Originally posted by Sophist: Thanks for sharing this history. Those days were indeed a vital in the making of contemporary history—one that is seldom written hence what you have written are sourced from the Oral history which of course you will know a lot (no need to mentioned ht reasons). You must be well aware of Dabka party which was headed by premiere AbdiRisak Haji Hussien; main players Alahunaxariisto Mohamed Ahmed Abdule (Sakhraan) et all. These guys were radical lot and were not happy with the Wadaad’s leadership (C/rashiid was known as Wadaad those days); they thought he was weak and will be manipulated by then “insincere†incumbent premiere that who was “known†to be very westernised by those standards-- the Oggaden and NFD was an important political issues for them and they thought. This camp was accused of having a Qabiil leaning-incidently the two main players of course hailing from what is now known as Puntland; Galkacayo and Ceerigaabo respectively. According to several prominent politicians (I lived among two of them for more than a year) the tribalism had become the norm from the get go. From that backdrop one correction is needed. “The discontent wasn't the result of qabiil, but regional discontent, experienced by the whole region that joined the union, including reer Sanaag and Sool, which the latter was part of Togdheer province at that time.†Before Britain left and the Union Jack was the flag of the region; there was two prominent political parties in the North; USP (Awdal, Sool and Sanaag) and SNL (Togdheer and Waqooyi Galbeed). These were organized around the tribal lineages. Thusly, when the Somali become an state; USP was dissolved and it’s leaders become prominent leaders within the SYL government thusly becoming part and parcel of the state. Ali Garad who was a heavyweight Cabinet minister and had a huge following in Sool, Sanaag and Awdal was instrumental for the nomination of Rashid to be head of the partly. Consequently, the discontent you speak of was indeed confined to Burco and Hargeisa; hence a Qabill orientated disgruntlement. Anyhow, better get back to work. Thank you sophist for providing some crucial historical facts Thank you mma as well for your post, but bro your post has incorrect facts about sool sanaag and cayn regoins C/rashiid was touring on Waqooyi provinces, particularly Togdheer, because there were considerable discontent by the masses in those provinces. The discontent wasn't the result of qabiil, but regional discontent, experienced by the whole region that joined the union, including reer Sanaag and Sool, which the latter was part of Togdheer province at that time. wrong , you should not include sool sanaag and cayn because these provinces had different political parties than northwest (hergaysa burco barbara), it is history that is going back to colonial era. there is no such thing as north Somalia which includes former British colony, because there is big division between northwest and ssc regoins , even we see today how somaliland is very divided in secession issue between northwest and ssc regoins along clan lines, Northwest (hergeysa, burco and barbara) and ssc(sool sanaag and cayn) ara traditional rivals, Before colnial era, somali penusula didnot had central adminstration or even regoinal adminstration, so it was vast land inhabited by rival somali clans where they peace and occasional mini wars in anarchic land of somalia (nomansland) During the colonial era, somali people were divided in wrong and random way by european colonials without looking into socioeconmic, native peoplele's wishes, or any other logic way. some territories of somalia became whats known as british somaliland composing three major regoins awdal, northwest (Hergeysa, burco, barbara) and SSC (sool sanaag and cayn) northwest became very loyal to british colonial, northwest became the most developed regoin in the colony and recieved economic benefits from Britian, Everything political adminstration of the colony was dominated by northwest regoins SSC (Sool sanaag and cayn) rejected british rule, and started first national liberation movement in somalia soil and the strongest in african continent, an armed stuggle started that lasted more 30 years, many war took place between british colonials, north loyalists against daraawiish liberation movement, counless british soldiers lost their lives, and ssc regoins lost more than third of its population. When Britian realized the strength of daraawiish liberation movement, and fact that britian could not defeat the daraawiish in-land wars, in 1921 Britian decided to wage an ariel bombardment agianst SSC regoins particularly the capital of ssc laascaanood and taleex, with warplanes fresh from WWI, becaause of this tragic event Laascaanood the first city in whole african continent. Because of colonial exprience northwest and ssc became traditional rivals Post independence Civilian government Fresh from colonial expierence, and because of clan nature of somali politics, Although Somalia was democratic republic in first 9 years, supposed political parties were divided along clan lines and platform or ideology, therefore Northwest had their political party SNL, and SSC regoins had their political party USP so these two were never happy or unhappy about somalia political situation at the same time, unlike the false information that mma suggested During Military rula of Siyaad In early northwest regoins became dissatisfies with siyaad barre rule because of tribalism and not of north or any other good reason. in 1988 Northwest declared a war against somali government of siyaad, and northwest war started SSC regoins didnot participated the northwest war, because they were suspicous the motives behind the war, tribalilism and seccesion During Civil war Northwest uniterally declered self-declered republic of Somaliland, and SSC regoins quickly became strongly against secession and snm plans. Today After 15 years of civil war, still northwest and ssc are extremely divided on everything therefore northwest and ssc never shared unified political view about somalia's politics, never shared a ideology, and today they donot share a common destiny or aspirations He was assassinated upon landing in Laas Caanood. true President cabdurashiid was killed in laascaanood, BUT reer laascoonood were staunch supporters of his adminstration,President was killed by soldier from qardho for nonpolitical reasons Initially, although President Siyaad he was coup leader and took the power illegitimately, he became very popular and received huge support from all Somali regions including northwest (burco and hargeysa), because of promise to end to clan-politics that made the country unstable particularly the bloody elections seasons. I heard that there were 88 supposed political parties (clan or subclan parties) some of them had only one member and some of them had funny names like nirig The problem of any Somali democratic experience like the first 9 years of the civilian government in somalia is the clan nature of supposed political parties, where each region (or clan) had their own party (and there was no national party except syl). The same we can see today in Somaliland’s democratic experience, where they have 3 clan-parties (supposed political parties) representing 3 different sub clan of the same clan (hargeysa, barbara and burca regoins) Although Somalia had the first democratic government in all Africa, however the civilian government that lasted 9 years had tough time and failed because of clan nature of Somali politics The first 5 years of the civilian government (1960-1965) These 5 years were very promising and bright years, Somalia became the first democratic government in whole african continent, all somali people were happy no somali person wanted to enter politics and take national responsibility because they didnot know anything about government and corruption odayaasha waa la baryi jirey si ey u matalaan degmadooda The last 4 years years of civilian government (1965-1969) Somalia became unstable during this period, elections became bloody seasons were violence civil disobienence is common waayo waxaa la arkay odyaashii parlamaanka iyo wasiirada oo buubuurnaday oo gaariyaal wata ileen reer miye waxba kama yaqaan xadaarad iyo dowlidnimo Therefore when president Abdurashiid was assasinated already somalia was extremely unstable, to say the assasination of president abdurashiid changed somalia's political course is fallacy and unconvincing argument because there is no evidence, because there is other nations had their presidents assasinated and didnot exprience regime change or political crisis like kennedy of united states or anwar asadaat of egypt etc The first 8 years of Siyaads rule (1969-1977)the period before western somalia liberation war These period were also became very promisinf and bright , people from all regoeins again became happy and thought Siyaad was savour of somali nation. Many major developments took place in somalia, somali language became written language, many schools hospitals and factories were build. people wanted an alternative to the bloody elections and tribalism of supposed political parties. Somali people became genuine patriotics and wanted to free their brotherly people of Djabouti, western somalia and nfd The fruits were the independence of djabouti, liberating western somalia although later soveit redraw the border lines, somalia became the most developing african nation with the stongest army in all africa The last years of siyaad era (1977-1991) the period after western somalia war The siyaad became very weak in every aspect economically because of the war expenses, and militirally because of the soveit defeat of somali army Tribal factions organized by angry former army colonels and officers became a common in somalia financed and armed by Ethoipia In 1991 somalia became worse and entered full scale civil war 2005, after 15 years of destruction, anarchy there is no hope

Tolstoy, Horta afkanool caqli laheen baatahay, lakiin waxaan kuu sheegayaa hadal haan ma buuxiyo The people of sool sanaag and cayn are for united somalia, waa dad usoo dagaalamay gobanimadii somalia period Somalidiid (hergeysa clan faction ) is no option for ssc people, somalidiid gardarada ha joojiyo, ogowna oo hurdada ka kac gaaladii aad dabada ka gali jirtay ma joogaanee Puntland waa maamul goboleed hoose ey sool sanaag and cayn wax ka aasaaseen, Ilaahay haa naxariistu kuwaad aduu odey u tahay Geediga Noo Wada, Dameerku Ha iska Ciyee dammeer is the man whom the world ignored him for more than 15 years, ileen si fiican baad isku taqaan kaalay hadii aad qof tahay geediga (qaranka somalia iyo midnima soomaaliyeed)nalawad ileen dameer baa tahay dadnimo maba lagaasugu!!!

Originally posted by Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar: Finally wax baa la arkay. So as long as hawlaha kale (read: gobollada kale) uu ku shaqo jiro, oo balaayo qasaayo, "Madaxweyne" sax buu idiin ahaa, laakiin maalintii afaarihiina lasoo galo...? What happened supporting this fledging government for the 'sake of Soomaaliweyn?' Hmm... [/QB] Miskiin you misunderstood my whole argument, President Abdulaahi Yusuf is elected by all Somali delegates in peace conference, and not Punt land and or sool sanaag and regions I am against the thinking of giving away whole regions as gift for third party period. In other words, although President Abdulahi Yusuf is a legitimate president of Somalia currently, he cannot do anything he wants, his power and authority is limited. Mr. Yusuf cannot say if secessionists of northwest secession abandon their secessionist campaign he will reward them ssc regions as a gift How if Yusuf says to Qanyara, that if you support me I will reward you Bay iyo Bakool? It is just impossible ridiculous idea You cannot give other poeple's territories, whether it is sool sanaag cayn bay bakool, awdal or hiiraan Thanks to wind talker, sophist, and sky for your insightful contribution Libaax you need Intro to Politics course, this is very issues and it is not rumors, it something bigger than Abdulaahi Yusuf, Britain because of colonial legacy supports secenists in northwest at the expense of people of sool sanaag and cayn, But I afriad Abdulaahi is not strong enough to stand up for ssc regoens and he will opt for his narrow individual interest such as power, international aid etc

Al-Jazeera: The new power on the small screen It only started broadcasting in 1996 but the Qatar-based station has already changed the face of broadcasting. Now even the World Service is launching an Arabic-language channel. Paul Vallely reports on a global media phenomenon Published: 26 October 2005 It must have been seen as something of a back-handed compliment in the tiny Gulf state of Qatar. The BBC yesterday confirmed it is to axe 10 of its World Service radio services to find the money to launch an Arabic-language television station. The decision is powerful testimony to the extraordinary growth of al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite station which in less than a decade has developed from the personal indulgence of the Emir of Qatar into a global player on the international broadcasting stage. Founded in 1996 the Qatar-based news network - which became a potent media force in during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq when its ability to report events in the Middle Eastern domain from an Arab perspective contrasted with the difficulties faced by other media organisations - al-Jazeera was recently voted the fifth most influential global brand (behind Apple and Google). That status can only increase from next year when it launches an English-speaking international version, with a raft of top ITN and BBC executives behind the scenes, and Sir David Frost - who has interviewed seven US presidents and six British prime ministers - signed up as its big-name presenter. Its intention is to rival CNN and BBC World as the globe's biggest broadcaster. In some parts of the world that notion will be greeted with a mixture of derisive mirth and horror. The station gained worldwide attention after 11 September 2001 when it began broadcasting videos in which Osama bin Laden and his sidekicks sought to justify the terrorist attacks on the United States. Al-Jazeera has, ever since, been routinely accused by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and others of "consistently lying" and "working in concert with terrorists". He has even accused it of taking women and children to places where US bombs had fallen and pretending they were victims of the US attack. This has not entirely been to their disadvantage. "The more Rumsfeld attacks us, the more popular we are with our viewers," the station's communications director, the surreally named Jihad Ballout has said. But then things have been complex at al-Jazeera from the outset. It began in 1996. In April that year there were tear-stained faces at the BBC as 250 journalists were toldthe BBC World Service's Arabic television station was to shut. It had been a joint venture with a Saudi company and a lack of common ground on editorial policy came to a head when the Saudi government tried to censor a documentary on executions under its brutal interpretations of sharia law. But the Emir of Qatar - a man sitting on the third-largest proven reserves of natural gas in the world - was waiting in the wings. He had liked the short-lived BBC Arabic, and believing the long-term interests of Islam were served better by truth than by censorship, he stumped up $150m (now £90m) and founded al-Jazeera. Large numbers of the BBC staff transferred from London to Qatar to run it. There are 100 or so other Arabic TV stations available to those with satellite dishes. But all are either state controlled or not trusted by viewers. From the outset al-Jazeera was different. It ran stories about the corruption of government officials in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and elsewhere. It aired debate of a kind rarely seen on Arab television. It even interviewed Israeli officials - never seen on other Arab networks. Its motto was: "We get both sides of the story." But there are always those who do not want the other side to get an airing. And not just totalitarian governments in the Middle East. When US President George Bush launched his "war on terror" he pronounced that you had to be either with him or against him. And though al-Jazeera in total showed just five hours of bin Laden's speeches, compared with 500 hours of the US President, it was clear al-Jazeera was seen as being in the enemy camp. During the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, al-Jazeera was the only station with a round-the-clock satellite link from Kabul to the outside world - until, that is, two American "smart" bombs hit its office. Something similar happened in 2003 in Iraq when the station's office in Baghdad was attacked by US forces, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub, after the US had been given the office's precise co-ordinates. During the war al-Jazeera riled the American and British coalition further by broadcasting a 30-second film of the bodies of two dead British soldiers in a "flagrant breach" of the Geneva convention. Those who knew Arab culture pointed out that it did not share Western taboos on pictures of the dead, with graphic footage of dead Palestinians and Israelis alike commonplace on Arab TV screens. But the outrage was undiminished. The differences were not merely cultural but propagandistic. Al-Jazeera had equipped ordinary people around Iraq with phones and cameras as the invasion got under way, anticipating that communications in Baghdad would deteriorate as the US forces closed in. As a result the station was broadcasting pictures from hotspots such as Fallujah, which openly contradicted the claims the US military was putting out. "The contradictions were much in evidence in Fallujah where the Americans one day announced there was a truce that was beginning at 12 noon," said one al-Jazeera journalist. "Then we would transmit images of American jet fighters bombing the city and breaking the truce." Even so there was much debate in the station about how its reporters should remain even-handed. At one point editors banned journalists from describing American troops' presence as an "occupation" and those attacking them as a "resistance" movement. And although throughout last year al-Jazeera broadcast several video tapes of kidnapping victims - with hostages often blindfolded, pleading for their release and reading out their kidnappers' prepared statements - the station assisted Western governments in attempts to secure the hostages' release. And it always refused to show the beheadings posted by terrorists on internet websites. None of that impressed Washington. It put pressure on the Emir to sell the station, which he still subsidises to the tune of$30m a year (because almost all Arab governments boycott al-Jazeera's advertising - a fact which one wag said was "about the only thing the Arab information ministers can all agree on"). Ernst and Young were hired to look into possible privatisation models earlier this year, but the idea seems to have been shelved, possibly because al-Jazeera means the little emirate now punches above its political weight. But the political pressure on the station is unrelenting. Since the start of 2002 one of its cameramen has been held at Guantanamo Bay. The same year Bahrain banned al-Jazeera reporters - because the station was "biased towards Israel and against Bahrain". Then two of its financial journalists had their credentials to cover the New York Stock Exchange revoked. In 2003 its reporter in Spain was arrested and accused of being an al-Qa'ida agent. In 2004 the Algerian government froze the activities of al-Jazeera's correspondent there and later in the year the provisional Iraqi government shut down its offices in Baghdad. Problems have been created for the station in Canada, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia where it has even been banned from covering the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. Its website has been attacked by hackers, who redirected users to - a revealing combination - US patriot or porn sites. Despite all that - or perhaps because of it - subscriptions to al-Jazeera doubled in a single week after the war on Iraq began. It now has 50 million viewers and is in the middle of a major expansion. In addition to its news network it has al-Jazeera Sports, the al-Jazeera Children's Channel and al-Jazeera Live, which broadcasts conferences in real time without editing or commentary. The English-language service, al-Jazeera International, will launch in March. It will broadcast from its Qatar headquarters and bureaux in London, Kuala Lumpur and Washington DC. Unsurprisingly it has yet to find a US cable outlet prepared to carry its broadcasts. But the likelihood is that it will find a ready audience. "The brief is emphatically not an English translation of the Arabic channel," says Nigel Parsons, al-Jazeera International's managing director, who was previously a senior executive with Associated Press Television News and the BBC. "It will have international appeal and fill a lot of gaps in existing output." The English-language website drew a huge number of hits during the July bombings in London. "One of the aims will be to try and bring better understanding of each other's positions," Parsons said. "We'll aim for balance ... It's not going to be anti-Western or anti-American." Indeed some staff fear it could end up being too Western and unpopular with English-speaking Muslims. The gap in the market comes, Parsons believes, from the fact that CNN has been dragged to the right by Rupert Murdoch's outrageously partisan Fox News Channel. CNN's coverage of the Iraq war cost them a lot of credibility. And the BBC's international coverage, particularly of the developing world, he says, "are 40 per cent of what they were when Michael Buerk first did the Ethiopian famine". He has convinced many in the industry. Behind the big name of Sir David Frost lie a raft of seasoned professionals. They include: John Pullman, former editor of News At Ten; a Paul Gibbs, a former editor of BBC Breakfast; Steve Clarke, an executive producer from Sky; and Al Anstey, who has just quit as ITN's head of foreign news. On-camera will be Susan Phillips, previously the London bureau chief of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and Mark Seddon, the former editor of Tribune, who will be the New York and UN correspondent. Parsons has had 4,000 applications for the 40 jobs in the Washington bureau from staff at CNN, Fox, Sky, the BBC and Australian television. Will the BBC Arabic service make a dent in al-Jazeera? Washington has already launched its own rival, al-Hurra. It has made little impact. So has the Saudi-backed al-Arabiya, though it has made inroads in Iraq and Bahrain. "Al-Jazeera," sighs Mouafac Harb, the director of al-Hurra, "has hijacked the role of the mosque as the primary source of information and views. Al-Jazeera is the only political process in the Middle East." Even some Americans have been forced to agree. Kenton Keith, a former US ambassador to Qatar, says: "For the long- range importance of press freedom in the Middle East and the advantages that will ultimately have for the West you have to be a supporter of al-Jazeera, even if you have to hold your nose sometimes." It must have been seen as something of a back-handed compliment in the tiny Gulf state of Qatar. The BBC yesterday confirmed it is to axe 10 of its World Service radio services to find the money to launch an Arabic-language television station. The decision is powerful testimony to the extraordinary growth of al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite station which in less than a decade has developed from the personal indulgence of the Emir of Qatar into a global player on the international broadcasting stage. Founded in 1996 the Qatar-based news network - which became a potent media force in during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq when its ability to report events in the Middle Eastern domain from an Arab perspective contrasted with the difficulties faced by other media organisations - al-Jazeera was recently voted the fifth most influential global brand (behind Apple and Google). That status can only increase from next year when it launches an English-speaking international version, with a raft of top ITN and BBC executives behind the scenes, and Sir David Frost - who has interviewed seven US presidents and six British prime ministers - signed up as its big-name presenter. Its intention is to rival CNN and BBC World as the globe's biggest broadcaster. In some parts of the world that notion will be greeted with a mixture of derisive mirth and horror. The station gained worldwide attention after 11 September 2001 when it began broadcasting videos in which Osama bin Laden and his sidekicks sought to justify the terrorist attacks on the United States. Al-Jazeera has, ever since, been routinely accused by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and others of "consistently lying" and "working in concert with terrorists". He has even accused it of taking women and children to places where US bombs had fallen and pretending they were victims of the US attack. This has not entirely been to their disadvantage. "The more Rumsfeld attacks us, the more popular we are with our viewers," the station's communications director, the surreally named Jihad Ballout has said. But then things have been complex at al-Jazeera from the outset. It began in 1996. In April that year there were tear-stained faces at the BBC as 250 journalists were toldthe BBC World Service's Arabic television station was to shut. It had been a joint venture with a Saudi company and a lack of common ground on editorial policy came to a head when the Saudi government tried to censor a documentary on executions under its brutal interpretations of sharia law. But the Emir of Qatar - a man sitting on the third-largest proven reserves of natural gas in the world - was waiting in the wings. He had liked the short-lived BBC Arabic, and believing the long-term interests of Islam were served better by truth than by censorship, he stumped up $150m (now £90m) and founded al-Jazeera. Large numbers of the BBC staff transferred from London to Qatar to run it. There are 100 or so other Arabic TV stations available to those with satellite dishes. But all are either state controlled or not trusted by viewers. From the outset al-Jazeera was different. It ran stories about the corruption of government officials in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and elsewhere. It aired debate of a kind rarely seen on Arab television. It even interviewed Israeli officials - never seen on other Arab networks. Its motto was: "We get both sides of the story." But there are always those who do not want the other side to get an airing. And not just totalitarian governments in the Middle East. When US President George Bush launched his "war on terror" he pronounced that you had to be either with him or against him. And though al-Jazeera in total showed just five hours of bin Laden's speeches, compared with 500 hours of the US President, it was clear al-Jazeera was seen as being in the enemy camp. During the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, al-Jazeera was the only station with a round-the-clock satellite link from Kabul to the outside world - until, that is, two American "smart" bombs hit its office. Something similar happened in 2003 in Iraq when the station's office in Baghdad was attacked by US forces, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub, after the US had been given the office's precise co-ordinates. During the war al-Jazeera riled the American and British coalition further by broadcasting a 30-second film of the bodies of two dead British soldiers in a "flagrant breach" of the Geneva convention. Those who knew Arab culture pointed out that it did not share Western taboos on pictures of the dead, with graphic footage of dead Palestinians and Israelis alike commonplace on Arab TV screens. But the outrage was undiminished. The differences were not merely cultural but propagandistic. Al-Jazeera had equipped ordinary people around Iraq with phones and cameras as the invasion got under way, anticipating that communications in Baghdad would deteriorate as the US forces closed in. As a result the station was broadcasting pictures from hotspots such as Fallujah, which openly contradicted the claims the US military was putting out. "The contradictions were much in evidence in Fallujah where the Americans one day announced there was a truce that was beginning at 12 noon," said one al-Jazeera journalist. "Then we would transmit images of American jet fighters bombing the city and breaking the truce." Even so there was much debate in the station about how its reporters should remain even-handed. At one point editors banned journalists from describing American troops' presence as an "occupation" and those attacking them as a "resistance" movement. And although throughout last year al-Jazeera broadcast several video tapes of kidnapping victims - with hostages often blindfolded, pleading for their release and reading out their kidnappers' prepared statements - the station assisted Western governments in attempts to secure the hostages' release. And it always refused to show the beheadings posted by terrorists on internet websites. None of that impressed Washington. It put pressure on the Emir to sell the station, which he still subsidises to the tune of$30m a year (because almost all Arab governments boycott al-Jazeera's advertising - a fact which one wag said was "about the only thing the Arab information ministers can all agree on"). Ernst and Young were hired to look into possible privatisation models earlier this year, but the idea seems to have been shelved, possibly because al-Jazeera means the little emirate now punches above its political weight. But the political pressure on the station is unrelenting. Since the start of 2002 one of its cameramen has been held at Guantanamo Bay. The same year Bahrain banned al-Jazeera reporters - because the station was "biased towards Israel and against Bahrain". Then two of its financial journalists had their credentials to cover the New York Stock Exchange revoked. In 2003 its reporter in Spain was arrested and accused of being an al-Qa'ida agent. In 2004 the Algerian government froze the activities of al-Jazeera's correspondent there and later in the year the provisional Iraqi government shut down its offices in Baghdad. Problems have been created for the station in Canada, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia where it has even been banned from covering the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. Its website has been attacked by hackers, who redirected users to - a revealing combination - US patriot or porn sites. Despite all that - or perhaps because of it - subscriptions to al-Jazeera doubled in a single week after the war on Iraq began. It now has 50 million viewers and is in the middle of a major expansion. In addition to its news network it has al-Jazeera Sports, the al-Jazeera Children's Channel and al-Jazeera Live, which broadcasts conferences in real time without editing or commentary. The English-language service, al-Jazeera International, will launch in March. It will broadcast from its Qatar headquarters and bureaux in London, Kuala Lumpur and Washington DC. Unsurprisingly it has yet to find a US cable outlet prepared to carry its broadcasts. But the likelihood is that it will find a ready audience. "The brief is emphatically not an English translation of the Arabic channel," says Nigel Parsons, al-Jazeera International's managing director, who was previously a senior executive with Associated Press Television News and the BBC. "It will have international appeal and fill a lot of gaps in existing output." The English-language website drew a huge number of hits during the July bombings in London. "One of the aims will be to try and bring better understanding of each other's positions," Parsons said. "We'll aim for balance ... It's not going to be anti-Western or anti-American." Indeed some staff fear it could end up being too Western and unpopular with English-speaking Muslims. The gap in the market comes, Parsons believes, from the fact that CNN has been dragged to the right by Rupert Murdoch's outrageously partisan Fox News Channel. CNN's coverage of the Iraq war cost them a lot of credibility. And the BBC's international coverage, particularly of the developing world, he says, "are 40 per cent of what they were when Michael Buerk first did the Ethiopian famine". He has convinced many in the industry. Behind the big name of Sir David Frost lie a raft of seasoned professionals. They include: John Pullman, former editor of News At Ten; a Paul Gibbs, a former editor of BBC Breakfast; Steve Clarke, an executive producer from Sky; and Al Anstey, who has just quit as ITN's head of foreign news. On-camera will be Susan Phillips, previously the London bureau chief of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and Mark Seddon, the former editor of Tribune, who will be the New York and UN correspondent. Parsons has had 4,000 applications for the 40 jobs in the Washington bureau from staff at CNN, Fox, Sky, the BBC and Australian television. Will the BBC Arabic service make a dent in al-Jazeera? Washington has already launched its own rival, al-Hurra. It has made little impact. So has the Saudi-backed al-Arabiya, though it has made inroads in Iraq and Bahrain. "Al-Jazeera," sighs Mouafac Harb, the director of al-Hurra, "has hijacked the role of the mosque as the primary source of information and views. Al-Jazeera is the only political process in the Middle East." Even some Americans have been forced to agree. Kenton Keith, a former US ambassador to Qatar, says: "For the long- range importance of press freedom in the Middle East and the advantages that will ultimately have for the West you have to be a supporter of al-Jazeera, even if you have to hold your nose sometimes."

BBC goes head-to-head with al-Jazeera · Arabic channel to launch in the west in March · Corporation will make cuts to fund rival service Owen Gibson, media correspondent Wednesday October 26, 2005 The Guardian In one corner stands the BBC World Service, the corporation's venerable 70-year-old voice to the world backed by £239m of taxpayers' money. In the other the upstart satellite TV channel al-Jazeera, barely a decade old, bankrolled from the bottomless reserves of the emir of Qatar. The two broadcasters are going head to head in a battle for control of the new frontier for global TV - the Middle East. While al-Jazeera is finalising plans to launch an English language channel (star presenter: Sir David Frost), the BBC yesterday unveiled its counter-attack: a new £19m-a-year channel to be broadcast to the region in Arabic. This is a fight not only for ratings but to gain the hearts and minds of viewers in the Middle East. The World Service director, Nigel Chapman, said the launch of its first television channel would increase its influence in the region and dismissed fears that viewers would see it as a mouthpiece for western interests. "Most people in the Arab world are very clear that, despite being funded by the UK taxpayer, they see the BBC as an independent broadcasting force and have done for over 60 years," said Mr Chapman. He argued that with the growing influence of al-Jazeera and its rivals and the near-universal access to satellite television, the BBC's radio and online services risked being outflanked. It comes at a time when al-Jazeera, the 24-hour Arabic news channel, is expanding rapidly and gearing up to launch an English language service in the west next March. That will give it a year's headstart on the BBC's mirror-image launch, which is scheduled for 2007. The BBC's new operation, which has been under discussion for two years, will mean cutbacks elsewhere at the Foreign Office-funded broadcaster and the closure of 10 radio services around the world. BBC broadcasts in Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Greek, Hungarian, Kazakh, Polish, Slovak, Slovene and Thai will cease by March. According to some estimates al-Jazeera, which shot to prominence as the preferred outlet for Osama bin Laden's video addresses after September 11 2001, now has a global audience that rivals the BBC's. The irony is that al-Jazeera launched out of the ashes of the BBC's last attempt to build a presence in the region. A commercial joint venture, launched in 1994, foundered two years later. Many of the disappointed staff went on to launch al-Jazeera. "That experience does not negate the need for an independent news and information channel in Arabic from the BBC, as some have argued. It tells us instead we had the wrong funding model and means of distribution," Mr Chapman said. Other observers have suggested that the BBC has missed the boat and questioned the need for a Foreign Office-funded service to rival established domestic commercial channels. Some BBC World Service staff are also wary of the idea fearing that, even if it is editorially objective, the new venture may be perceived as too closely aligned with Foreign Office objectives. A spokesman for the Dubai-based news channel al-Arabiya said increased competition was healthy but viewers in the region would inevitably question the motives of the new channel. Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Arabic newspaper al-Quds, said that it would be essential for the new BBC service to differentiate itself from the US-backed service and establish an independent voice from launch. "The new BBC station has the potential to compete strongly with al-Jazeera. If it learns from the mistakes of al-Hurra, adopting an even-handed editorial policy instead of becoming a mouthpiece for propaganda, it will engage the many intellectuals and politicians who have shunned the American channel," he said. Mr Chapman maintained that the government had no influence on the decision, which was editorial rather than ideological. "There is no political motive to this. Our job is to be a broadcaster. That's what we do," he said. "The notion that any group of people, anywhere in the world, is going to put pressure on us to follow a certain agenda or promote a point of view ... That will not happen." He pointed to the BBC's 60-year heritage in the region, with a radio service that still attracts up to 10 million listeners and an increasingly popular online operation, as proof that the World Service was seen as distinct from the British government. A survey of satellite viewers in the region found that between 80% and 90% were likely to watch an Arabic television service from the BBC. Some Washington officials have described al-Jazeera as being anti-American and encouraging Islamic militancy, but it has worked hard recently to cement its reputation as a global news gatherer. Its drive for credibility has also informed the planned launch of al-Jazeera International and the signing of several star names from the west. Some see the launch of the new English-language channel as an attempt to placate western critics. The services compared Al-Jazeera Launch November 1996 Base Doha, Qatar Audience: 50 million (estimated) Budget $30m a year grant from emir of Qatar, ads and syndication income On air 24 hours Other platforms Websites, al-Jazeera International English language channel launches next year Bureau 30 across the world, soon to be increased for new channel What they said "We are dealing with people that are ... willing to lie to the world to further their cause," Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary; "Al-Jazeera destroyed the Arab totalitarian media system," Saad Djebbar, political analyst BBC Arabic TV Launch 2007 Base London and Cairo Audience "In five years we aim to win a significant share of the market for international television news." Current World Service global audience is 149 million a week Budget £19m a year On air 12 hours a day, rising to 24 Other platforms BBCArabic.com website, Arabic radio service with up to 12 million listeners a week Bureaus 45 around the world What they said "A service to the world as a whole, and perhaps the greatest gift to the world during the [last] century," Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, on the World Service BBC squares up to Al Jazeera By Rhys Blakely The BBC World Service is to go head-to-head with Al Jazeera when it launches a new Arabic-language television channel. The BBC's Arabic channel, due to launch in 2007, forms part of a £30 million package of new initiatives unveiled by the broadcaster today. The move follows a request from the Foreign Office, which funds the World Service. Money for the new channel will be made available in part through the closure of several of the BBC's eastern European radio channels. The decision signals the way the geopolitical landscape has shifted since the end of the Cold War, the World Service said. The radio closures will involve more than 200 job losses. The Arabic channel will be the first publicly-funded international TV service from the BBC and marks a departure for the World Service, which has traditionally been known for radio services. The BBC claimed the move will make it the only major broadcaster who will provide a "tri-media" service in Arabic to the Middle East - using TV, radio and online for "sharing views and perspectives" across the region. The channel will initially broadcast 12 hours a day and will be freely available to everyone with a satellite or cable connection in the Middle East. "Our research suggests there is strong demand for an Arabic television service from the BBC in the Middle East," the corporation said. Nigel Chapman, the BBC World Service Director, said: "Many of the European services being closed had their roots in the Second World War and have served their audiences well right through the Cold War years." "But Europe has changed, fundamentally, since the early nineties. Now the countries to which these languages are broadcast are members of the EU, or are likely to join soon." Al Jazeera, the leading Arabic-language channel, has courted controversy by airing material from al-Qaeda-affiliated groups. It was itself founded in the wake of the collapse of BBC Arabic in 1996. The earlier channel had been a joint venture between the World Service and the Saudi-owned broadcaster Orbit. After its demise many of its staff went to work for the Qatar-based Al Jazeera. In July, Al Jazeera announced plans to launch a new English-language satellite service called Al Jazeera International in an attempt to provide news about the Middle East, especially Israel, from an Arab perspective. Money saved from the Word Service restructuring will also be invested in expanding the World Service's online operations. The broadcaster plans to supply more reports in areas such as South America, Russia, south Asia and the Middle East. Money will also be invested in radio, marketing and overseas offices bureaux. The World Service will also explore opportunities to work in partnership with other groups. "The changes add up to the biggest transformation of BBC World Service that has been undertaken -- and one of the most far-reaching -- since the BBC began international broadcasting more than 70 years ago," Mr Chapman said.

Col Yusuf is playing dangerous game, mawaxuu ismoodey madaxweyne run ah Doesn’t he now that governments and institutions are permanent, and individuals like him just come one day and leave one day. Col Yusuf he sold the SSC people only so he feel more like president of all Somalia including northwest, does he think by compromise ssc regions he will bring northwest to the Somalia fold, that’s full political miscalculation Cidii colonel aamintaaba ka daran, if the colonel betrays ssc he will pay back Before he satisfy his opponents like Somaliland (meaning northwest), he should keep pro somaliweyn regions Sool Sanaag and cayn otherwise he will lose both northwest and SSC regions I always supported separate and independent political administration for Sool Sanaag and Cayn, to make the voice of stronger and clear, so no other entity use ssc as sphere of influence or negotiation tool. I favored Hashi as a president of Puntland (not because of clan affiliation), but because he was very critical to Somaliland’s aggression on Sool Sanaag and cayn regions, unlike Cadde who is very weak to stand up for the very people who helped him to win Puntland presidency and very prone to Colonel yusuf’s demands. Colonel Yusuf wuu ku khaldamayaa reer SSC I very convinced and afraid that this conspiracy is not Colonel yusuf’s invention but still he will be responsible for supporting their demands -- . I know that several European countries particularly Britain and Ethiopia are behind this conspiracy to bring so they can Somaliland back to Somalia fold Maalintii uu abdulaahi yusuf soo booqday Puntland booqanawaayey ssc regoins, shaki badan oo layaab leh bey ku abuurtay reer ssc reer ssc waa inay ka kacaaan hurdada oo ey ka tashadaan waayahooda

Bosasso 1 | 91 houses - almost completed Bosasso 2 | 80 houses - started september 30 2005 Gaalkacyo 1 | 300 houses - started september 30 2005 Laascaanood | 250 houses - planned to start in 2005 Gaalkacyo 2 | 300 houses - planned to start in 2006 Garowe | 150 houses - planned to start in 2006 Carmo | 100 houses - planned to start in 2006 Exellent projects, Hillaac is the leading construction company in Puntland Really I am proud of the positive developments in our homeland

Innaa Lillaahi wa Innaa Illeyhi raajicuun Allaha u naxariisto marxuumka janada ha geeyo. ehelkana samir iyo iimaan

Originally posted by Nayruus: ^^^ then you believe in suldaaankiisa's nacnac ah.. oo maxaad ka filasay?

This is not a new initiative, long ago Egal and Abdullah Yusuf discussed but they could not agree, A union between somaliland and puntland will be a step forward for all somalia I sure that puntland will welcome such initiative, since puntland still advocate the unity and territorial integrity of somalia I assume somaliland current regime including opposition (the parties) will rejects anything to do with unification since they are obessed with brief colonial history, I don’t know why would rational somali person want the restorationof colonial era and maps. I am sure that somali people from northwest somalia have far better solution for somalia’ current crisis. Puntland and somaliland both can become two great examples and pillars of united somalia, and other somali regoins might follow their lead. While each miantianing their autonomy adminstrations, since somalia will likely have federal government. Regardless of somaliland and puntland views, the destiny of sool sanaag and will be decided by the people of sool sanaag and cayn, and we know the fact that the people of sool sanaag and cayn are staunch supporters of somaliweyn, thus sool sanaag and cayn will remian an integral part of somalia

Brother Red Sea Also, I am hopeful to visit Somalia next year insha allaah, obviously Laascaanood and other northern cities like Djabouti, Garowe, Boosaaso, Burco, and Hergeysa ( I am hope Hergeysa administration will not send me to prison for my pro somaliweyn stance, kidding), as well I wish to visit the capital Mogadishu (but looks impractical presently) Positively, I looking forward to see in Laascaanood insha allaah, while we visiting relatives Wind talker, red sea, sky adinkaa mudan

Originally posted by NGONGE: Ignoring all the rhetoric and empty flag waving; when it comes to actual politics and choosing the safest strategy, Puntland comes out on top. They’re part of the Federal government yet are also very autonomous. They’ve chosen the halfway house of hedging their bets, and one has to admit that this is the safest possible option. If (I can hear Tolstoy & co already replacing that word with WHEN) Somaliland gets recognition, Puntland can dive in quickly and demand the same treatment. If on the other hand the problems of Somalia proper are solved, Puntland can also jump in and make the most of the early day funds that will pour into a peaceful and functioning federal government. This is not because the president is from that region (though that surely is a bonus) it will have more to do with the relatively advanced and organised condition of Puntland as opposed to the disorganisation of the southern regions. At any rate, it’s a win/win situation. I have no idea why any sane Puntlander would even dream of asking for independence now! Yours Mr Obvious. Ngonge, you made a thorough analysis,and could be a possible scenario I would suggest Somaliland as well, to follow Puntland example, since it is the safest strategy, join their Somali brotherly Somali people, taking their share of Somalia’s federal system, while enjoying autonomy regional administration, I am sure it will be win-win situation for Somaliland as well

Salamu Calaykum, So you guys are giving up on our Somaliweyn dream. I am disgusted with you. I had no idea that you would come to a conclusion like this after arguing and defending Somaliweyn so much. However if you decide that you want Puntland to step aside then speak for yourself. You don't represent the Somalis living in the eastern regions of Somalia, they are 100% for Somaliweyn. If you decide to break away then you just wasting your energy on empty space. First you should ask yourself who is with me? the answer is that no body will even take you seriously if you say such thing, so don't make fool of yourselves guys.Now enjoy this line from "Soomali waa mid, wax lakala qaybsho malaha, dibaa loo noqonayaa walanoqonayaa" ( Qabyo part 1) and this few lines from the famous gabay of Mahamud Suldan Timacade; dugsi male qabyaaladi waxay dumiso mooyee. Dugsi male qabyaladi waxay dumiso moyee aniga uun baa damqanayee dhaguhu uma dhaloolaane dadka aan lahadlayaa ayaan lahayn dix iyo imaane bal inay fahanto nacastu kor iyo hoosba waan ugu dhigi tixda gabayga. Very good to see honest brother from northwest advising people from northeast

Innaa Lillaahi Wa Innaa Ilayhi Raajicuun, Samir iyo iimaan Ilaah haka siyo eheladii iyo qaraabadii marxuumkana janada ilaahay haa ku abaal mariyo amiin

Barwaaqada Sanadkan Iyo Dulleedka Laascaanood

NO We don't have to waste time on clan-factions (i.e. somaliland, puntland, hiiraanland, jubba dhexe) because qabiil qaran ma noqdu (Dugsi male qabyaaladu waxay dumiso mooyee) Puntland should don’t make the same miscalculation of Somaliland, set eyes on Somaliland after 15 years of nonsense campaign, do Puntland want years of infinite nonsense mirage ? Somalia dadkeeda ey wali kusii jirtu wadaninimada iyo doomaalinimada ayaa u maqan LONG LIVE SOMALIA soomaaliya hanoolatu

Brother Red Sea, I appreciate your response and understanding the real reasons behind Somali debacle, which is the fact that ordinary Somali people’s absolute and blind support for war criminals, I disagree with excluding faisal waraabe Somaliland’s most notorious war criminal, I just found that’s it is entirely unfair to include the list of Somali war criminals Guulwade Riyaale (former spy of siyaad regime till 1991) and Siilaanyo (former minister of siyaad regime and later snm leader who took leading role in Somaliland civil war 1993-1996) and exclude infamous Ucid's leadear Faisal ali waraabe (a former real estate broker in Mogadishu, who is willing to make every absurd irresponsible statement) who is better known as the Musa Sudi Yalaxaw of Somaliland because he makes foolish remarks without taking into account the consequences of his statements. “We failed to secure recognition for Somaliland. Therefore, we must seek revenge†these were the words of Faisal Ali Warabe, the leader of UCID, a political party which draws a sizeable backing from Hargeisa, and from the Diaspora. Here, Warabe is clearly enticing clan-based war and hatred. Faysal Cali Warabe's is on the record to say that he loved Ethiopia more than his own Somali brethren inside and outside of the republic. This sentiment is represented by his famous saying: “a boy born in Hargeisa has more commonality with one born in Addis Ababa than one in Mogadishu.†-- “ Wiil Ethiopia ku dhashay baa iga fican Soomaaliga ku dhashay konfur†I hope that you will be very objective in this matter, and include the notorious faisal waraabe the long list of Somali war criminals (Muse Suudi, Aydiid, caaato, qanyara, shariif Hassan, indhacadde, cabdulaahi Yusuf, morgan, haabsade, shaatiguduud, riyaale, siilanyo, iyo waraabe), it is extremely important that we Somali people should not be bias and selective when we judging the war criminals

Sounds great United states of somalia ( or federal states of somalia)

Innaa Lillaahi Wa innaa Illayhi Raajicuun Ilaahay ha u naxariistu marxuumka janadii ha siiyo ehaladiina sabar iyo iimaan amiin Abwaanku waxuu u lahaa mowhibo suugaanta soomaalida,waxuu ahaa nin wadani ah oo somaalinimadu aad u qadarin jirey, Ilaahay na ugu daray diin

Originally posted by Red sea: SALAMU CALAYKUM, BROTHERS STOP WASTING YOUR BREATH AND TIME OVER SOME NONSENSE PLEASE. I AM SITTING HERE READING YOUR THREADS AND NOT A SINGLE ONE MAKES ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER. INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT ANOTHER WAR DOESN'T BREAK OUT ON SOMALI SOIL,YOU ARE ENCOURAGING IT AND MAKING PLANS ON HOW IT WILL ALL HAPPEN. CAN YOU PEOPLE EVER LEARN ANY LESSON AND LET THE BLOOD SHED GO. HOW DO YOU EXPECT SOMALIA TO BE PEACEFUL WHEN YOU ARE WAGING WARS AND BLOOD SHED OVER THE INTERNET. ALL I KNOW IS THAT MOQDHISHO IS A SOMALI CITY AND SO IS BASASO. ANYTHING HAPPENS IN THOSE REGIONS GOOD OR BAD WILL EFFECT EVERY SOMALI WHATEVER THEY ARE. SO PLEASE BROTHERS GIVE UP THESE IDIOTIC ARGUMENT OF WHETHER ABDULLAHI YUSUF WILL TAKE OVER MOQDHISO OR NOT . YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT ABDULLAHI YUSUF, SHARIF HASSAN, SUUDI YALAXOW, QANYARE AND ALL THE WARLORDS CLAIMING TO BE LEADERS OF THE SO CALLED NEW GOVERNEMENT ARE NOTHING BUT BLOOD SUCKERS WHO PLAN SOMALIA FOR THE WORSE. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE THINGS BEING BUILT AND ENOUGH WITH WEAPONS AND WARLORDS. AFTER ALL ARENT'T THESE WAR CRIMINALS THE ONES THAT CHASED YOU AND I FROM OUR HOMES? AREN'T THEY? WHY ARE YOU THEN SUPPORTING THEIR HIDEOUS PLANS AND DIRTY WORK? THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE OF YOU WHO PRAISES THE WARLORDS. SALAMU CALAYKUM AND RAMADAN KARIM. Brother Red Sea Thank you for your priceless contribution to this forum, it is wrong that nomads wasting valuable time over nonsense, especially when it is the blessed month Ramadan AFTER ALL ARENT'T THESE WAR CRIMINALS THE ONES THAT CHASED YOU AND I FROM OUR HOMES? AREN'T THEY? WHY ARE YOU THEN SUPPORTING THEIR HIDEOUS PLANS AND DIRTY WORK? THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE OF YOU WHO PRAISES THE WARLORDS. The source of all Somali crisis is the fact that ordinary Somali people giving war criminals absolute support and approval (Muse Suudi, Aydiid, caaato, qanyara, shariif Hassan, indhacadde, cabdulaahi Yusuf, riyaale, siilanyo, iyo waraabe) bro, you are one of the few people here who contribute positively, we need more people who contribute positively not self-appointed mouthpieces of cruel warlords

(Axmed Maxamed Adan - Qaybe) Doodan ka dhacday Aqalka Hoose (House of Commons) eeBarlamanka Ingriiska waxaan ka soo minguuriyey HANSARD – Hadal-qoraalka Aqalkaas. Colonies- Secretary Of State­­­­­­­­­- Rt. Hon Alan Tindal Lennox-Boyd, M.P Minister of State – Rt. Hon Henry Lennox D’Aubigne Hopkinson, C.M.G., M.P.Under-Secretary of State-Lord Lloyd, M.B.E. Foreign Affairs- Joint under –Secretary of State-Robert Hugh Turton, Esq., M.C., J.P., M.P. BRITISH SOMALILAND (ANGLO-ETHIOPIAN AGREEMENT) 32.Mr. J. Johnson asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the universal opposition in British Somaliland to the United Kingdom- Ethiopia Agreement of 29th November, 1954; and what consultations he has had with the Secretary of the State for the Colonies in this matter. Captain Duncan: on a point of order .My I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the last part of the Question now being asked and inquire whether it is in order, in view of the fact that I have always thought that the Government were regarded as one and that it was not in order to ask whether consultations have taken place with other Ministers? Mr. Speaker: I think it may be that the hon. and gallant Member is correct, but that will probably be embodied in the answer. Mr. Turton: The reply to the question is that my hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be making a statement on this matter after Questions. Mr. Johnson: While not anticipating that answer, My I ask the Minister if it is not a fact that the 1897 Agreement was signed without the understanding and knowing of the Sultans of Somaliland, that it undercut the settlement of 1884, that over 50 years went by without their knowing they were in this part of Abyssinia, and that it came as a bombshell to them a few weeks ago? Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentle man had better wait the until Question is answered at the end of the Questions. Captain Duncan: As the question has not been answered by the Minister, may I ask you again, Mr. Speaker, whether it is to be regarded as a precedent and that we can now ask one Minister whether he has had consultations with another? Mr. Speaker: I do not see anything out of order in asking for information of a general character, but the House should realise that the doctrine of the House is the Ministers are supposed to act in concert with one another. Asking what consultations have taken place between Ministers is really a waste of time Mr. Callaghan: With regard to the first part of the question, which I understand is completely in order, May I ask the hon. Gentlemen why the Government entered into this Agreement at this time, in view of the position in Somaliland, and what truth there is in the allegation that it is because oil interests are at work in this area that the Government are making these arrangements? Mr. Turton: If the hon. Gentleman will await the statement of my right hon. Friend, he will fully understand the position. Mr. Callaghan: I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s right hon. Friend will be able to say why the Agreement has been entered into at this time. The Agreement is signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Will he tell us why it is made now? . Mr.Speaker: I do not think we can discuss this matter until we get the answer to the Question. Mr. J. Dugdale: Surely, as the hon. Gentleman has said that the Agreement was actually signed by the Secretary of the State for Foreign Affairs, he therefore has responsibility for this Agreement? Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of Sate for Colonies can answer for right hon. Friend perfectly well 37and 63. Mr. J. Dugdale asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will make a statement on the conversation he has held with the delegation from Somaliland, which has come to protest against the proposed transfer of certain territories from the United Kingdom to Ethiopia; (2) What consultations he had with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs before it was decided to draft the Somaliland (Ethiopia) Order in Council.1955 69. Mr. Willey asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received from Somaliland about the proposed transfer of territory to Ethiopia. 71.Mr. J. Dugdale asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will postpone the coming into operation of the Somaliland (Ethiopia) Order in Council, 1955, until the people who will be forced to leave the Commonwealth on account of it have had an adequate opportunity of expressing views. Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With the permission of the hon. Members concerned, I propose to defer my answer until the end of Questions. later Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will now, with permission, Mr. Speaker, Answer Question Nos. 37,63,69 and 71. The Somaliland (Ethiopian) Order in Council, 1955, makes provision for the exercise by the Protectorate authorities and courts of the powers accorded by an Agreement concluded between the Ethiopian Government and the United Kingdom on 29thNovember, 1954. I have, of course, throughout been in the closest contact with the Foreign Secretary, who signed the Agreement on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. The Agreement provides for the withdrawal of British Military Administration from certain areas of Ethiopia bordering on the Somaliland Protectorate known as the Haud and Reserved Areas. Although these areas are used predominantly by members of British protected tribes from the Somaliland Protectorate they have been Ethiopian territory in international law since the Anglo-Ethiopia Treaty of 1897. No British territory is, therefore, being transferred to Ethiopia. The Wartime Agreement of 1944, by virtue of which the areas are under British Military Administration, was made without prejudice to Ethiopian sovereignty and could, in fact, be terminated by either side at three month’s notice. Last year the Ethiopian Government indicated that they wished to assume the full exercise of their sovereignty in the areas at an early date and the negotiations which followed resulted in the Agreement of last November. During the negotiation of the Agreement, her Majesty’s Government had constantly in mind interests of the Somali tribes who use the areas and were able to secure certain very important rights for the Protectorate Government and for the tribes from the Somaliland Protectorate grazing in the areas. In view of the fact that the areas were Ethiopian in international law it was not, however, possible to arrange for the continuance of British occupation. The news of the Agreement has given rise to widespread feeling in Somaliland and a delegation was sent to see me to protest against the Agreement and to secure a postponement of its implementation. The delegation put there point of view with dignity and force and made abundantly clear the value that they attach to being under British administration .I have had no alternative but to inform them that Her Majesty’s Government must abide by their obligations in international law, I have made clear to them what those obligations are, and have told them that there can be no question of her Majesty’s Government’s repudiating international agreements. Her Majesty’s Government have carefully considered the proposal of the delegation that the date of the bringing into force of the Anglo Ethiopian Agreement of November, 1954, should be postponed. Her Majesty’s Government asked the Ethiopian Government whether they would be prepared to consider a postponement. The Ethiopian Government have been unable to agree that the handover should be postponed beyond the date laid down in the Agreement, namely, 28th February. I am satisfied that the arrangements made with the Ethiopian Government are the best that could be made against the background of our international obligations, and in the negotiations regarding the arrangements for the hand-over, the Ethiopian government have given of number of assurances on such subjects as customs and property rights which will, I hope, be of benefit to the Somali tribes concerned. I have urged on the delegation how important it is, in the interests of the British protected tribes, that the new Agreement should work as smoothly as possible in order that they may benefit to the full from the rights which the Agreement accords them. Mr. Dugdale: the right hon. Gentleman has referred on a number of occasions to international rights. Does he not agree that one of the great difficulties with which he is now faced is that there are, in fact, two Agreements - one, the Agreement with Ethiopia of 1897 and the other, the earlier Agreement with Somalis which stated that, “ influenced by motives of friendship and with a desire to conform to the principles on which the great British Government is conducted.†they agreed to accept British protection? As there are these two contrary Agreements, will he not again ask the Ethiopian Government to postpone the carrying into force of this Agreement until such time as it can be brought before the International Court for its opinion? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: that is not possible. It would be quite wrong to hold out any suggestion of that kind and not in the long-term interests of the British protected people themselves. I think that in many ways the 1897 Treaty with Ethiopia was unfortunate, but it suffered from our limited knowledge of Somaliland at the time and we must see it against a background of that knowledge and of the expansionist tendencies of Ethiopia in 1897. It is true that, because of the British military occupation since 1944, many people had imagined that the status quo could continue indefinitely, but the Ethiopians could have repudiated the Treaty at three months’ notice and then our protected people would not have had the very solid rights which the new Agreement has given them. Mr. Attle: May I ask whether any consideration has been given to negotiations about the boundaries with Ethiopia? I recall that the pervious troubles with Ethiopia seemed to arise out of very artificial boundaries among the tribes, their grazing rights and wells, etc. Has no attempt been made possibly to modify the position, instead of standing on international law, and to negotiate more reasonable boundaries in this area? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, the boundaries of the Haud and Reserved Areas have been laid down for some time, Small adjustments in those boundaries would not have met the fears of the Somali tribes. It appeared to us to be much more important, while not disputing the undeniable Ethiopian sovereignty, to concentrate on getting protection of the grazing rights. Up to now the only protection in law, which the tribes had, was the right to cross the frontier for purposes of grazing. We have now got the grazing rights guaranteed in perpetuity, with a number of other important rights. Her Majesty’s Government have every confidence that the Ethiopian Government will observe the Treaty in the spirit as will as in the letter. While recognising, as I do, that the Somali people do not like this arrangement, I hope they will do their utmost to see that the situation is handled in a calm and statesmanlike way. Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the area and the population involved, and whether there will any change in citizenship by the population? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There would be neither. There is no transfer of British territory to Ethiopia and there is no change of British citizenship. The numbers involved vary, but I believe that about 300,000 people go from the Somaliland Protectorate into Ethiopian territory for grazing and will continue to do so under the guaranteed rights secured by this Agreement. Mr. Willey: Is not the Secretary of State being unduly dogmatic? This is a difficult and obscure question. As he himself has said, it is an involved question, but in view of the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, does he not think that there is still an opportunity to widen the discussions and to postpone this decision? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All these questions were gone into during the very protracted negotiations which began at Addis Abeba and were continued in London at the highest level. I would certainly not be dogmatic about this very human problem, which, I can assure the House has given me very great anxiety, not lessened by the high bearing and courage of the delegation. Very few tasks which it has fallen to me to do were less agreeable than recognising international obligations, as I have been bound to do in this field. Mr. Callaghan: How can an Agreement be satisfactory under which tribes graze for part of the year on one side of an international frontier and for other part of the year on the other side of the frontier? If it is the case, as I understand it is, that these Somali tribes challenge the Agreement of 1897 and claim that their own Agreement with Her Majesty’s Government of 1884 overrides it, why should not Her Majesty’s Government themselves take the initiative in notifying the Ethiopian Government that the Agreement has not yet come into force - it will not come into force until 28th February, next Monday - and that they themselves will postpone its operation until such time as the dispute about the two treaties has been referred to the International Court of Justice? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Every aspect of this problem was gone into most carefully during the negotiations and I am afraid that is impossible to reopen them. [HON. MEMBERS: ‘Why’] The hon. Member said that it would be difficult to imagine tribes grazing for one part of the year on one side of an international boundary and for the other part of the year on the other side of the boundary, but I think he is a little inclined to look at the problems of Africa through the eyes of South Wales. Mr. F. M. Bennett: On the last part of the question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South –East (Mr. Callaghan), could the Secretary of the State tell us whether, if this dispute were taken to the International Court of the Justice at The Hague - on whose dicision we should be bound to rely - the decision which the Government have made would be upheld? Are we satisfied that would be the result? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When we made the military agreement in 1944, under which the present British Administration have been conducting their affairs, it was clearly recognised that this was Ethiopian territory. We have never disputed it. I regret the Treaty of 1897 but, like much that has happened before, it is impossible to undo it. Captain Waterhouse: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the course of the negotiations, he made any attempt to meet the Ethiopian position either by purchase or a long lease? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All other possible solutions were gone into. The Ethiopians attach immense importance to their sovereignty ,which in a number of successive treaties, we never disputed. Mr. J. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the 1884 Agreement was the only one made with the Sultans of Somaliland and the 1897 Agreement was made without their consent? Therefore, is it lawful to hand over to Abyssinia about 25,000 square miles without the consent of the inhabitants? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If we were doing that now it would be something to which we should all apply our minds. I have no doubt what would be my answer to it, but the 1897 Agreement defined Ethiopian territory in these areas and I have no right to go back on that. Mr. Alport: On what date was the information of the nature of the negotiations and Agreement conveyed by the Administration to the Sheikhs of the tribes concerned? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On 5th January [HON. MEMBERS: ‘‘This year?’’]- this year. As to the question of consultation, I must make it plain that in the view of Her Majesty’s Government it would not have been fair to ask Somali leaders to share responsibility for a decision that was bound to be unpopular and was made necessary by the international obligations of her Majesty’s Government. The date of 5th January was chosen to enable the Somali Government to make arrangements for the proper dissemination of the news of the Agreement among the nomadic tribesmen and as far as possible by acquainting the district officers of its terms to prevent garbled accounts and false rumours prevailing. Mr. Callaghan: As the Agreement was made on 29th November, why was it not conveyed to the Sultans until January? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable that they should be required to make different arrangements with notice of less than seven weeks when their whole future prospects are at stake and they are being handed over to another country? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: the hon. Member must not say that they are being handed over to another country. I am delighted to find this pride in the British Common- wealth and I pay great attention to it, but the hon. Member is not right in saying that they are being handed over to another country. Their rights of grazing in another country are, by this Agreement, being legally protected. I have dealt with the point about delay in notifying the people in the reply I made to my hon. Friend the member for Colchester (Mr. Alport). Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will these important rights of pasturage and of water be enforceable in the Ethiopian courts? Is the Secretary of the State satisfied that the Ethiopian authorities have the means and ability to secure the enjoyment of these rights by the tribes concerned? Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We attach the greatest importance to this undertaking being carried out in the letter and the spirit. The Ethiopians are bound to consult the British liaison officer about their relations with the tribes. The Agreement secures a whole number of rights for our people which, I hope, hon. Members will read carefully before they make up their minds on this matter. If there are disputes between the members of the tribes they will be settled in the British courts in the Protectorate, but disputes involving Ethiopians and the tribes will be decided in the Ethiopian courts. We have every confidence that the Ethiopian Government, recognising the great importance we attach to the scrupulous observance of the Agreement, will do so strictly. Mr. Dugdale: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another Government statement to be made. Later- Mr. Dugdale: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, The decision of Her Majesty’s Government to hand over certain territories now administered by the British Government to the Government of Ethiopia. Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentlemen asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, The decision of her Majesty’s Government to hand over certain territories now administered by the British Government to the Government or Ethiopia. I have carefully considered this matter and I cannot find that it comes within Standing Order No. 9. Having listened to the Minister’s statement, it seems to me that in this case Her Majesty’s Ministers, in acting as they have done, consider themselves bound by international law. To that extent, their responsibility for their action is diminished. I also would point out that the Treaty has been issued as a White Paper and was in the Vote Office on 5th January, and has been in the hands of hon. Members at any rate since 25th January, when the House resumed. I cannot believe that the matter is urgent in that sense. It seems to me that the Ministers are merely carrying out treaty obligations and that this is not a matter which comes within the Standing Order. Mr. Dugdale: The only point that I want to introduce, Sir, is that there are two sets of obligations in international law, and it is because of the difference between those two in international law that I think the matter ought to be fully discussed. Mr. Speaker: I understand that international law applies to agreements between States. If I understood the Secretary of State aright, it has been the Government’s view for a long time that we were bound by a specific Treaty with Ethiopia, and indeed, we were subject to eviction recently at three month’s notice. I cannot find that the matter comes within the Standing Order. Mr. Callaghan: May I put one further consideration to you, Mr. Speaker? The Agreement comes into force next Monday and it is, surely, within the competence of either party to propose to postpone it. Is there any reason why the Government should not take that initiative in order to submit themselves to the International Court of Justice on the ground that here is a dispute that should be resolved? If we had not raised this matter earlier, would you not consider it to be sufficient reason that negotiations were taking place in London between the tribesmen and the Colonial Secretary, who apparently, was asking Ethiopia to postpone the Agreement and, none of us wished to prejudice his success in that? Mr. Speaker: I think I follow what the hon. Member meant. The actual Treaty stipulates the date of coming into operation as 28th February, and that has been known. On the second point, I understood from the Colonial Secretary’s statement - although I stand to be corrected - that the Government had asked the Ethiopian Government to postpone the commencement of the Agreement, but that the Ethiopian Government had refused; they are quite within their rights in so doing. I find that the matter is one of international law and not within the Standing Order. Mr. Bowles: The Treaty comes into force in about seven days’ time, Mr. Speaker. It has never been ratified by this House. What opportunity are we to have to discuss it? If the House did not like it, the Government would fall, quite apart from whether they are right or wrong in international law. Mr. Speaker: This is a matter which rests with the House, and it lies within the power of the House to dismiss the Government which has concluded this Agreement. Mr. Bowles: let us do that Motion made, and Question proposed that this House do now adjourn. [Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith] 4.1 p.m. Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland North): I wish briefly to raise the question of the withdrawal of the British administration from the ******, an area primarily used by Somali tribes. This matter affects some 25,000 square miles and about 300,000 people. I apologise to the Minister for having changed the subject of the Adjournment, but I am sure he will appreciate that the Somaliland Orders are not debatable and that he will welcome this opportunity to make further Government statement on a matter which, as his right hon. Friend said, is one of great difficulty. As his right hon. Friend said, it turns on the “unfortunate’’ Treaty of 1897. I wish briefly - because of the time allowed - to put several questions to the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. The burden is on the Government, I feel, to explain why such short notice was given of the Agreement signed on 29th November last and why these Sheikhs were informed only as late as 5th January, when the Treaty comes into operation on Monday. After all, this matter had been in abeyance, rightly or wrongly, for a very long time, and in those circumstances I should have thought that much longer notice could have been given and better and fairer opportunity provided to the tribal leaders to make representations to Her Majesty’s Government. While I realise that it is now unrealistic to press the suggestion of a postponement, made by several hon. Members when the subject was raised this week , I want to ask the Minister, in spite of the fact that the Agreement comes into force on Monday, whether he will endeavour to reopen the question of the boundaries - seek an opportunity for boundary revision - these are after all very artificial boundaries - and if necessary, facilitate boundary revision by means of such measures as lease or purchase. Thirdly I want to turn briefly to the Treaty of 1897, which the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself admitted to be unfortunate. It is an example of appeasement which has had unfortunate repercussions. I appreciate the Government’s point of view that they cannot repudiate an international Agreement, but I do not think the question is quite as simple as that. Admittedly, I have made only an elementary examination of the Treaty, but it certainly seems obscure and there seems to be an argument on the Treaties of 1884 and 1886 that the tribal elders voluntarily placed themselves under British protection. It is very creditable to our administration that they still seek that protection. They sought it then for the maintenance of their independence the , preservation of order and other good and sufficient reasons. In short, there seems to be argument that at no time was any territory transferred. Consequently, it was not in our power to give away that which we did not possess. I cannot pretend to speak with any authority on these Treaties, but I should have thought that at any rate there was a case that the 1897 Treaty did not succeed in doing what it purported to do and that it was not within the power of the British Government to transfer these territories. In those circumstances, I invite the Minister to consider negotiating a reference to arbitration and to seek that the matter be referred, without acrimony, to the International Court, or in some other way that an authoritative decision be obtained out with the parties. I put the further point to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think it arises out of the obscurity and confusion of the conflict between these Treaties that he should make a statement on the Treaties of 1884 and 1886. I invite him to say that those Treaties are still binding and in no way impaired. I should like him to do this for the very good reason that there is conflict between the two Treaties and, even if the Government stand by their present Agreement on the ground that they cannot repudiate the earlier Agreement, we should still maintain the duties and obligations we formerly undertook. Finally, I would raise with the Minister the matters which the Secretary of State particularly argued in favour of the present settlement, that this Agreement guarantees certain very important rights and that there goes with it certain important assurances. I have had a look at those and find they are not absolute. To have grazing rights recognised in perpetuity is certainly most important, but the rights are not absolute. In an Agreement like this, one would not expect absolute certainty, but the grazing rights are to be ensured “as far as possible.’’ Article III of the Agreement says that “without prejudice To the jurisdiction of the Imperial Ethiopian Government’’ services, including educational services, are to be “ at the existing scale’’ those services cannot be extended without negotiation. There is reference to “political agitation’’ which could go very wide. These are not unexpected provisions in an Agreement of this sort, but I do hope the Minister can deal in a little more detail with the assurances that accompany the Agreement, that we can be assured that the provisions will be liberally interpreted and the guarantees will be properly carried out. I concede at once that will be of great advantage to have a British liaison officer. The Secretary of State referred to the high bearing and courage of the delegation he met. He has referred to the very difficult decision at which the Government arrived. I think the Minister of State would accept that there is an obligation on him to give some consolation and satisfactory assurance to these proud people who sought British protection and still seek the maintenance of that protection. 4.9 p.m. Mr. James Johnson (Rugby): I wish to support my hon. Friend the member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) because perhaps more than any other hon. Member I have been in close touch with the delegation, along with my hon. Friend the member for Cardiff, South-east (Mr. Callaghan). I wish to say a few sentences about the demeanour and bearing of the delegation and the way in which they met hon. Members at Westminster. We are very grateful to the Secretary of the State for the words he said about the way in which the members of the delegation conducted themselves at this most difficult time ; for within a few days they will be, not handed over, but leaving us to go under the jurisdiction of the Abyssinian State, Their people can be well proud of the way in which the delegation have behaved in this country. This Affair is a shabby thing - I say that quite advisedly - because, being a Protectorate, they have only an Advisory Council and have been kept in the dark . responsible members like Mr. Mariano have asked for many months, if not years, what was going to happen; and the Governor has said, “you are our wards and we will look after you.’’ In the actual event, the bombshell come on the 5th of last month, and a bombshell it was indeed, giving so short a time for them to come over here and consult us. It is almost scandalous that they were kept in ignorance and fobbed of in this way for so many months. I hope that the Minister will give us an explanation. The history of the case is in no doubt whatever. These people come under the Queen’s protection in 1884 and 1886, willingly and with full knowledge, and in 1897 we signed the Agreement with Abyssinia without their knowledge, and obviously, without their consent. In the 1930s, they were enslaved by Mussolini. In 1940 and 1941 - it is important to say this - we liberated them. After being under the heel of Italy for those years, they now go back to a power like Abyssinia, about which they have doubts and fears. In that they are justified. I have been in Kenya and know what is happening in South Abyssinia, on the N.F.D. border. Whatever may be said about the cultured and able men in Addis- Abeba, I believe that on the borders of Abyssinia the Ras of Harar does not behave himself in the same way as people In Addis-abeba. These Somali people, about whom we are so concerned, are rightly hag-ridden by fears of the old days and are scared of going back to Ethiopian rule. The Somali delegates have told me that about 40 ****** Sultans and tribal chiefs now live in Mogadishu as political exiles. The Somalis who reside under Ethiopian jurisdiction do not dare to exercise freedom of expression, and the Sultans are compelled to sign ‘By order’’. It is most important that the people who are now going over the line, so to speak, should be safeguarded by our administration in every possible way. On Wednesday last, the Secretary of State for the Colonies admitted that the Haud and the Reserved areas are used predominantly by members of the British protected tribes from the Somaliland Protectorate. May I ask the Minister whether or not the members of these tribes will be considered foreigners, with no safeguards, if, for instance, oil were to be found in this area by the American Sinclair Oil Company, and the area were to be urbanised? As I understand the Agreement , it is only people who use grazing rights, who are nomadic and on the move, who are to be safeguarded. If there were to be a fixed settled community, would it come under the Ethiopian regime? Are people who settle in farms and towns safeguarded under the Agreement? In some respects, we have given way upon this issue. I am not one who has used the expression “scuttle’’ - I never have done and never will - but there is no doubt that our prestige will suffer. There will be talk in the bazaars all the way to Kenya and Aden on this matter, and I wish that we might have found some other way of settling it, particularly for the benefit of these people, who have fought with us ever since the campaigns of the ‘Mad mullah’’ who fought against Mussolini and who now look to us for protection in these difficult modern times. 4.13 p.m. THE Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): There can be no hon. Member of the House who does not regret the fears and anxieties which the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of November, 1954, has caused among the people of Somaliland. Certainly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made his position in the matter very clear, and I should like to join him in paying my tribute to the dignified bearing of the members of the delegation during their visit here and to the loyalty of which they have given such proofs to this country. On the other hand, I believe that in all the circumstances the Agreement itself was a good one. To see the matter in its proper perspective, we must look back over the historical background of the area during the past seventy years. In July, 1884, the Egyptian garrisons were withdrawn from the Somali Coast following the successful rising of the Mahdi, in the Sudan. For the purposes of preserving order and the security of British interests in Aden, which was largely dependent upon the Somali Coast for its supplies, the Governor of the day occupied Berbera with a British force. In 1884 and 1886 respectively Agreements were signed with the Elders of the five tribes residing in the area. The first of those secured British rights in the territories of the tribes, and the second Agreement formally extended to them and the territories under their authority and jurisdiction the protection of the Queen. Those Agreements, I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman, are certainly as binding and valid today as they were when they were signed, but the exact area covered by them was never defined, the only indication of its extent was reference to two points on the coastline in a notification which was made to the Powers which signed the Berlin Treaty of 1885, which we know as one of the Congo Basin Treaties, nothing was said whatever about the limits of the extension in the hinterland. In 1897 the Ethiopians, no doubt taking advantage of the unsettled conditions arising out of the Anglo-Egyptian operations against the Khalifa, in the Sudan, made a number of territorial claims which included half of what is now British Somaliland. In the face of this pressure the late Lord Rennell of Rodd, who was then on a mission to the Emperor, was successful in concluding a Treaty delineating the boundary of the British Protectorate, and thus setting a limit to Ethiopian pretensions. I must say that at that time we had not the forces in that area to resist an attack had the Ethiopians decided to press it. However, it was then recognised that this line had the unsatisfactory effect of cutting across the traditional grazing areas of the Somali tribes, and letters were accordingly annexed to the Treaty providing that the tribes on either side of the frontier were free to cross that frontier for the purpose of grazing. Those grazing areas which were known as the Haud were never administered by the Ethiopian Government, and the others, The so called Reserved Areas, were administered only very much later, shortly before the Italian invasion of 1935. What happened was that British officers followed and administered the British protected tribes on their annual migrations over the border. Then, in 1935 when the Italians took possession, the Haud was detached from Ethiopia proper and incorporated into Italian Somaliland. The territory was then administered by the Italians, but certain facilities were given for the use of the grazing areas by the tribes, in return for some facilities in Berbera. After the liberation of Ethiopia in 1942 a large area of Ethiopian territory, including the Haud and Reserved Areas, remained under British military administration. In 1944, parts of this territory were handed back, but again without prejudice to Ethiopian sovereignty, as specifically stated in the Agreement; the Reserved Areas and the Haud were left under British military administration. This Treaty was liable to denunciation on three months’ notice by either party. Immediately after the war steps were taken to try to replace the 1944 Agreement by a more permanent arrangement. In 1946, negotiation were opened with the Ethiopians on the basis that the Haud should be exchanged for a strip of territory in the North British Somaliland, which would give the Ethiopians access to the sea through the port of Zeila. There were many difficulties in the way of this exchange, and nothing materialised. Of course, since then Eritrea has been federalised with Ethiopia, and the Ethiopians have their access to the sea in that way. Attempts were also made to lease the Haud, or alternatively, to extend the status quo, but these too were not successful. We now come to last year, when the Ethiopian Government made it clear that they wished to resume full sovereignty over the Haud and the Reserved Areas. I must point out to the House that had they chosen to press this to the point of denouncing the 1944 Treaty there would have been no alternative to reverting to the situation which arose at the time of the 1897 Treaty. It was, therefore, decided to negotiate in the hope not only of securing the protection of tribal grazing rights but of allowing the tribal organisation to function properly in the grazing areas under control of British liaison officers. The arrangements which were concluded last November provide that the Protectorate Government should be authorised to furnish veterinary, medical educational and other services, and to negotiate for the extension of water supplies and various other concessions. They also enable British officials to maintain law and other among the British protected tribesmen and to hear in the Protectorate cases arising across the border affecting them. I must emphasise that these provisions represent real and substantial concessions which, if, as we hope, they operate successfully, should preserve the tribal life of the British Somalis, whether entering or residing in the area. In reply to the query by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), as I understand it the tribesmen residing in the grazing areas will be entitled to the same privileges under the Treaty as those who are merely entering or going out. Mr. J. Johnson : Even though an oil field were to develop on the lines of Kuwait? Mr. Hopkingson: As far as I know, it certainly would not extend to matters such as the development of oil, but they certainly would not lose automatically their British protected status under the Treaty. Mr. John Dugdale ( wast Bromwich): What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by ‘‘automatically?’’ Either they lose it or they do not. Mr. Hopkinson: they do not lose it, but, as in any other country, people who settle in the country would have the right to become naturalised at a later date, if they wished. Several hon. Gentlemen have asked me why the Agreement was not announced earlier. The fact is that after the conclusion of the agreement in November there were a number of subsidiary points, which had to be cleared up with the Ethiopian Government, and, at the same time, proper preparations had to be made for explaining the position to the tribes. That took the few weeks between the conclusion of the Agreement and the beginning of January, during which time the delegation which had been over here negotiating the Agreement had to return to British Somaliland. I was asked why it was not possible to discuss the revision of the boundary with the Ethiopian Government , Minor rectifications of the frontier would really make no contribution at all to solution of the problem. The only thing which I think would have satisfied our Somali friends would have been the cession of the whole area, and I am satisfied that there was no possibility of persuading the Ethiopian Government to agree to abandon their sovereignty over any of this territory. I have also been asked whether there was not a case for a reference to the International Court, because of the alleged conflict between the Treaty of 1897 and the Agreement previously signed with Somali leaders. There can be no doubt that any submission of this question to the International Court could only have led to a reaffirmation of Ethiopian sovereignty. In a matter of this sort the Court would be bound to base its decision on the Treaty of 1897, which , as an international instrument, leaves no doubt as to where sovereignty lies. Moreover, such a reference to the Court would certainly have provoked Ethiopian hostility and would have rendered far more difficult the task of obtaining the practical concessions in the interest of the British protected tribes to which I have referred. Mr. Dugdale : The right hon. Gentleman says that he thinks the Court would be bound to take a certain view. Surely it would be much more satisfactory from the point of view of the people who are affected that they should know definitely the view of the Court after the submission of the case to the Court. They would then know finally rather than have the right hon. Gentleman’s view of what the Court might or might not decide. Mr. Hopkinson : I was not saying what I thought. The point I made was that the 1897 Treaty is an international instrument, whereas the other Agreements were not. The fact is that this Agreement is a great improvement on the previously existing legal position. The only alterative which would have remained to Her Majesty’s Government had they not decided to conclude such an Agreement would have been to repudiate the obligations which we hold under international law and in those circumstances, we should have had to be prepared to hold by force an area which was legally Ethiopian territory and which, for sixty years, we have recognised as such. As a nation which upholds the rule of international law, we could not possibly do this. Had any British Government thought they were able to do it, the Ethiopian Government would have been entitled to bring the mater before the United Nations or the International Court, which would only have led to a humiliating withdrawal on our part. While her Majesty’s Government fully understands the point of view of the Somali tribes, which have been so clearly expressed to us by the members of the delegation, and while we sympathise deeply with their anxiety, we believe that in the very difficult circumstances in which we were placed, having done every thing we could to secure an arrangement by some other means, the best way of safeguarding Somali rights was to conclude a treaty in which we obtained the maximum possible concessions to make sure it works. I hope that this debate this afternoon will perhaps throw further light on the origins of this problem and indicating the sympathy of this House and of the British people with the tribes in British Somaliland and our appreciation of their loyalty, will serve to convince them that their true interest lies in carrying out this Agreement harmoniously and with good will. On the other hand, we are equally entitled to expect the Ethiopian Government to see that the Agreement is carried out both in the letter and the spirit, and with full regard to the interests and the feelings of the British Somali tribes. The House can rest assured that, as far as Her Majesty’s Government are concerned, we shall be vigilant in seeing that the rights of the tribesman and of Her Majesty’s Government in this new Agreement are fully preserved. 4.28 p.m. Mr. John Dugdale ( West Bromwich) : As my hon. Friend the Member for rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) said, this is a sad and shabby deal. It is a sad end to a shabby piece of history about which this country has no claim to be proud. If this had been carried out by a Labour Government there is no doubt what we should have heard from hon. Gentleman opposite and from the Conservative press. As it is, with the notable exception of the “ Daily Express,†which has been true to its convictions on this matter and has not been afraid to say what it thinks, the Conservative press has remained silent. I think we need only remember what the Prime Minister ( Mr.Winston Churchill) said on a famous occasion, “ I have not been called upon to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.†This is a very small part of British territory and we have given up the administration and responsibility for these people. As the Secretary of State himself said, they have behaved in a brave, dignified and an honourable manner. All of us have the deepest regret that it should have been thought necessary by the Government to bring this new Agreement into force and with such indecent haste.

Xorayntii Somaliland iyo israacii 60kii. Qore: Mudane Axmed Maxamed Aadan (Qaybe) Oct-19-2005 “SI AANAY TAARIIKHDU U LUMIN†Sida ummadaha kale u qoraan taariikhdooda Somalidu uma badna inay taariikhdeeda qorto sababta oo ah far aynu wax ku qorno oo aan jirin ka hor 1972-kii, oo Dawladii waqtigaas jirtay ay go’aamisey in aynu qaadano xuruufta Latinka. Waxaa la inoo yiqiinay amaba aynu ahayn “oral societyâ€. Xuruuftaas Latinka waxaynu kaga kaaftoonay luqadihii shisheeyaha ahaa ee maamulka xafiisyada iyo saxaafadda loo isticmaali jiray. Hase yeeshee , ma jiraan, hadday jiraana way yaryihiin, qoraallo taariikhiya oo fartaas loo adeegsaday. Qoraalkaygan koobani wuxuu ku saabsan yahay xorayntii Somaliland iyo is-raacii Somalia ee 1960-kii. Anigu magaalada Cadan, Koonfurta Yaman ayaan ku dhashay. Waqtigaas waxay ahayd mustacmarad Ingriis. Malcaamad Quran iyo dugsiyaba halkaas ayaan ka galay, ka dibna dhawr sannadood ayaan shorthand typist ugu shaqeeyey Taliskii Sare ee Ciidamadii Cirka ee Boqortooyada Ingriiska. (Royal Air Force Command, Aden). 1954-kii Xukuumaddii Ingriiska ee Somaliland ayaan codsi shaqo-siin ah u soo qortay, waanay iga oggolaatay. 18-kii June 1954-kii, ayaan madaarka Hargeysa ka soo degay. Magaalada Hargeysi aad bay waqtigaas u koobnayd, una qurux badnayd. Waxay ahayd meel cimiladeedu wanaagsan tahay aan boodh iyo qashin toona lahayn, oo dhulka intiisa aanay daaro ka dhisnayn cagaar ahayd , dhirta waaweynina ku badnayd – A picturesque town. Mujtamac is- wadayaqaana, isna jecel oo kan maanta aad uga yar, ayaa ku noolaa. Bulshadii waqtigaas Hargeysa joogtay wax yar baa ka sii qiiqaya. Waxaan shaqo ka bilaabay Xafiiskii Maamulka Degmada Hargeysa (District Office) amaba xafiiska D.C.ga, siday Somalidu u tiqiiney. Waxaa laygu magacaabay District Clerk oo derejo sare waqtigaas ahayd. Muddadii aan xafiiskaas hayey dhacdooyin badan ayaa i soo maray, waxaase xusuus gaar ah igu reebay laba arrin: 1) Heshiisiintii Xukuumaddii Ingriiska ee Somaliland iyo Suldan Cabdillahi Suldan Diiriye (Suldankii Beesha Cidagale - Alle ha u naxriistee). 2) Arrintii murugada lahayd ee Haud iyo Reserved Areas Dawladda Ingriisku ku wareejisey Dawlada Ethiopia, 1955-kii. Suldan Cabdillahi Suldan Diiriye. Maalin maalmaha ka mid ah ayuu Toni Scawin oo waqtigaas ahaa D.C.gii Hargeysa xafiiskaygii iigu yimid isagoo warqad sir ah gacanta ku sita. Warqaddii ayuu ii dhiibay. Wuxuu talo iga weydiiyay arrintii warqadaas ku qornayd sida wax looga qaban karo. Warqadda waxa soo direy Chief Secretary Shirley oo maalmahaas hawlgab Somaliland uga bixitimayey, waxaanay ku saabsanayd Suldan Cabdillahi Suldan Diiriye. Wuxuu Shirley warqadiisa ku soo qoray isaga iyo Suldan Cabdillahi inay colloobeen, taas daradeedna uu Suldanku Xukuumadda Somaliland kaga maqan yahay. Maadaama Shirley dalka ka tegayey, wuxuu soo jeediyey Suldanka in lagu dayo bal inuu oggolaado inuu Xukuumadda la heshiiyo. Waqtigaas ay Xukuumadda is-hayeen, Suldaan Cabdillahi wuxuu noogu yimid Magaalada Cadan oo berigaas ahayd mustacmarad Ingriis. Waxaanu ku dejiney Naadigi Somalilda ee Cadanweyn (Crater) oo aan anigu madax ka ahaa. Isbarasho wanaagsan ayaa Suldanka na dhexmartay, taasoo ay sii xoojisey qaraabanimo aanu isku aqoonsanay. (Ayeydey Hooyo ayaa ka soo jeeday Beesha Suldanka). Scawin waxaan u sheegay in Suldan Cabdillahi xidhiidh fiicani naga dhexeeyey oo anigu aan ula tagi doona arrintii Shirley soo jeediyay. Maalintaas galabnimadeedii Dooxa Hargeysa ayaan dhinaca Koonfur uga tallaabay, anigoo ku socda gurigii Suldanku degganaa. Qolkiisii fadhiga markaan galay, Suldanka waxaa ku hareeraysnaa odayaal dhowr ah. Farxad ayuu igu soo dhoweeyey inkastoo dareen galay. Meel gooni ah ayaanu labadayada oo keli ahi fadhiisanay. Arrintii aan u socdey ayaan u sheegay. Cabbaar ayuu aamusay isagoo fekeraya. Wuxuu igu yidhi Ingriis waa I xumeeyey. Sidaas oy tahay odayaasha Reerka ayaan talo ugu noqonayaa ee laba beri ka dib igu soo noqo. Sidaas ayaan D.C Scawin ku wargeliyay. Ku noqoshadaydii Suldanku wuxuu ii sheegay in aanu waxba ka qabin inuu la heshiiyo Xukuumaddii Somaliland iyo tan Walayaa-ba, hadday ballan qaadayaan inay u soo celiyaan dhul balladhan oy Militariga Somaliland (Somaliland Socuts) ka dagganaayeen. Waxaan ugu jawaabay ballan ayaan D.C. Scawin kaaga soo qabanayaa ee kala hadal arrintii dhulka laga haystey, waanu aqbalay. Shardi fudud ayuu ku xidhay oo ah in aan anigu ka turjubaano, isagoo kalsooni darro ka muujinayey turjubaanadii Xafiiska D.C.ga joogey. Kulankii Suldan Cabdillahi iyo D.C Scawin ayaa dhowr maalmood ka dib qabsoomay. Dhulkuu Suldanku codsaday in loo celiyo markii laga wada hadalay, D.C. Scawin wuxuu ballan qaadey inuu Xukuumada gaadhsiiyo, wuxuuse ku adkaystay go’aanka kama dambaysta ahi inuu ku xidhan yahay Wasiir-al-Mustacmaraadkii Ingriiska ee fadhigiisu ahaa London, caasimadda Ingriiska. Wuxuu kaloo uu Suldanka u sheegay in mushaharkiisii dhowrkii sannadood ay Xukuumadda is-hayeen xisaab gaar ah loogu shubay, markuu doonana uu qaadan karayo. Heshiiskaas ka dib, markuu Suldanku la kulmayo Saraakiishii Ingriiska ee Xafiiska D.C ga, wuxuu ku adkayasan jirey in aan anigu ka turjubaano. Calankii Buluuglaha ahaa ee Somalia Bishii October, 1954-kii horraanteedii ayaa Suldan Cabdillahi oo cadho ka muuqato noogu yimid Xafiiskii D.C.ga. Wuxuu D.C Scawin u sheegay in 12kii October, 1954-kii calankii bulugulaha ahaa ee Somalia la saari doono daartii Xisbiga S.Y.L ee Hargeysa. Wuxuu intaas ku daray inay dad had-hadlayaan oo leeyihiin lama saari karo. Haddii munaasabadaas nalagu soo farogeliyo, wixii ka yimaadda masuul kama noqon doonno, ayuu yidhi. (Suldan Cabdillahi waxa lagu eedeyn jirey inuu ahaa taageere Xisbigii S.Y.L. ee gobanimo-doonka ahaa, taasoo ka mid ahayd arrimihii ay Xukuumaddii Somaliland isku maandhaafeen). Si kastaba ha ahaatee, D.C. Scawin maalin ka dib ayuu shir u qabtay odayaashii magaalada Hargeysa. Wuxuu u sheegay in aanay Xukuumaddii Ingriisku jeclayn Xisbigii S.Y.L oo lagu xaman jirey Shuuci, balse ay xaq u leeyihiin inay daartooda saaraan calanka ay doonaan. Wuxuu ka digey in lagu faro galiyo. Haud iyo Reserved Areas 5-tii January, 1955-kii, ayey Dawladda Ingriisku magaalada London kaga dhawaaqday war murugo leh, kuna saabsanaa Heshiis (Agreement) ay bishii November, 1954-kii la gashay Dawladda Ethiopia, kuna wareejinayso Haud iyo Reserved Areas, laga bilaabo 28kii February, 1955-kii. Dawladda Ingriisku waxay Heshiiskaasi u cuskatay Mucahado labada Dawladood (Ingriiska iyo Ethiopia) dhexmaratay dabayaaqadii Qarnigii 19-naad (1897kii). Huad iyo Reserved Areas, oo ay deggan yihiin beelaha Somaliland iyo beelaha ****** qaar ka mid ah, siiba Reer **** , Dawladda Ingriiska ayaa gacanta ku haysay, ka dib markii Dawladda Talyaaniga dib looga qabsaday dalka Ethiopia 1941-kii. Sida la wada og yahay Xukuumaddii Talyaaniga ee Mussolini ayaa Ethiopia ku duushay 1935kii oo ka qabsatay Boqor Xayle Sallassie. (Boqorku dalka Ingriiska ayuu ku noola muddadii shanta sanadood ahayd ee Talaynigu Ethiopia Isticmaarsanayey). Dhawaaqii lama filaanka ahaa ee ka soo yeedhay Dawladda Ingriiska amankaag iyo jaah-wareer ayuu ku ridey shacbiga Somaliland. Mudaharaad balaadhan ayaa laga abaabulay dalka oo dhan. Rag iyo Haween, yar iyo weyn, weer cad ayaa madaxa lagu wada xidhay. Madaxdii Dalka oo dhami Hargeysa ayey isugu timid. Waxaa la go’aansaday in la asaaso Jabhad Mujtamaca Somaliland mideysa, kana hortagta masiibadii dalka la soo deristey, waxaana Jabhadaas lagu magacaabay National United Front (N.U.F). Qaranigii 19aad dabayaqadiisii (1884-86), Dawladda Ingriisku waxay Qabaa’ilka Somaliland la gashay Heshiisyo (Agreements), ay ku ballan qaadayso in ay ilaaliso iyaga iyo degaanadoodaba. Shacbiga Somaliland waxay Dawladda Ingriiska ku eedeeyeen inay Heshiisyadaas ku ballan-furtay. Waxa la go’aamiyey in Dawladda Ingriiska loo diro wafdi ka codsada in ay ballan-furkaas ka noqoto. Wafdigaasu wuxuu ka koobnaa Michael Mariano; Dube Cali Yare; Suldan Cabdillahi Suldan Diiriye (Suldankii Beesha Cidagale) iyo Suldan Cabdiraxmaan Suldan Diiriye (Suldankii Beesha Sacad Muse), giddigood Alla ha u naxariistee. Wafdigaasu markuu London gaadhay, waxaa lagu dejiyey Hudheel caan ah oo ku yaalla Magaalada badhtankeeda, laguna magacaabo Cumberland Hotel. Wafdigii Looyerro Ingriis ah ayuu qabsaday. Dood ba’an oo cirka isku shareertay ayaa arrintii wafdigu la socdey ka aloosantay Aqalka Hoose (House of Commons) ee Baarlamaanka Ingriiska. Doodaasi waxay u dhacday sida lifaaqa ku qoran oo aan ka soo minguuriyey HANSARD. Hadal iyo murti, fara madhan ayuu wafdigii kala soo noqday London. (arrintan Huad iyo Reserved Areas ku saabsan uga ma jeedo in aan fidmo hurudda kaakiciyo, ee taariikh ahaan ayaan qoraalkan ugu soo qaatay). Mar labaad waxaa la go’aansaday inuu wafdigu u safro magaalada New York, si arrinta loo horgeeyo Qaramada Midoobey. ( Waxaa wafdigaas ku biiray Suldan Bixi Foley, ******, Reer Isaag). Hase yeeshee, Qaramada Midoobayna waa lagu soo hungoobay. Somaalidu waxay tidhaahdaa waxaad shar moodid oo khayr kuu noqdaa jira. Dhirbaaxadaas ku dhacday shacbiga Somaliland way baraarujisay oo hurddadii ayaa laga toosay. Dhaqdhaqaaqii gobanimo-doonka ahaa ayaa xoogeystey. Il iyo baal la isuma keenin ilaa laga gaadhyey xornimo (Independence) 26-kii June 1960-kii Dawladda Hoose ee Berbera Bilhii hore ee 1956-kii ayaa la ii beddelay Dawladda Hoose ee Berbera halkaas oo aan ka noqoday Sarkaalka Fulinta (Excutive Officer). Xubnaha Golaha Deegaanka ee Berbera waxaa ka mid ahaa, Alla ha u naxariistee, Maxamed Xaji Ibrahim Cigal. Isbarasho wanaagsan iyo walaaltinimo ayaa na dhexmartey. Maxamed wuxuu waqtigaas ahaa nin dhalinyaro ah oo aannu isku gedo ahayn, oo qayrkii ka dhex muuqday, aqoontiisuna heer sare ahayd. Aad buu kutubta u akhrisan jirey, siiba kuwa ay qoreen faylasuufiyiintii Reer Galbeedku. Nasiib wanaag dhowr jeer oo dambe ayaanu Maxmed Xaaji Ibraahim Cigal wada shaqaynay. Deeq Waxbarasho. Intii aan joogey Dawladda Hoose ee Berbera ayaan warqad iigu bushaaraynaysa deeq waxbarasho oo Carriga Ingriiska ah ka helay Xukuumadii Somaliland. Aad baan ugu farxay. Bishii September 1956-kii ayaanu Hargeysa ka dhoofnay aniga iyo Cismaan Axmed Xassan (Cisman Indhoole) oo deeqdaas wax-barasho ila wadaagay. London ayaanu dhowr maalmood ku hakanay, ka dibna waxaanu u gudubnay magaalada Edinburgh, caasimada Scotland. Waxaanu ku biirnay Jaamacadda Edinburgh, qaybteeda maamulka dawladaha hoose laga barto. Edinburgh waxaa nooga sii horreeyey Cali Sheikh Ibrahim (Cali Qaadi) oo isla Jamacadaas cilmiga dhakhatnimada ka baranayey. Guri (apartment) ayaan saddexdayadii wada kiraysanay si aanu isugu biil gaabsano. Sida hilaaca ayuu nagu dhaafay sannadkii aanu Edinburgh joognay . Ka dib aniga iyo Cisman Axmed ayaa u wareegney Jaamacadda qadiimka ah ee Oxford. Laba sannadood ayaanu Jaamacadaas ka baranayney Public and Social Administration. 1959-kii dabayaqadiisii ayaanu Hargeysa ku soo noqonay. Cismaan Axmed waxaa lagu magaacay D.C.ga Sanaag, aniguna waxaan la wareegay shaqadii Xoghayaha Golihii Shacabka ee Somaliland. Waxaan kaloo Xoghaye u noqday guddidii dallacaadda iyo wax-barashada dibadeed. (Promotion and Training Board). January 1960-kii,ayaan London ku noqday si aan Xeer-hoosaadka Baarlamaanka Ingriiska (Parliamentary Procdure) u soo barto, ugana faad’ideeyo Golahii Shacabka ee Somaliland. Dhowrkii bilood aan ku maqnaa Baarlamaanka Ingriiska , Somaliland waxaa ka qabsoontay doorasho loo tartamay Golihii Shacabka, waxaana ku guuleystey Xisbigii S.N.L/ U.S.P. Ka dib Motion ayaa la hor dhigay Golihii cusbaa kaasoo ku saabsanaa israaca Somaliland iyo Somalia. Motionkaasu aqlabiyad balaadhan ayuu ku gudbey. Wafdi sideed (8) xildhibaan ka kooban oo Maxamed Xaaji Ibrahim Cigaal hogaaminayo ayaa Muqdisho loo diray, si midnimada labada dal looga soo wada hadlo Xukuumadii Cabdillahi Ciise Maxamuud (Alle ha Naxriistee). Waxaa lagu soo heshiiyey in 1-dii July, 1960-kii lagu midoobo Dawlad ay caasimadeedu Muqdisho tahay (one country, one government, one flag). 30-kii April, 1960-kii, wafdi uu hoggaaminayo Maxamed Xaaji Ibraahim Cigal, oo ka kooban isaga iyo saddex Wasiir (Cali Garad Jamac, Axmed Xaji Ducale iyo Xaji Ibrahim Nuur) ayaa London noogu yimid. Wafdigu wuxuu u socday inuu Dawladda Ingriiska ka codsado madaxbanaanida Somaliland ka hor 1-dii Julay, 1960-kii si taariikhdaas Somaliland ay ula midowdo Somalia. 5-tii May 1960-kii, ayaa shir laba geesood ah lagu qabtay Xafiiskii Wasiirkii Mustacmaraadka, Mr Ian MacLoed, ee Ingriiska waxaana lagu heshiiyey madax-banaanida Somaliland (Independence) laga bilaabo 26-kii june 1960-kii. Somaliland iyo Ethiopia. 19-kii May, 1960-kii Maxamed Xaji Ibraahim Cigal iyo saddexdiisii Wasiir ayaa u ambabaxay Addis Abeba, caasimadda Ethiopia. Ujeedada safarkaasu waxay ahayd Boqor Xayle Salassie in laga codsado soo celinta Huad iyo Reserved Areas. Boqorku Qasrigiisii ayuu wafdigii ku qaabiley. Dhinaca midigtiisa waxaa fadhiyay Prime Ministerkii Ethiopia Ato Aklilo Hapte Walde , iyo dhowr Wasiir uu ka mid ahaa Wasiirkii Arrimaha Gudaha uu Boqorku soddog u ahaa. Dhinaca bidixdana waxaa fadhiyey Wasiiraddii Somaliland iyo anigoo Xoghayn ahaan ula socday. Labada geesood dhexdooda waxaa turjubaan ahaan u fadhiyey oo Boqorka ka soo horjeeday, Cabdiraxmaan Sayid Maxamed Cabdille Xasan (Wasiir-ku-Xigeenkii Arrimaha Gudaha ee Ethiopia). Soo dhewyntii Boqorku wafdiga soo dhoweeyey ka dib, waxaa hadalkii qaatay Maxamed Xaaji Ibraahim Cigal, waxaanu hadalkiisii ku furay ammaan ballaadhan uu Boqorka ammaanay, wuxuuna isla markaas Boqorka ka codsaday inuu indho naxariis leh ku eego baahida ay qabaa’ilka Somaliland u qabaan Haud iyo Reserved Areas. Saddexdii Wasiir ee kalena hadalkii bay iska daba qaateen iyagoo codkooda ku biirinaya hadalladii Cigal. Dhinaca Ethiopia waxa u hadlay Boqorka oo keliya. Wuxuu yidhi Somalidu waa qowmiyad Ethiopia ka mid ah, laakiin uu Isticmaarku duufsaday. Boqorku wuxuu xusay oo halyeeyo Ethiopian ah ku sheegay Sayid Maxamed Cabdille Hasan, Cumar Samatar iyo Xaaji Faarax Khaled oo isagu galabtaas shirka fadhiyay, oo markuu Boqorku isgalana la xanaaqayay markuu Boqorku dhoosha bidhana farxad muujinayey, isaga oo Boqorka istusayey !!!. Wuxuu boqorku intaas raaciyay Haud iyo Reserved Areas idinka iyo xoolihiinuba waa ku noolaan kartaan, oo hashiinu ilaa Addis-abeba ayay daaqi kartaa, waase dal Ethiopia ka mid ah, gorgortana kama furna. Boqorku Wuxuu ka hadlay Eritrea oo ay Dawladda Talyaanigu isticmaarsan jirtay, balse Ethiopia la midowday 1952-kii. Wuxuu ku dheeraaday mashaariicdii uu ka fuliyey isagoo farta ku fiiqaya khaaridad Eritrea oo gidaarka Xafiiskiisa sudhnayd. Isagoo hadalkiisa sii wata, Boqorku wuxuu soo jeediyey in marka hore Somaliland iyo Ethiopia ay midoobaan, dabadeedna ay Somalia wada raadiyaan, (taasoo uu ku sheegay ‘Our Province of Banadir’). Wasiiradii Somaliland hadalkoodii hore ayey ku celiyeen. Halkaas markii la marayey ayuu Boqorku soo jeediyey in biririf la qaato, la iskuna soo noqdo. Hase yeeshee biririftii ka dib,waxaa naloo sheegay in uu wada - hadalkii dhammaday oo hudheelkii aanu degganayn ayaa nalagu celiyey. Subaxdii dambe wargeyska “The Ethiopian Herald†ayaa daabacay war kooban oo sheegaya Boqorka oo qaabiley afar masuul iyo karaanigoodii (Four officials and their clerk) oo Somaliland ka socday. Warkaas kooban waxaa ku ag daabacanaa arji dheer oo loo nisbeeyey odayaal ****** ah, kuwaas oo Boqorka ka codsaday inuu dadkooda iyo dalkoodaba ka badbaadiyo nimanka hororka ah ee Somaliland ka soo duuley! Waxay ahayd arrin laga sii shaqeeyey ka hor intii aanu wafdiga Somaliland Addis Abeba gaadhin, waayo, maalintii aanu Addis Ababa gaadhney waxay odayaashii ****** noo soo direen Maxamed Saalax Yacniile oo waqtigaas ka shaqaynayey The State Bank of Ethiopia (Alle ha u naxariistee) oo noo soo sheegay odayaashaas in Addis Ababa khasab lagu keenay si ay u daadifeeyaan arrintii wafdiga Somaliland la socday. Intii aanu Addis Abeba diyaarad ku sugaynay, Mudane Cigal waxaa soo booqday Safiirkii dalka Sudan ee waqtigaas Addis Abeba joogay oo magaciisu ahaa Jamal Maxamed Axmed. Wuxuu u sheegay war uu ka helay ilo uga qaateen ah (siduu yidhi ) oo odhanaya inay Ethiopia isu diyaarinaysey weerar ay Somaliland ku qabsato marka Ingriisku ka baxo. Soo noqodkaygii Hargeysa ayuu Mudane Cigal warbixin sir ah oo arrintaas naxdinta leh ku saabsan u qoray Xukuumaddii Ingriiska, iyana London ayey u sii gudbisey. Dawladda Ingriisku waxay ku soo jawaabtay inay arrintaas biciidaysanaysey isla markaana aanay aqbali doonin raadkii ay kaga baxday Somaliland oo sii qoyan inay Ethiopia ku soo duusho. Si kastaba ha ahaatee warkaasu isma soo tarin. Somaliland Iyo Somalia. 4-tii June, 1960-kii, wafdi ka kooban Mudane Maxamed Ibraahim Cigal iyo Cali Garad Jamac (iyo anigoo Xoghayn ahaan ula socdey) ayaa u amba-baxnay Muqdisho. Wafdiga socdaalkiisu wuxuu ku saabsanaa Xukuumaddii Mudane Cabdillahi Ciise in lala soo dhammaystiro Axdigii Is-raaca (Act of Union) ee labada dal. Shirar ay qaateen S.N.L/U.S.P. intii aanu Wafdigu amba-bixin, waxaa lagu go’aamiyey inaan wax shuruud ah lagu xidhin midaynta Somaliland iyo Somalia. Taas daradeed, Axdigii lagu diyaariyey Muqdisho oo ku salaysnaa heshiiskii Muqdisho lagu gaadhay bishii April, 1960-kii (fiiri kor) ayey labada dhinac qalinka ku duugeen. Dabbaaldegyadii Xornimada 26-kii June 1960-kii ayaa Calankii Ingriiska la soo rogey waxaana la saaray Calankii buluuglaha ahaa ee Somalia. Dabbaal-dagaas qaaliga ah waxaa lagu qabtay barxaddii loo yiqiin 26 june (oo haatan Masaajid laga dhisey). Hogol ayaa galabtaas ku da’day madashii xafladda, laakiin dadkii halkaas joogey oo aad khushuucsanaa ismay dhaqaajin. Munaasibadaas waxa lagu xusuustaa GABAYGII jidhidhicada lahaa ee KANNA SIIB,KANA SAAROO ee Marxuum Timacadde (Alla ha u naxariistee) madashaas ka tiriyey isagoo kor ugu luuqaynaya. Dalka oo dhan ayaa laga dabbaal degey maalintaas. Wafdi uu hoggaaminayo Adan Cabdalla Cisman (oo markaas ahaa Guddoomiyihii Golihii Shacabka ee Somalia) ayaa munaasabadaas faraxadda leh ka soo qayb galay. Wafdigaas waxaa ka mid ahaa Mudane Maxamed Sheikh Gabyow oo ahaa Wasiirkii Arrimaha Dastuurka ee Somalia. Habeenkii 26/27-kii June ayaa shir laba geesood ah lagu qabtay Qasrigii Dawladda ee Hargeysa. Md. Gabyow wuxuu noo sheegay Axdigii lagu kala saxeexday Muqdisho laba ama sadex qodob oo ka mid ahaa in dib loo eego. Illaa labadii aroornimo ayuu shirkaasu socdey, waana la isku mari waayey. Subaxdii 27-kii June, 1960-kii, ayaa wafdigii Mudane Adan Cabdalle Cismaan Muqdisho ku laabtay. Isla galabtii maalintaas ayaa Mudane Cabdullahi Ciise taar u soo diray Mudane Maxamed Xaaji Ibraahim Cigal isagoo ku wargelinaya inay lagama maarmaan tahay qodobaddii la isku khilaafsanaa in laga heshiiyo ka hor inta aanay labada dal midoobin. Md. Cabdillahi Ciise wuxuu soo jeediyey guddi laba geesood ah in loo saaro qodobadaas si xal loogu helo. 28-kii June 1960-kii ayuu Mudane Cigal shir deg deg ah u qabtay Golihii Shacabka ee Somaliland si looga doodo taarkii uu soo diray Md. Cabdillahi Ciise. Dareen Xoog leh ayaa saameeyey jawigii Golaha. Intay doodu socotey ayaa warkii magalaada gaadhay. Hargeysa oo dhan ayaa ku soo jabtay madashii Goodirka oo shirku ka socdey, iyadoo lagu dhawaaqayo yaan loo joojinin Cabdullahi Ciise ee Axdiga Israaca deg deg ha loo gudbiyo. Shirkii markuu dhammaaday jawaab saddex qodob ka kooban ayuu Mudane Cigal u direy Mudane Cabdallahi Ciise: (1) Axdigii Israaca (Act of Union) Golihii Shacabka ee Somaliland wuu Tasdiiqiyey (2) Qodobadda la isku khilaafsan yahay israaca labada dal ka dib ayaa guddi isku dhafan loo saari karaa. (3) 30/6/60 ayey Xubnihii Golihii Shacabka iyo Xukuumadda Somaliland Muqdisho ku soo beegan yihiin ee haloo diyaar garoobo. Qodobada la isku khilaafsanaa ma xusuusan karo oo muddo dheer baa wakhtigaas laga joogaa, laakiin muhiimad taariikhi ah ma laha maadaama aan waxba laga soo qaadin oo ay waxba kama jiraan noqdeen. Qoritaanka taariikhdii Dawladdii Somalia ee soddon jirka ahayd (1960-1991) wuxuu u baahan yahay daraasad (research) qoto dheer si loo sugo dhacdooyinkii ummada Somaaliyeed muddadaas soo maray. Haddii Ilaahay igu simo, oo aan dhaqaale iyo waqti u helo, qoritaanka taariikhdaas damaceedu igama madhna. WA BILLAAHI TAWOFIIQ (Axmed Maxamed Adan - Qaybe)

suldaan I didn’t understand why you didn’t highlight the more important points of mudane Qaybe's memoir

war wanaagsan baa sheegtay horn afric nabad iyo caano dhamaan baanu u rajeenanaa umadda soomaaliyaad nabada ayeey xalku ku jiraaa wax kasta marka ey nabadu jirtu ayeey qiima yeeshaan ha noqotu dhul, waxbarasho etc Ramadaan mubarak

Amazing pictures maa'shaa allaah thanks muhammed