to interview the president’s wife, the police arrested him, the group said.
Human Rights Watch has asked Somali authorities to immediately charge or release Daud.
“The authorities should charge or release him, but they should not be shutting down free expression by jailing journalists and throwing away the key,” said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch. Somali authorities declined to comment on Daud’s arrest.
Somali Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdon on Tuesday said that due process must be observed in the administration of justice.
“We have an independent judiciary in Somalia and although the government cannot and must not be involved in the administration of justice, I am urging due process to be followed at all times,” he said in a statement.
Shirdon said that the Independent Task Force on Human Rights, which was launched earlier this month, will be looking at human rights abuses committed over the past 12 months.
“I reiterate my government’s commitment to a free press and freedom of speech. Journalists should feel that they are not alone. It is essential that they are able to work freely and effectively without facing additional difficulties,” Shirdon said.
The alleged rape victim in the case Daud attended was charged with insulting a government body, inducing false evidence, simulating a criminal offense and making a false accusation. Freelance journalist Abdiaziz Abdinur was charged with insulting a government body and inducing the woman to give false evidence. Three others charged in the case, including the woman’s husband, were acquitted Tuesday.
All the defendants denied the charges in court.
Rights groups said the handling of the rape case is politically motivated because the woman had accused security forces of the assault. Rape is reported to be rampant in Mogadishu, where tens of thousands of people who fled last year’s famine live in poorly protected camps. Government troops are often blamed.
The charges and resulting sentences may result in even fewer victims of sexual assault coming forward to report attacks in conservative Somalia, rights groups fear.
Somalia is one of the world’s most dangerous countries in which to practice journalism, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Last year 18 Somali journalists were killed yet no one was arrested. So far this year one reporter has been killed making it 45 since 2007.
During the International Day to End Impunity last year the National Union of Somali Journalists said that impunity has become a fundamental problem in Somalia.
Journalists in almost every region of the country commonly face harassment, blackmail, arbitrary police detention and, in addition, criminals are hired to suppress them, said the group.
Visitors arriving at Aden Adde International Airport in the Somali capital of Mogadishu can be forgiven for wondering where they have landed. As the aircraft taxis toward the terminal, concrete bollards appear, painted with the distinctive white star and crescent of the Turkish flag. Shorn-headed, muscular white men in dark glasses stroll around the airfield as if it were their own, directing unmarked planes toward fortress like enclosures complete with watchtowers and razor wire. In order to leave the airport, one must run a gauntlet of tense, heavily armed Ugandan and Burundian soldiers guarding the exit.
The situation at the airport reflects the state of Somalia as a whole. Since the late 1980s, the country has been without effective central authority and has, in some sense, become a playground for international experiments in state-building, peacekeeping, and disaster relief. Because of its strategic position in the Horn of Africa, proximity to the Arab world, and current association with al-Qaeda and sea piracy, Somalia has attracted multiple foreign interventions—military, diplomatic, and humanitarian. At times these efforts have backfired spectacularly, like the U.S. military’s 1993 Operation Restore Hope, which started off as a largely humanitarian venture. The operation ended with the infamous Black Hawk Down incident, when Somali militiamen shot down U.S. helicopters in Mogadishu and jeering crowds dragged the naked corpses of American soldiers through the streets.
Somalia has been fought over and torn apart since the colonial period, when France, Italy, Great Britain, and Ethiopia all staked claims over Somalia and its people, who lived—and continue to live—in an expanse of territory far greater than that enclosed by Somalia’s current national borders. Today, there are significant Somali populations in all three of Somalia’s neighboring states: Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti. In the 1970s, Somalia’s war with Ethiopia was in many ways a proxy conflict between Cold War powers. Somalia suffered defeat when the Soviet Union dramatically switched sides, abandoning it as an ally following a call for help from Ethiopia’s new Marxist leader, Mengistu Haile Mariam.
The number of foreign powers currently involved in Somalia is perhaps greater than it has ever has been. Kenyan, Ugandan, Burundian, and Djiboutian troops are on the ground as part of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). Ethiopian soldiers are also present in significant numbers, as are military advisers and covert troops from the United States and Europe. Several nations have frigates patrolling off the Somali coast in an effort to combat piracy, while the United Nations has controlled Somali airspace since 1996. Simultaneously, private security companies employing personnel from a wide range of countries operate in some parts of the territory, while in other areas jihadists from South Asia, the Arab world, and elsewhere fight for al Shabaab, the al-Qaeda-linked militia that occupies much of southern and central Somalia. Al Shabaab has recently lost its main urban strongholds, however, and has resorted to more traditional asymmetric guerrilla-style violence including suicide bombings and targeted assassinations.
Apart from combating the foreign jihadis, the stated aim of these myriad forces is to rid Somalia of al-Qaeda elements and sea pirates and to restore stability. Their presence, however, is highly problematic. Somalis are a proud and independent people who are traditionally hostile to foreign military presence and political interference. In particular, Somalis are suspicious of Kenya and Ethiopia, both of which have established buffer zones along the Somali border and interfere with governance in those areas. For now, many Somalis are grateful to the African Union troops for playing a key role in wresting a number of towns and cities from al Shabaab’s control, including Mogadishu. It is unclear, however, how long they will tolerate AMISOM, especially as the mission does not appear to have a clear exit strategy. The longer AMISOM stays, the more likely it is that Somali patience will wear thin.
Many Somalis argue that the presence of so many foreign troops in Somalia means that not enough attention is being paid to building up a strong and integrated national military and police forces. In the short term, outsourcing Somalia’s security to the international community may be easier than training, equipping, and integrating the country’s numerous militia groups into a unified force. That, however, cannot be a permanent solution.
In addition to domestic security, politics have, to some extent, been taken out of Somali hands. There has been much talk amongst foreign diplomats, academics, journalists, and UN representatives about how Somalis led the recent approval of a draft constitution and the selection of a new parliament and president, marking the end of a long period of political transition. Yet much of the de facto political power in Somalia remains in the hands of the UN, the United States, Europe, and other outside actors. Moreover, when politics do not seem to be proceeding the way UN and Western diplomats would like, outside players try to exert pressure in the hope that the process is brought back on course. It often seems that political developments are not Somali-owned at all, but rather guided by a form of external remote control.
The 2011 presidential election, determined by parliamentary vote, is a prime example. Before the election, it appeared that the incumbent head of state Sheikh Sharif Ahmed had developed an agreement with Sharif Hassan Sheikh Aden, a powerful former parliamentary speaker, which would virtually guarantee his reelection as president. But a flurry of internal maneuvering and diplomatic activity prevented this from happening. It was even rumored that Qatar provided funds for the eventual winner, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, to buy parliamentary votes.
As a journalist and a close observer of many recent political developments in Somalia, I often feel as though I am watching a series of parallel universes. Interest groups seem to exist in separate bubbles, occasionally colliding, but usually floating independently of one another. Such is the case with the Somalia-focused community at the UN, which includes what is known as the “Nairobi bubble” of well-paid UN officials based in Kenya, a separate and parallel world to the UN Somalia team in New York. The two arms seem to operate at cross-purposes as often as they are cooperating. Even different UN departments compete with one another or fail to communicate effectively. Somali politicians and other wily operators have become experts at exploiting this disconnect, using various sources of outside assistance for their personal advantage. For example, a UN report leaked in July 2012 said that seventy percent of the millions of dollars earmarked for the development and reconstruction of Somalia had gone unaccounted for, much of it diverted into the pockets of Somali politicians. Somalis in turn have accused the UN of spending much of the money meant for their country on the lavish lifestyle of Nairobi-based UN employees, many of whom rarely set foot in Somalia. In many ways, the vast UN Somalia operation and Somali politicians are mutually dependent on each other. If the challenges in Somalia were to subside and the UN was to withdraw, many UN workers would lose their jobs and some Somali officials would lose lucrative cash flows.
In recent years, a number of newcomers have also entered the picture. Gulf states such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have become increasingly active in Somalia, as has Iran. Turkey, however, has made the most concerted efforts of late, effectively making Somalia its foothold in Africa. In August 2011, during the height of famine in Somalia, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan scored a diplomatic coup by travelling with his family to Mogadishu—the first non-African head of state to do so in two decades. His visit served as the catalyst for a massive, highly visible Turkish humanitarian effort in the capital. The Turks donated food, set up a well-ordered camp for the displaced, and converted bullet-scarred buildings into schools and hospitals. Turkish teachers and doctors now live among the Somali population, instead of barricading themselves in secure zones at the airport or directing operations from Nairobi. In fact, as one Somali put it, “Turkey has become the McDonald’s of Mogadishu. Their flags are everywhere, just like the yellow arches of McDonald’s are everywhere in America.”
Unlike most other foreign interventions, the Turkish effort has been popular among Somalis. Some Somalis say Turkey has done more for Somalia in a few months than the rest of the world has done in decades; a number have even named their baby boys “Erdogan” after the prime minister. But not everyone views Turkey’s presence quite so positively. A report published in October 2012 by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) claims that many countries consider Turkey’s role in Somalia to be naïve adventurism. Envy of Turkey’s achievements might partially explain this assessment, but the ICG also suggests that Turkey’s approach has been too unilateral and has duplicated other, ongoing efforts to improve the situation. The report also critiques Turkey’s efforts as too focused on Mogadishu and claims that the Turkish contingent has been manipulated by Somali politicians. It also notes that Turkey’s officials have been too close to former President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, who has been widely accused of corruption.
Regardless of opinions on Turkey’s controversial involvement, the truth is that even if foreign powers were to leave Somalia alone, it would not be able to function as a proper country or nation-state as we know it. Decades without a strong central government have led to severe political disintegration: the country has essentially split up into a series of semi-autonomous regions that operate as “statelets,” some fairly stable, others chaotic and violent. The result is a constantly shifting patchwork, marked by regions that sometimes rub against each other and break into open conflict.
The most striking example of autonomy is Somaliland in the northwest, which declared itself independent from the rest of the country in 1991. Although it lacks international recognition, Somaliland is a functioning polity and more democratic than the rest of the Horn of Africa. Arguably the most successful Somali region, Somaliland has also experienced the lowest degree of foreign interference, particularly since it developed its own political system from the ground up, marrying traditional forms of authority with more modern, Western-style democracy. For example, the upper house of parliament, or guurti, is made up of traditional elders, while the lower house is elected.
Other parts of Somalia operate more as semi-autonomous units such as Puntland in the northeast, where international companies are exploring for oil, and the newly formed region of Jubbaland in the south, which runs along the Kenyan border. Elsewhere, particularly in south-central Somalia, much smaller units—including towns, villages, pastoralist groups, and religious communities—carry out fairly effective forms of self-government and administration. The challenge for Mogadishu will be to balance these disparate forms of authority with each other and the central government. It is telling that the newly drafted constitution does not yet address the allocation of resources between the regions and the center.
As well as the many “mini-Somalias” within the territory, there is also the challenge of considering “Greater Somalia.” For many Somalis, their true nation encompasses the five points of the white star on the Somali flag that stand for Somalia, Somaliland, and the Somali-speaking regions of Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya. It could be argued that the years of conflict and instability have led to the creation of a sixth point on the star, representing the global Somali diaspora stretching from Australia to America and from Dubai to Denmark. Somalia will always be “bigger” than the territory it inhabits on the world map.
Many Somalis have used their forced displacement to great effect, creating a highly globalized community of economically dynamic, technologically sophisticated entrepreneurs. Their financial and technological acumen both in Somalia and in the diaspora, however, has not been matched by an ability to function well politically. Signs indicate the new authorities in Mogadishu will be different from previous administrations, which did not seem capable of separating violence and corruption from political power. There are also indications that the outside world is beginning to understand Somalia a little better, ceding more room to Somalis to do things their way and in their time. For example, the international community recently permitted Somalis to choose their parliament, president, and other leaders on Somali soil, rather than forming a government during internationally sponsored conferences outside the country, as has been done over the past twenty years. In the meantime, however, the presence of so many foreign boots on Somali soil and international involvement in its politics will continue to pose serious challenges, both in terms of devising a workable exit strategy and giving Somalis the chance to take charge of their own security and development.
By Mary Harper
Mary Harper is Africa Editor at the BBC World Service and author of Getting Somalia Wrong? Faith, War and Hope in a Shattered State (London: Zed Books, 2012). Her website is http://www.maryharper.co.uk.
A court in Hargeisa has reached a verdict in a case involving the Somaliland minister of presidency Hon Hirsi Ali Haji Hassan and Nadra Mohamed Jama a middle aged woman who was accused of sending inflammatory SMS text message threatening the minister.
The Hargeisa District court reached the verdict today after the accused woman in front of a packed courtroom said,” I am the one who send the SMS text messages to the minister of Presidency.
The presiding judge then read the ruling in which he sentenced the accused to serve an 8 month jail sentence.
Prior to the sentencing close family members of the Nadra Mohamed Jama wrote a letter of apology to the minister of Presidency in which was circulated by local media outlets.
The case had attracted the interested of both the majority of Somaliland population and local Human rights groups who later withdrew their support.
A delegation from the Republic of Somaliland led by President Ahmed Mohamed Mahmoud Silanyo met with the UK Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon William Hague, at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in London on 11 February. The President was accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Mohamed Omar, and the Minister of National Planning Dr. Sa’ad Shire.
President Silanyo took the opportunity to brief the Foreign Secretary about the present security situation in Somaliland, highlighting both the historic record of peace and stability that the country has enjoyed for over 21 years as well as the specific measures his administration has taken to consolidate and expand on these achievements. He thanked Foreign Secretary Hague for the generous assistance which the UK is providing to Somaliland, noting that support in fostering investment, improving the security sector and enhancing democratic governance remain vital to Somaliland’s development and the region’s stability.
Both the President and the Foreign Secretary drew attention to the invaluable role that Somaliland plays in the fights against terrorism, noting that, the recent travel advice citing threats to western nationals in Somaliland will soon be revised as the security agents of both countries conclude their joint operations on those threats.
Expressing gratitude for the UK’s help in facilitating Somaliland/Somalia Dialogue, President Silanyo reaffirmed Somaliland’s commitment and readiness to resume the talks with Somalia.
Since its arrival on Saturday, the President’s delegation has received a warm welcome by the UK government and the Somaliland diaspora community living in the country. The high-level protocol arrangements afforded to the delegation, as well as the presence of such a large, influential and well-respected Somaliland expatriate community in the UK, both underscore the deep historic ties and current cooperation between Somaliland and the UK.
The British people are known for their politeness. Therefore, we (i.e. my humble soul and my fellow citizen Somaliland) would like to politely tell them, in their language, to go home and stay home.
All of a sudden, the British government has made an announcement advising its citizens to leave Somaliland since it is no longer safe for them to stay there. This is the first time this advice to British citizens to immediately leave Somaliland is given by the British government. Therefore, the British authorities must have obtained undeniable intelligence that a highly dangerous terrorist plot is imminent to happen.
The terrorist plot happened a day later after the British government made the announcement. But it did not happen anywhere in Somaliland. It happened in Somalia, particularly in Mogadishu and right in front of the Prime Minister’s office. We condemn any kind of terrorism any where in the world. And we also understand the early warning systems developed by Western governments to forewarn against terrorist acts before they happen and destroy precious life and property.
However, since they do employ huge resources, both in the form of manpower and money, their early warning systems must be foolproof and must not undermine the abilities, the integrity, and the reputation of other nations.
It seems to me that Western nations, such as Britain, the US, and France, will always use the proverbial “double standards” when it comes to events, particularly terrorist events, that happen around the world. If a terrorist event happens, for example, in Britain, the US, or France, these countries do not raise alarm bells telling anyone to leave either London, New York, or Paris, let alone their entire countries. However, on the basis of an intelligence report, whether accurate or inaccurate, they tell their citizen to leave the so-called developing countries and stay away from them until further notice.
This Western policy does not only express “double standards”, it also expresses arrogance and disdain for anything or anyone not Western. The suspicion and disrespect burgeons if the person or the country is non-Western and Muslim, too. Indeed, it becomes an inherent fear of the “other”, who looks different and behaves different.
The other, who not so long ago was a slave or a colonial subject perceived simply either as a nigger, a darkie, or a savage whose burden has fallen upon the West to civilize him. In spite of the abolition of slavery, colonialism, and the declarations of freedom and universal human rights, the West’s political and economic domination, cultural supremacy, and hidden racism linger on. Hence, they use either their excessive fighting power or effective systems of retreat as the condition warrants.
Coming back to the British terrorist alert against Somaliland, I would like to put few questions to the British government. Of course, I do not anticipate the mighty British government to respond to the questions of my humble soul, but it is important to ask them if only for the record.
Your predicted terrorist act happened in Somalia and not in Somaliland, can you tell us how you mixed up the two? Has Britain forgotten that Somaliland as a country that shows its identity by insisting to maintain the English word “land’ as part of its name, keeping alive its separateness as a country (i.e. the former British Somaliland Protectorate), is different from Somalia (i.e. the former UN Trusteeship)? Does Britain wish to revive the failed union that took place between the two in 1960? Is Britain paving the way for the revival of “Greater Somalia” that its late Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, crafted in 1945? Is Britain a friend or a foe of Somaliland? And lastly, fear or no fear, what exactly does Britain want from Somaliland?
For some time now, I have been heralding Ethiopia’s irreversible march from dictatorship to democracy. In April 2011, I wrote a commentary entitled, “The Bridge on the Road(map) to Democracy”. I suggested,
We can conceive of the transition from dictatorship to democracy as a metaphorical journey on the road to progress, freedom and human enlightenment (democracy) or a regression to tyranny, subjugation and bondage (dictatorship). Societies and nations move along this road in either direction. Dictatorships can be transformed into democracies and vice versa. But the transition takes place on a bridge that connects the road from dictatorship to democracy. It is on this bridge that the destinies of nations and societies, great and small, are made and unmade. If the transition on the bridge is orderly, purposeful and skillfully managed, then democracy could become a reality. If it is chaotic, contentious and combative, there will be no crossing the bridge, only pedaling backwards to dictatorship. My concern is what could happen on the bridge linking dictatorship to democracy in Ethiopia when that time comes to pass.
In June 2012, I wrote a commentary entitled, “Ethiopia: On the Road to Constitutional Democracy”. I argued with supporting historical evidence that “Most societies that have sought to make a transition from tyranny and dictatorship to democracy have faced challenging and complex roadblocks.” Focusing on the practical lessons of the “Arab Spring”, I proposed a constitutional pre-dialogue and offered some suggestions:
The search for a democratic constitution and the goal of a constitutional democracy in Ethiopia will be a circuitous, arduous and challenging task. But it can be done… To overcome conflict and effect a peaceful transition, competing factions must work together, which requires the development of consensus on core values. Public civic education on a new constitution must be provided in the transitional period. Ethiopian political parties, organizations, leaders, scholars, human rights advocates and others should undertake a systematic program of public education and mobilization for democratization and transition to a genuine constitutional democracy. To have a successful transition from dictatorship to constitutional democracy, Ethiopians need to practice the arts of civil discourse and negotiations….”
They are pedaling backwards on the low road of dictatorship, but are we marching forward on the highway to democracy?
It is easy for some people to speak truth to power, or the powers that be. Without great difficulty, they can preach to abusers of power why they are wrong, what they are doing wrong, why they should right their wrong and do right by those they have wronged. But it is not so easy to speak truth to powers that could be, particularly when one does not know who “they” are. Instead of speaking truth to the powers that could be, I will simply ask: They are pedaling backwards on the low road of dictatorship, but are we marching forward on the highway to democracy? Where do we go (or not go) from here?
Ordinarily, this question would be put to Ethiopia’s “opposition leaders”. For some time now, I have been wondering who those leaders are and are not. In my commentary last September entitled, “Ethiopia’s Opposition at the Dawn of Democracy?”, I asked out loud (but never got answer), “Who is the Ethiopian ‘opposition’?” I confessed my bewilderment then as I do now: “There is certainly not a monolithic opposition in the form of a well-organized party. There is no strong and functional coalition of political parties that could effectively challenge both the power and ideology of the ruling party. There is not an opposition in the form of an organized vanguard of intellectuals. There is not an opposition composed of an aggregation of civil society institutions including unions and religious institutions, rights advocates and dissident groups. There is not an opposition in the form of popular mass based political or social movements. There is not…”
Stated differently, is the “opposition that amorphous aggregation of weak, divided, squabbling, factionalized and fragmented parties and groups that are constantly at each other’s throats? The grumbling aggregation of human rights advocates, civic society organizers, journalists and other media professionals and academics? The groups committed to armed struggle and toppling the dictatorship by force the opposition? Anyone who thinks or self-proclaims s/he is the opposition?” All or none of the above?
I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that the disciples of the late Meles Zenawi would have no problems explaining where they are going from here. They would state with certainty, “Come hell or high water, we’ll pedal backwards lockstep in Meles’ ‘eternally glorious’ footsteps to the end of the rainbow singing Kumbaya to grab the pot of gold he has left for us under the Grand Renaissance Dam. We will fly high in the sky on the wings of a 10, 12, 15 percent annual economic growth and keep flying higher and higher…” I say it is still better to have a road map to La-La Land than sitting idly by twiddling one’s thumbs about the motherland.
Is the question to be or not be in the opposition? What does it mean to be in the “opposition”? What must one do to be in the “opposition”? Is heaping insults, bellyaching, gnashing teeth and criticizing those abusing power the distinctive mark of being in the opposition? Is frothing at the mouth with words of anger and frustration proof of being the opposition? How about opposing the abusers of power for the sake of opposing them and proclaiming moral victory? Is opposing the abusers of power without a vision plan, a plan of action or a strategic plan really opposition?
I have often said that Meles believed he “knew the opposition better than the opposition knew itself.” Meles literally laughed at his opposition. He considered the leaders of his opposition to be his intellectual inferiors. He believed he could outwit, outthink, outsmart, outplay, outfox and outmaneuver them all, save none, any day of the week. He believed them to be dysfunctional, shiftless and inconsequential; he never believed they could pose a challenge to his power. In his speeches and public comments, he ridiculed, scorned and sneered at them. He treated his opposition like wayward children who needed constant supervision, discipline and well-timed spanking to keep them in line. Truth be told, during his two decades in power, Meles was able to outwit, outthink, outsmart, outplay, outfox and outmaneuver, and neutralize his opposition at will. Meles’ disciples today trumpet their determination to walk in his footsteps and do exactly the same thing.
Where is the “opposition” now?
Perhaps it is premature to pose the question, “Where do we go from here?” to Ethiopia’s “opposition”. It may be more appropriate to ask where the “opposition” is (is not) now. From my vantage point, the “opposition” is in a state of resignation, stagnation, negation, frustration and alienation. I see the “opposition” watching with hypnotic fascination the abusers of power chasing after their tails. The “opposition” seems anchorless, agenda less, aimless, directionless, dreamless and feckless. The “opposition”, it seems to me, is in a state of slumber, in crises and in a state of paralysis.
Time was when the “opposition” got together, stood together, put heads together, worked together, campaigned together, negotiated together, compromised together, met the enemy together and even went to jail together. Flashback 2005! The “opposition” set aside ethnic, religious, linguistic, ideological and other differences and came together to pursue a dream of freedom and democracy. That dream bound the opposition and strengthened the bonds of their brotherhood and sisterhood. The “opposition” mobilized together against factionalism and internal conflicts and closed ranks against those who sought to divide and split it. By doing so, the opposition thumped the ruling party in the polls.
In the past seven years, the dream of democracy and freedom among the “opposition” seems to have slowly faded away and the strength of its champions sapped away in mutual distrust and recrimination. Dialogue in the “opposition” has been replaced with monologue and deafening silence; action with inaction; cooperation with obstruction; coalition with partisanship; unity with division; amity with enmity and civility with intolerance.
The “opposition” wants change and rid Ethiopia of tyranny and dictatorship. But as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent. … We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” The Ethiopian “opposition” needs to stand up erect and make demands with steely ackbone and stiff upper lip.
There are many ways to stand up and show some backbone. To speak up for human rights and against government wrongs is to stand up. To demand that wrongs be righted is to stand up. To open up one’s eyes and unplug one’s ears in the face of evil is standing up. To simply say “No!” even under one’s breath is standing up. Speaking truth to power is standing up. Dr. King said, “A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Standing up against an unjust law is standing up for justice.
In January 2011, I wrote a weekly column entitled, “After the Fall of African Dictatorships” and posed three questions: “What happens to Africa after the mud walls of dictatorship come tumbling down and the palaces of illusion behind those walls vanish? Will Africa be like Humpty Dumpty (a proverbial egg) who “had a great fall” and could not be put back together by “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men”? What happens to the dictators?”
The mud walls of dictatorship in Ethiopia have been exhibiting ever expanding cracks since the death of the arch architect of dictatorship Meles Zenawi sometime last summer. The irony of history is that the question is no longer whether Ethiopia will be like Humpty Dumpty as the “king” and “king’s men” have toiled to make her for two decades. The tables are turned. Despite a wall of impregnable secrecy, the “king’s men and their horses” are in a state of disarray and dissolution. They lost their vision when they lost their visionary. The old saying goes, “in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” Well, the king is no more; and the “king’s men and horses” are lost in the wilderness of their own wickedness, intrigue and deception.
The “fierce urgency of now” is upon Ethiopia’s opposition leaders to roll out their plans and visions of democracy. Now is the time for Ethiopia’s human rights advocates to bring forth their vision of a society governed by the rule of law. Now is the time for Ethiopia’s civil society leaders to build networks to connect individuals and communities across ethnic, religious, linguistic, gender and regional lines. Now is the time for Ethiopia’s intellectuals to put forth practical solutions to facilitate the transition from dictatorship to democracy. Now is the time for all freedom loving Ethiopians to come forward and declare and pledge their allegiance to a democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Now is the time to unchain ourselves from the burdens of the past. Now is the time to abandon the politics of identity and ethnicity and come together in unity for the sake of all of Ethiopia’s children. Now is the time to organize and mobilize for national unity. Now is the time for truth and reconciliation. Now is the time to assert our human dignity against tyrannical barbarity.
Now is not the time to for division, accusation and recrimination. Now is not the time for finger pointing, bellyaching and teeth gnashing. Now is not the time to remain silent. Now is not the time to turn a blind eye. Now is not the time to turn a deaf ear.
Where should we go from here?
I will try to answer my own question in brief form for now. The opposition should get on the highway that leads to democratic governance. The opposition should roll out its action plan for a democratic, post-dictatorship Ethiopia. The principal lesson to be learned from the experiences of the past seven years is that the opposition’s role is not simply to “oppose, oppose and oppose” for the sake of opposing. The opposition’s role and duty goes well beyond simply proclaiming opposition to the abusers of power. The opposition’s role goes to the heart of the future democratic evolution and governance of the country. In that role, the opposition must relentlessly demand accountability and transparency of those absuing power. The fact that the abusers of power will pretend to ignore demands of accountability and transparency is of no consequence. The question is not if they will be held to account but when. The opposition should always question and challenge the actions and omissions of those abusing their powers in a principled and honest manner. The opposition must analyze, criticize, dice and slice the policies, ideas and programs of those in power and offer better, different and stronger alternatives. It is not sufficient for the opposition to publicize the failures and of the ruling party and make broad claims that they can do better.
For starters, the opposition should make crystal clear its position on accountability and transparency to the people. For instance, what concrete ideas does the opposition have about ending, or at least effectively controlling, endemic corruption in Ethiopia. In an exhaustive 448-page report, the World Bank recently concluded that the Ethiopian state is among the handful of the most corrupt in the world. I cannot say for sure how many opposition leaders or anyone in the opposition has taken the time to study this exquisitely detailed study of corruption in Ethiopia; but anyone who has read the report will have no illusions about the metastasizing terminal cancer of corruption in the Ethiopia body politics. The opposition should issue a white paper on what it would do to deal with the problem of corruption in Ethiopia.
Speaking truth to the powers that could be
I know that what I have written here will offend some and anger others. Still many could find it refreshing and provocatively audacious. Some critics will wag their tongues and froth at the mouth claiming that I am attacking the “opposition” sitting atop my usual high horse. They will claim that I am weakening and undermining the “opposition” preaching from my soapbox. Others will say I am overdramatizing the situation in the “opposition”. Still others will claim I am not giving enough credit or am discrediting those in the “opposition” who have been in the trenches far longer than I have been involved in human rights advocacy. They will say I am doing to the opposition what the power abusers have done to them. They will say I don’t understand because I have been sitting comfortably in my academic armchair and have not been on the front lines suffering the slings and arrows of an outrageous dictatorship. Be that as it may!
Though I acknowledge such claims could be convenient diversions, there are two essetnial questions all of us who consider ourselves to be in the “opposition” can no longer ignore and must be held to answer: They are pedaling backwards on the low road of dictatorship, are we marching forward on the highway to democracy? Is the “opposition” better off today than it was in 2005?
Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.
Previous commentaries by the author are available at:
