It is unfortunate that the tens of dozens of hours and hundreds of thousands of words in both hard and electronic print in our media industry posses only a fraction of words of wisdom, words on developments and constructive critiques for the good of the nation;
This is whether we consider material development strategies or even remote morale boosting purposes.
It is mainly because of such short-sightedness and non-sensicle media innuendoes that we fail to become the forth Estate in its true expected and constructive developmental colours.
Our sheer whimsical drives have for instance made us fail to bring our parliamentarians to their senses. In other words we have abetted the MPs crimes of giving raw deal to their subjects.
We have failed to notice that in the over the eight years of their existence our MPs have not done even a tiny fraction of the work they were supposed to have done for their constituents.
On the contrary, it is as if their jobs have only focused on only polishing or rubberstamping policies formulated mainly, not by them, but by NGOs from given “seminars”.
Worse of all, they have never made rapport with those who elected them to lead the causes of their constituencies.
If our MPs have not yet still learnt what their jobs are supposed to be other than snobbing around, then they should look over their shoulders ogling at the likes of Hon. Ali Marehan.
We can logically and rightly vouch that the MP knows what representative task entails and marks highly in our scorecard.
It should not be assumed that we laud Hon. Ali Marehan for helping and contributing to public causes for eking out of his pockets.
We are not asking other MPs to eke out of their pockets hand outs to build bridges, hospitals or schools. If the MP did, does or continues to do so, it is only a plus upon his laudable duties.
What we practically, out rightly and factually praise him for is for his constant visits to his constituency, being in good rapport with his constituents, understanding his subjects and their needs, trying to solve them to the best ways he ably can, constantly lending his ears to them and above all, endearing himself, the governance and statehood to his people.
This is the sort of an MP the world knows and expects. They keep their honour and live up to their honourable status.
Do we have others out there, coming even a distant second or third, like him? Have we put them in check? Are even their names recognizable in the streets, schools or in media rooms?
It is heartbreaking that we ponder on issues usually stirred up for egotism and mostly with whose results being always retrogressive or boomeranging with stinging volatile repercussions.
Kudos Hon. Ali Marehan, your colleagues should emulate you, however late, for its better than never.
The residents of War-Ibran had a standing ovation for their area parliamentarian on the occasion of the opening of a police station funded by Hon. Ali Hassan Mohammed aka Ali-Marehan.
The ceremony which was graced by the participation of Togdeer deputy regional governor Mr. M.M Yusuf Ubahle, Regional Police Commander Mohammed Farah and the MP himself profoundly praised the honourable parliamentarian who has contributed substantially to local causes in the provision of public services.
“The MP is way ahead of his colleagues in keeping abreast with the needs of his constituents”, quipped the regional police boss.
Local administration and traditional leaders were in unison as to the significance of the addressed dire security need in the area.
They all acknowledged the fact that the area was very much starved of a police station.
“Now that you have a new station, it is incumbent upon you to maintain it”, Hon. Ali Marehan told the residents.
The MP is known to have contributed immensely to local causes especially in the security sectors.
He had provided several vehicles to the police department as personal donations.
His feat has not been even imitated, let alone equaled, by any of his colleagues.
He happens to be the only national parliamentarian to warm up to the needs of his constituents. (See also editorial).
Most notable are those of the Doqoshey and Qoriolle donations to the police department.
In a deafening silence, Djibouti saw oppression that comes to a new victim, Hafez Mohamed Hassan, 14 years old schoolboy, shot dead by the services of Ismail Omar Guelleh regime while demonstrating to protest the lack of sports facilities in the region of Obock . This is what happens when Djibouti elections approaching and we dare to assert their rights and demand free elections, fair and transparent. Since more than ten years, opponents, trade unionists, human rights defenders and citizens suffer brutal repression intensifies approach each election.
During the presidential April 2011, the results of this repression was the heaviest in the history of the country, dozens of young protesters killed, hundreds more arrested and detained for months. The former European Commissioner for Development and Cooperation, Mr Louis Michel, on site at the time of the facts himself had said at the time that “what has happened recently in Djibouti is obviously not acceptable. The EU must express his disapproval with force “. [1]
The EU is the largest donor to Djibouti where she has decided to strengthen its presence. In return for an annual rent of $ 30 million each, France, Japan and the United States will have an important military base for the fight against terrorism and piracy in particular. It is no longer possible accept such a regime continues to kill, to torture, to stop, to gag the press, freedom of association to prevent and repress peaceful demonstrations without reacting and continuing cooperation in the name of defending our strategic interests and commercial.
Faced with a disastrous social situation and intensification of harassment, opposition political parties have decided for the first time in ten years to participate in parliamentary elections in February 2013 rather than boycott. Mr Farah, president of the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Renewal and Development (MRD), has also decided to close its decade of exile in Belgium to return home and mobilize voters. Courageous bet when you know none of ten claims made by the opposition to President Guelleh has been accepted and that no progress has been registered in respect of civil and political rights for more than a decade less.
Principle and lest the situation progressively degenerate in a region already highly unstable, the international community can not allow yet another election be held in Djibouti truncated and let continue the extra-judicial executions, systematic torture in prisons, arbitrary arrests and detentions, lack of press freedom and justice entirely dependent on the executive.
Help Djiboutians to speak and make sure to stop violations of human rights. In addition to the two technical experts dispatched to the scene by the EU support the cost of deploying a civilian mission and independent election observation. Finally, remember that the Djibouti authorities to strengthen our presence requires a strengthening of our requirements towards Djibouti in terms of respect for human rights. Argues that this requirement currently in disfavor of the candidacy of Ambassador of Djibouti Rachad Farah President of UNESCO. This same requirement is that you can not kill a schoolboy 14 years, which does not violate his mother, that we do not torture her father, that you do not run and that his brother is allowed to vote freely sister. Why would this requirement too high for Djibouti?
[1] in the situation of human rights in Djibouti on the eve of the 2011 presidential elections, ACP Publishing asbl.
Hi guys,
Just thought it would be a good idea to share my tips and info on my trip to Somaliland in December, 2012. Hopefully it’ll help anyone else going there.
So firstly I was in Ethiopia and I got the visa in 20 minutes at the Somaliland Liason office in Addis. It was 40 bucks and really simple. Just a quick form and a photo and that was it.
I flew with Ethiopian airways to Berbera (Hargeisa is still under construction). At the airport immigration is quick and simple and everyone is willing to help you out. There’s a 34 dollar entry fee too which everyone has to pay. I went straight to Hargeisa and all the airlines provide transport there. They’re just small buses direct from Berbera airport to the airline offices in Hargeisa. No escort is required too so no need to worry about organising one for the trip to Hargeisa if you take their transport.
I stayed at the Oriental Hotel in Hargeisa which is right in the centre of town. It’s 15 for a single, 30 for a twin/double. The hotel has free wifi and satellite tv. It’s also very clean and the only place I saw other travellers. Furthermore, they can organise tours etc. I organised a Las Geel/Berbera tour (one way though…the usual tour is back to Hargeisa) for 140 dollars.
Hargeisa is a great vibrant city. The camel market is a must, although it’s a while out of town. Not really walking distance. I was the only foreigner there so I was more popular than the camels. Lots of men, women, and children came up to me, chatting and asking me questions and following me around. It’s a bit full on but they all mean well. Some speak crap English while others are actually quite good. The money changers and gold sellers are quite cool too. There is just LOADS of cash floating around – it’s insane. Somali food is scarce though unfortunately. All up I spent two nights in Hargeisa.
The tour to Las Geel was really interesting too. Definite must.
Berbera is the other city I went too. I spent two nights there at the Maan Soor hotel. It’s 50 dollars a night which is bit of a rip off compared to the Oriental Hotel in Hargeisa. It’s aesthetically ugly but the rooms have aircon, 200 channel satellite tv, showers, double beds etc. The beach out the front is meant to be the best in Berbera but the foreshore is pretty polluted which is disappointing. If you walk a kilometre up though it gets much cleaner. The water is crystal clear though. I spent half a day on the beach and half a day in the town taking photos of all the beautiful crumbling colonial buildings. I was also invited to some ‘qat’ and lunch with some businessmen from Hargeisa. Great fun. The Somalis LOVE talking politics and they certainly told me a lot of interesting stuff about Somaliland and the rest of Somalia. A trip from Berbera town to Maan Soor is 7ish bucks by taxi. I walked to town though from the hotel through the rubbish tip which is ‘interesting’ in its own way. There’s a cool restaurant there called Xayaat or something like that. It’s in the Lonely Planet and you can get some good photos of all the derelict ships there.
Ok, so what else can I say? Telecommunications there is way better than most places in Africa. I used my Somali simcard to call Australia several times and it only cost $2! The internet is surprisingly fast too. Taking photos is a tad tricky because it’s super Islamic so most women are in hijabs, abeya and niqabs and some take offence to photos. I had a few incidents when people told me not to take photos but 99% of the time people were happy to let me take photos of them. it’s easier having a friendly local with you. Speaking of women, the few female travellers I met were all wearing abeyas or similar outfits and covering their hair so it’s wise for any females planning to go to do the same.
There’s also ‘qat’ which you’ll see everyone chewing. It’s meant to give you a high but I didn’t feel it. You’ll notice when someone is on it though because their mouth will be green and their pupils super dilated. It’s worth giving it a go…. Although make sure you brush your teeth afterwards! One thing you’ll notice is Somalis don’t brush their teeth so their teeth a rotten and just non-existent.
With the money situation, it’s best to bring as much USD in SMALL denominations, especially $1 and $5 bills. Of course it’s possible to change to Somali shillings but you’ll end up getting one kilo of cash to carry around which isn’t fun. The exchange rate on the 28th of Dec, 2012 when I was there was 1US=6700 shillings.
Somaliland is super safe though. Even petty crime is almost non-existent. It’s perfectly safe to walk around even at night with no problems. Everyone will look out for you. You may get ripped of every once in a while by a taxi driver but no different from anywhere else in the developing world.
There’s also a 34 dollar exit fee too by the way plus a $10 security luggage fee that, again, everyone has to pay.
Overall, the four day trip was a lot of fun. The people are super friendly and willing to help anyone out. There are a lot of people returning from the diasporas in Canada, UK, America, Australia etc so a lot of people on the streets can speak English. It’s also amazing being a ‘freak’ in the country…I’ve never been stared at so much, but in a fun, intriguing way. They’re very curious people. The only downside to Somaliland is that there is ZERO alcohol (obviously) so for an Aussie like me, four days without beer was tough.
Anyway, hope some of this info helps. If you’ve got any questions feel free to send me a private message or post on this forum.
The process of electing by vote of a person or persons from among candidates for a political office is one of the most important engagement in which individuals can undertake during a lifetime. The process of election at times could be fair and free and sometimes is the opposite. The later can cause violence that may bring lost of life and property. A nation whose system of election is fragile cannot do election, if they do it, they will end up with violence. Nevertheless, if Somaliland will hold election in the years to come, it should be different from the bizarre election system seen recently and it should be conducted in reasonable manner then the outcome is rewarding because politicians elected are accountable for their actions to the people. By the way, one of the important things in election is who an individual votes for can have an enormous impact on the lives of the people.
The polling stations of Somaliland in general and Awdal in particular was designed by former president Rayale aiming to favor of some communities than any other community. Even though the magnitude of the problems inherited from earlier regimes, the current government made no improvements to electoral system. There are loopholes within the election system in Somaliland where geographic size of the constituency is very large for a candidate. In Awdal for instance polling stations are concentrated heavily in some parts of Baki district while in Borama city the polling stations are insufficient meaning communities enclosed by many ballot boxes are able to produce more legislative body while areas with inadequate polling stations produce smaller number of candidates than potentiality. if there is a fraud within the election, under this system some of the tribes dwelling in Awdal region are even made more vulnerable to lose seats in both parliament and local council elections as polling stations were set by design but not in accordance with population settlements. Thus, communities whose candidates failed to win for district council are the ones whose polling stations on purpose made not enough.
The other irregularities observed during the election in Somaliland was moving large number of voters from one area as far as Ethiopia or Djibouti into the polling stations of Borama, lughaya and Zeila prior to an election aiming to jam ballot lever of the local people thus, causing local communities vulnerable to lose candidates for the purpose. Given, the scarcities of the populations in coastal areas with sufficient number of polling stations cause both districts (lughaya and Zeila) local candidates are prone to lose candidates and the area is vulnerable for systematic rigging.
In majority of African countries, there are always irregularities that cannot be seen at the polling stations but trouble begins when ballot boxes returned to the district election commission center; it is where rigging and altering ballot papers in favor of favored candidates started. When results announced no complaints are taken into account for the reason that the governments in Africa do not want the fabrications of the election results that have occurred during the elections to be revealed because they are of the view if any vote rigging were revealed it would affect both the election commission and the government.
However, in the latest elections of Somaliland given irregularities, fraud and unlawful voter suppression tactics that could have brought Somaliland on the edge to collapse is a continuing concern until necessary reforms made to electoral process in our country.
It is in the need of the hour to invent comprehensive restructuring plan with complete system from top to bottom reallocating polling stations in accordance with the population settlements, introducing identity card and voting card system in order to bring an end manipulation of demography. We have to refurbish and strengthen rules and regulations governing election commission and the electoral system to bring our electoral system on par with the developed countries.
Blame goes to the politicians of different parties, government and both houses of the parliament, intellectuals and educated elite who failed to address the weak points of the Somaliland electoral process well before the election. Had we been reformed the system earlier we could have avoided violence occurred in each nook of Somaliland.
People are not willing to trust the election commission any more given the above mentioned. Enacting policies that protect voters will help reinstate confidence and integrity of our electoral system. In addition, we need reforms correcting the irregularities and injustices and other malpractices likewise seen in the recent elections. To that end, we need to modify our election system keeping away from similar incident of the past to occur again because anything that enhances the election system enhances transparency in democracy and above all the government system.
Good news for miraa farmers. The United Kingdom government has rejected calls to ban sale of miraa in that country.This is after its drugs advisory organ said there was no evidence to link its usage to adverse medical effects.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs said its in report released late on Wednesday that its members considered that khat should not be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The news come as a relief to miraa farmers in Eastern Kenya who are still reeling from a recent ban by the Netherlands which aside from London, was their second European hub for the distribution of the commodity.
“The UK has done well because most of the miraa that is produced is for export and a lot of businessmen in this trade would have really suffered,” said Jotham Koome a miraa dealer in Eastleigh.
According to the Nyambene Miraa Traders Association, London is Kenya’s biggest foreign market for miraa with a volume of over 30 tonnes exported weekly while Netherlands was the second largest with a volume of between 18 and 20 tonnes per week.
There has been mounting pressure on the UK to also ban the drug, which is considered a cash crop in Meru, following similar bans in most European countries and the USA and Canada.
Somali, Yemeni, East African and middle east immigrants living in Europe are the main consumers of miraa.
“The ACMD considers that the evidence of harms associated with the use of khat is insufficient to justify control and it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to classify khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971,” said the report by the UK advisory body.
“In summary, the ACMD considers that the harms of khat does not reach the level required for classification. Therefore, the ACMD recommend that the status of khat is not changed.”
Groups calling for the ban on miraa has also said it caused social problems like family breakdowns and groupings at certain locations by miraa consumers.
Nyambene Miraa Traders Association spokesperson Kimathi Munjuri said the industry will look at ways to address some of the concerns raised to protect its UK market.
“Its time to put our house in order and we shall be working out ways to address littering, gathering in large crowds and come up with strategies to improve packaging and pesticide use,” said Munjuri.
A response to Jesper Carlsen Cullen’s piece titled” A third way for Somaliland and Somalia”
By: Mohamed A. Mohamoud and
Mohamed A. Duale
We write with reference to Jesper Carlsen’s piece titled” A Third way for Somaliland and Somalia” published on 19 January, 2012 on Somaliland Times and various Somaliland websites.
First, Mr. Jesper selected to discuss a topic that he is not familiar with thus a novice. However, we have to thank to Jesper for raising an interesting and important issue, which touches vital and pivotal issue for Somalilanders and that is the independence of Somaliland.
The central aim of Jesper’s piece is what he called “Loose Union” between Somaliland and Somalia, which he asserts is the third way option available for Somaliland and Somalia. Before analyzing Jesper’s piece, it’s of paramount important to first explain the historical facts and the union that issues that surround Somaliland’s experience during the 31 years of the fateful amalgamation with the South.
We hope that Jesper would gain knowledge of the history of the union that he is talking about in order to stop insinuating erroneous remedies “A LOOSE UNION”
Somaliland was the first Somali speaking state to become independent on 26 June, 1960 with more than35 Countries as well as the United Nations offering official recognition.
Compared to other contemporary de-facto states then in existence Somaliland became unique historical for having deferred its sovereignty and united with the Ex-Italian trust territory as a result of Somalilanders who started and struggled for the idea of a Greater Somalia.
The folly of this was that Somaliland rushed headlong in to immediate union-unconditionally and poorly prepared. The union was never legally ratified by the two States. Somaliland conceded the presidency, the prime minister, and the key ministerial posts.
The nationalist fervour in with which Somalilanders rushed into union with the Somalia in 1960 quickly turned to disappointment and dissatisfaction when it became apparent that their voice in the government of the Republic was marginal. In 1961 a group of young, Northern army officers that had newly graduated from military colleges in Britain rebelled against what they perceived as unfair treatment by the Southern dominated army leadership and their Southern political masters. This rebellion was quickly put down and the rebels rounded up and imprisoned, however the action of the young officers elicited widespread popular support in the North and the Northern ministers and MPs interceded with the government and the officers were released and reinstated
Right at the outset, the Somali sense of proportional balance was ignored. The South provided the capital city, the anthem, the flag and the constitution. The inequality started from the beginning. According to veteran Hasan Essa Jama, former SNM Chairman, It was not political merger but rather political take over, “The naivety of the political leaders of Somaliland in allowing the Southerners to occupy almost all the high offices of state inevitably resulted in a political takeover rather than a merger of equals. Soon, Somaliland was treated as an administered province and later as an occupied territory”.
While examination how the first friction between the two states started Ambassador Mohamed Osman Omer, who originates from Somalia, notes “The first friction between the two newly Independent territories started when Somaliland felt it had raw deal in the distribution of government seats allocated to it in the first united government in 1960, when the posts of the President and that of the Prime minister were both taken by the “South” while the Prime minister of Somaliland, Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal, was named Minister. Somaliland regarded this as a belittling and humiliating.
In the context of the union experience between Somaliland and Somalia, it is also important to note that during the 31 years of union no infrastructure was constructed in the north, i.e. no roads, schools, hospitals, telecommunication facilities etc.
During the 31 years of union, Somalilanders experienced and suffered one of the worst human rights violations, which included summary executions, rape, torture, imprisonment or detainment without charges. More than 50,000 people were killed and 500,000 people were forced to flee from their towns. These acts flagrantly violated not only human rights norms but also humanitarian norms relating to the protection of victims of non international armed conflicts.
Mr. Jesper, whether you and your fellow Somali unionists like it or not, the fact of the matter is that Somaliland would never re-unite again with Somalia, whatever the circumstances might be. It is a political fact of life that Somalilanders would continue their journey for the quest of recognition even if it takes the coming hundred years.
When Mr. Jesper is talking about loose union, he ignores a fundamental and basic element of self determination and statehood, namely political consent. Citizens of a state must consent to be citizens of that state and they must consent to the political structures of such a state. Anything short of such consent amounts to coercion and negates the legitimacy of the state. The simple fact is that the people of Somaliland will not countenance any arrangement that does not recognize their independence and their right to self determination as a sovereign nation. They voted for this independence in 2001 when they ratified the ‘independence’ constitution by a margin of 97% in favor.
In the middle of his text, Mr. Jesper argues that “THE INDEPENDENCE OF SOMALILAND WOULD FUEL THE CONFLICT IN THE REGION”. To set the record straight, Somaliland’s case poses no threat to the peace and stability in the region as a whole, when it comes to colonial borders in Africa as well as the current political situation prevailing in the region.
According to an Africa Union fact-finding mission report about Somaliland in 2005, “Objectively viewed, Somaliland’s case should not be linked to the notion of “opening a Pandora’s box”. Somaliland’s recognition would serve the greater interest of the region and would contribute the stability and development of the region.
In the end of his text, Jesper argues that “ Somaliland’s governance record has been tarnished in recent years and that the November 2012 local council elections was characterized with multiple voting and bias in the National Electoral Commission. He further states that 20 people were killed during the election”.
First of all, Somaliland has a good elections track record having conducted five successful democratic elections ranging from local councils, parliamentary to presidential during the last ten years and termed properly free and fair by international election missions that observed them.
These elections prove the political maturity of Somaliland people as well as their model of democracy and state building. Nevertheless, there have been a number of Post-election violence, like the recent one where four people died and it’s also worthy to mention that there have been shortcomings and multiple voting during the 2012 local council elections.
This does not mean that Somaliland’s democracy is tarnished and every new transitional democracy is expected to encounter the above mentioned problems. Comparing Somaliland’s 2012 local council elections with the elections that took place in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda, one can simply conclude that the post-election violence that erupted in Somaliland was the lowest and most negligible in the region.
According to Jesper’ remark that” Somalilanders are now sympathetic about loose union”; it is not only misleading and false but also artificial, because is not based on the reality on the ground.
One of the main reasons that Somaliland started negotiations with Somalia was to get International recognition and the negotiations have demonstrated Somaliland’s political maturity and that it has grown as a fully functioning state with all traits of democratic government.
Somaliland’s main obstacle in garnering the much needed 21 years quest for recognition emanates from the fact that Somalia remained a failed state during all this period thus a closed door for proper avenues of separation negotiations of two equal independent partners, STATE to STATE.
Let Mr. Jesper and his Unionist minded be reminded that Somaliland’s independence is non-negotiable and irrevocable. Somaliland leaders are bound by the Constitution of Somaliland, which mandates them to safeguard the independence of Somaliland.
Written by:
Mohamed A. Mohamoud and
Mohamed A. Duale
Somaliland Independent Intellectual Forum (SIIF)
Email: siifsomaliland@gmail.com
Hargeisa, Somaliland
Somaliland is an unrecognised de-facto independent state located in northwest Somalia in the Horn of Africa.
During colonial times, the region was the British Somaliland Protectorate. It did not join a united Somalia until 1960. British Somaliland became independent on 26th June 1960 as the State of Somaliland, and Italian Somaliland’s independence came four days later, whereupon the two entities immediately merged on 1st July 1960 as the Somali Republic. Between 1981 and 1991, the Somali National Movement (SNM), a rebel army of mostly northern Somali followers, waged an armed insurrection against the regime of Mohamed Said Barre and his Somali National Army (SNA). This period saw the indiscriminate use of landmines against the civilian population, their homes and farmlands.
In 1991, after the collapse of the central government in Somalia, the people of Somaliland declared an independent Republic of Somaliland that now includes six of the eighteen administrative regions of Somalia.
The majority of the landmine problem in Somaliland comes as a result of over 18 years of warfare. Most of the minefields were laid during 1979 – 1988 war between Somalia and Ethiopia (known as the Ogoden war) and later during Somalia civil war in 1988-1991 that led to Somaliland’s de-facto independence. It’s believed that some additional minefields were laid during the more recent conflict over border disputes between Somaliland and Puntland.
In general, minefields in Somaliland fall into one of the following groups.
Border defence. Laid in the 1970’s by the Somalia National Army (SNA) consisting of anti-personnel (AP) and anti-tank (AT) mines to prevent mechanized assault by Ethiopia during and immediately after the Ogaden war.
Border defence. Laid in the 1980’s by the SNA (mostly AP) to prevent incursions by the Somaliland National Movement (SNM) and other rebel groups operating from Ethiopia – and later laid in the disputed areas in Somaliland and Puntland border.
Base defence. Perimeter minefields laid in the 1980’s by the SNA around military positions on or near the border (AP & AT) to protect against attacks.
Routes. Laid by the SNM on roads and tracks used by the SNA in order to disrupt logistics.
And to a lesser extent
Routes. Laid by the SNA on tracks running towards Ethiopia to prevent refugee exodus.
Factional/Clan. Sporadic mining based around land or blood-feud disputes.
The most recent use of landmines in Somaliland took place between 1994 and 1995 when militias opposed to the regime of Somaliland President Mohamed Ibrahim Egal and loyalist forces fought fierce battles in Hargeisa (the capital) and areas south and east of Hargeisa.
In 2009 the Somaliland House of Representatives approved legislation banning the use of anti-personnel (AP) mines.
Source:HALO Trust
The Twitter account of Somalia’s Al Qaeda-linked Shebab insurgents was suspended Friday, days after they posted photographs of a French commando they killed and threatened to execute Kenyan hostages.
A message from Twitter on the English-language @HSMPress account read that the account had “been suspended”, without elaborating.
However, the Shebab’s Somali- and Arabic-language accounts continue to operate, and the extremists used their Arabic account to denounce the suspension as censorship.
“This is new evidence of the freedom of expression in the West,” the message read.
Speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, a senior Shebab official said that the suspension of their twitter account was making us proud and that their account was “the true source of valuable information that reflected the true picture of Somalia.”
The Shebab official said “that the cry of the French and Kenyans forced the account to be suspended.”
“We have thousands of ways to pass our message…it is unfortunate that organisations that call themselves the guardians of freedom of expression are silent about the closure of our twitter account,” he said.
On Wednesday the Shebab used the account to release a link to a video of several Kenyan hostages they said they will execute within three weeks if the Kenyan government does not release prisoners held on terrorism charges.
Earlier this month they posted graphic photographs of a French soldier killed during a failed bid to release a French agent whom the Shebab had held for more than three years. They later used Twitter to announce the hostage’s execution.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault denounced the publication of the photographs as a “particularly odious display.”
Twitter warns that accounts can be suspended if they violate its rules, which include the publishing of “direct, specific threats of violence against others”, according to regulations posted on its website.
Users are also blocked if they use Twitter “for any unlawful purposes or in furtherance of illegal activities”.
Last year the Shebab used the account — which was opened in December 2011, and most recently had more than 20,000 followers — for a series of exchanges with Kenya’s army spokesman, taunting the Kenyans after they invaded southern Somalia to attack the Islamists.
Shebab fighters are on the back foot in Somalia, reeling from a string of losses as they battle a 17,000-strong African Union force as well as Ethiopian troops and Somali forces.
The Shebab would use their account to goad Kenya’s army spokesman Emmanuel Chirchir, calling the Kenyan military “inexperienced boys”.
And, after Chirchir warned that herds of donkeys were a potential target — since they were viewed as Shebab convoys — the Islamists retorted that Kenya’s “eccentric battle strategy has got animal rights groups quite concerned”.
In January 2012, during a live web chat platform that the US State Department used to engage with international media, Washington’s senior advisor for innovation Alec Ross said terrorist organisations should be “dismantled and destroyed”.
“And so for me to think about whether they should have the right to use Twitter or not, I go to a more fundamental question, which is: Do they have the right to exist or not? And my answer to that is no. … Shebab and other institutions that are purveyors of terror are going to get absolutely no sympathy from me, and they certainly aren’t going to see me advocate for their rights,” Ross said.
I. Introduction After a bloody civil war, in January 1991 Siad Barre’s Twenty-one-years regime was over thrown in Somalia. The Northern Half of Somalia Declared its Independence as the Republic of Somaliland in May 1991. This outline summarizes the main arguments for the propriety of such a declaration and its recognition as an independent state under international law. A thorough study is under preparation.
The State of Somalia, which came into existence in 1960, resulted from a merger between two independent states, the Northern Somaliland, a British Protectorate and Southern Somalia, an Italian Trust Territory. General Siad Barre took over the administration in a coup in 1969 and led the country through a calamitous period of chaos and repression until he was deposed by the combined might of several liberation movements such as the Somali National Movement (SNM), which had been waging its battle against his regime since 1981. After his overthrow, the south has been a Hobbesian nightmare of inter clan fighting whereas the independent Somaliland remains the most stable region in the Horn of Africa.
II. Validity of Independence in Historical Perspective
Somali society is comprised of various clans such as Digil, Rahanweyn, Dir , Isaaq, Hawiy e, and Darood, and the dynamics of interaction between them determines the distribution of political power in Somalia.
1 The Legal Regime of State and Sovereignty
The primary issue is the extent to which the assertion of independence is a valid manifestation of sovereignty over territory and thus forms a legal basis for the formation of a state under international law. A survey of the applicable law reveals that the issue can be broken down into the question of the nature of Somaliland’s sovereign rights before and after the act of Union of 1960 and the extent to which this will be disparities of the viability of the Union.
2 Sovereignty under the Treaties of 1884 and the Act of Union of 1960
Britain signed formal treaties with the Somali Clans in 1884. These treaties were specifically intended to ensure the maintenance of the Independence of the Somali clans and did not cede any territory to Britain. Further, the treaties were also of a provisional character. The nature of the treaties leave no doubt at all that the Somali clans retained a large measure of sovereignty. The capacity to conclude treaties is itself an attribute of international personality. Old international law may have considered such treaties as not international, but the contemporary standards exhibited by the World Court in the Western Sahara case in 1975 reject such views. As a result, the Somali Clans existed a s international persons.
The two territories were independent countries with no links between them. There was no unifying force from within. On the contrary, two external factors served to bring ab out this precipitate union. The first was the proposal by the British Foreign Secretary Mr. Bevin in 1946 to create a “ Great Somalia”. The second was the cession of the Haud and Ogaden to Ethiopia by Britain in 1954. Both served as stimulants of national identity. When the union was signed there were a number of legal loose ends. Since both th e North and South were Independent countries, they could unite only by an international treaty as in the case of the Germanys. Such a treaty was never signed.
The Somaliand “ North” passed a “ union law” which did not have any legal validity in south and the constitutional requirements regarding the election of the President were never completed. Conscious of such legal loopholes, the National Assembly attempted to remedy the situation by passing a retroactive “union” law in January 1961. The absence of the leg al basis for the union is clear and convincing. Furthermore, the North “Somaliland” decisively rejected the draft constitution in a referendum evidencing a permanent rift between north and south.
III-Arguments for Independence under Contemporary International law
1-Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
It has always been an accepted rule that oppression, including the deprivation of basic rights such as right to life, justifies secession. Hugo Grotius mentions that a ruler who shown himself to be the enemy of the people can be deposed and vittles emphasizes that the primary duty of the ruler is to safeguard the welfare of the citizens and once he/she violates that cardinal rule, he can be deposed. In International law, human rights are embodies in various treaties such as the International Bill of Rights and are also acknowledged to be rules of jus cogent. Accordingly, there is a right to secede from a state, if the political establishment engages in such gross and grave human rights violations including genocide. This finds support among many jurists. The test to determine the extent of deprivation of human rights and the legitimacy of secession is whether a group is being targeted due to its ethnic, cultural of other unique characteristic.
The regime of General Siad Barre “ Afweyne” practiced genocidal attacks on the Northern Clans, especially Isaaq. The bombing and shelling of two cities in the North Hargeisa and Burao alone killed 50,000 and another 2,000,000 fled to Ethiopia. African Watch reports that inhuman practices were committed on woman and children. Most of the people killed or displaced were Isaaq. The government forces also looted everything and laid over a million land mines in the North “Somaliland”. Several U.S. government documents including the State Department’s Human Rights Reports attest to the massive violations of human rights such as rights to life and habeas corpus. Under these circumstances the SNM and the people in the North “ Somaliland” had a legal right under international law to at in their self-preservation.
2-Self-Determination
Article one of the International Bill of Rights refers to the right to self-determination, as does the U.N.Charter in Article 1 and 55. The principal questions here are however, whether the right to self-determination is applicable in Somalia and if it is, whether it will entitle Somaliland to claim independence. There are sound reasons why the right to self-determination should be conceded to Somaliland. First, one of the reasons behind Somaliland’s assertion of Independence is the incompatibility between northern and southern regions. The incompatibility arises from distinct colonial experiences, which contribute, to a unique identity. Where the reason for self-determination claims lay in historical experiences that are grounded in colonialism, there is no reason to deny the right to the people who wish to exercise it. Second, when the assertion of self-determination does not result in changes in international boundaries and does not pose a threat to inter-state peace, it ought not to be denied to achieve the short-term goal of doctrinal uniformity. Somaliland has expressly stated that it accepts the boundaries of the British protectorate in 1960. Third, when the assertion of self-determination is more conducive to inter-state peace, its validity is strengthened manifold. It is to be noted that Somaliland has the potential of solving longstanding regional disputes with Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti, due to its acceptance of colonial borders and close ties with Ethiopia.
Finally, legal right of self-determination arises upon the abuse of the political principle of self-determination. In this connection two related issues have to be remembered. First, North “ Somaliland” had overwhelmingly rejected the unified constitution in a referendum. Second, the U.N. practice of conducting plebiscites prior to desalinization, as in the case of British Togo land. Under these circumstances, right to self-determination appears to be applicable to Somaliland. The exercise of such a right should also enable it to claim its independence.
IV. The Arguments for Recognition
1. The legal nature of recognition
Old International law settled questions of title by the tool of recognition. Theories such as “declaratory” and “constitutive” were used to debate about the nature and function of recognition. However, in contemporary international law, recognition alone is not dispositive in determining the legal status of states. Other norms of a humanizing character have entered the process of making states. To the extent however, that recognition enables a people to internationalize their claims, it is useful.
A head count of all authorities’ shows that the declaratory view prevails, that recognition only confirms the fact of existence of a state. It is not practical politics to refuse to recognize a state if it possesses attributes of statehood. The attributes of statehood as laid down in the Montevideo convention are a government, territory, defined population and a capacity to enter into international relations. It is evident that Somaliland possesses all the attributes of statehood. Its distinct people occupy their traditional territory and the government has effective control over the population.
Under these circumstances, the recognition of Somaliland is an international imperative.
2. Conformity with international law
As indicated above, Somaliland has renounced territorial claims on other countries that the earlier Somalia had subsumed under its banner of “ Greater Somalia “. It has accepted the colonial borders. As is well known, Somalia irredentism was a major source of in stability on the Horn of Africa and its removal paves the way for peace stability and prosperity in the region. Furthermore, the acceptance of colonial borders is in accordance with the OAU policy. Fears of balkanization as a result of the recognition of Somaliland are unfounded since no new border is being created as in fact, for the first time colonial borders troubled borders are those of Somaliland. Lastly, the International community is under an obligation to recognize because of the obligation to protect and promote human rights under Articles 55 and 56 of the U.N. charter. Only international attention can assist the fledgling state to stand on its own feet.
V. Conclusion
The Birth of Somaliland is an inevitable result of a distinct colonial experience. It is also the result of extreme economic exploitation and human suffering. The irredentist policies of Somalia also contributed to the alienation of the northern population, which never acceded to the union in the first place. While the past cannot be undone, the international community has a rare opportunity to bring peace and prosperity to the Horn. By a single act of recognition, it can end the sad sage of human suffering; enhance the prospects for peace in the region by putting an end to the Greater Somalia concept, and en able the people of Somaliland to reclaim their future.
ANIIS A. ESSA. DIRECTOR
SOMALILAND ADVOCACY GROUP
WASHINGTON DC…USA
aniis@yahoo.com
