It has been the forgotten debacle of the Bush years. But anarchy in the Horn of Africa may soon haunt the West. Martin Fletcher Tuesday, November 18, 2008 As President Bush prepares to leave office, the pundits will start to produce their balance sheets. It is hard to know what they will list under “achievements”, but easy to predict their “disasters”: Iraq, Afghanistan, economic meltdown, soaring debt and America's loss of global stature. One other debacle should feature prominently in that second column, but probably won't because it has occurred in a faraway country that most Westerners know only through the film Black Hawk Down - or from recent reports of rampant piracy including the seizure early on Sunday of a Saudi tanker, carrying more than two million barrels of oil, which had an immediate effect on crude prices. I am referring to the Bush Administration's intervention in Somalia in the name of the War on Terror. It has helped to destroy that wretched country's best chance of peace in a generation, left more than a million Somalis dead, homeless or starving, and achieved the precise opposite of its original goal. Far from stamping out an Islamic militancy that scarcely existed, the intervention has turned Somalia into a breeding ground for Islamic extremists and given al-Qaeda a valuable foothold in the Horn of Africa. Rewind to the early summer of 2006. For 15 years, since the fall of the dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, feuding warlords had made Somalia a byword for anarchy and terrorism - the archetypal failed state. A tenth of its population had been killed. A million had fled abroad. At that point the warlords were finally routed, despite covert CIA backing, by a remarkable public uprising in support of the so-called Islamic Courts movement that promised to end the lawlessness. Somalia had always practised a mild form of Islam, but the Courts received a bad press in the West, being widely portrayed as a new Taleban determined to impose the most draconian forms of Sharia on a terrified populace. That was certainly what I expected when I visited Mogadishu in early December 2006. But what I actually found was a people still celebrating the return of peace and security. Gone were the checkpoints where the warlords' gunmen extorted and killed. Gone were their “technicals” - the Jeeps with heavy machineguns on the back with which they terrorised the citzenry. For the first time that most Somalis could remember, they were walking around their shattered capital in safety, even at night. Businesses were reopening. Exiles were returning. Mountains of rubbish were being carted away. “It's like paradise compared to even one year ago,” according to Mohammed Ahmed, a doctor who had returned from working at the West Middlesex Hospital. The Courts had certainly imposed what would be seen in the West as some fairly repressive moral codes. They cracked down on the narcotic qat that rendered half the menfolk senseless, banned sexually explicit films, encouraged women to cover their heads and discouraged Western music and dancing. There had been two public executions. But that was a price most Somalis were happy to pay, and while the Courts' disparate factions undoubtedly included extremists with dangerous connections and intentions, they also included moderates with whom the West could have done business. European nations favoured engagement. Washington did not. It accused the Courts of harbouring the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for bombing US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The Courts hardly helped their cause by claiming territory in Kenya and Ethiopia. Weeks after my visit the US supported - morally, materially and with intelligence - an invasion by predominantly Christian Ethiopia, Somalia's oldest bitter enemy. That replaced what was, for all its faults, Somalia's most effective government in memory with a deeply unpopular one led by former warlords, which had been cobbled together by the international community in Nairobi two years previously. “The Americans see an extremist under every Muslim stone,” one European official complained bitterly, and the consequences were entirely predictable. An insurgency that began early in 2007 has steadily gathered strength, while the reviled Government in Mogadishu has come to depend utterly for its survival on thousands of Ethiopian troops that were meant to withdraw within weeks. As the fighting has worsened 10,000 Somali civilians are thought to have been killed, more than a million have fled their homes, and more than three million - 40 per cent of the population - now urgently need humanitarian assistance. Although the UN World Food Programme is still getting some aid into the country the situation is deteriorating and scores of humanitarian workers have been killed or abducted. Exploiting the lawlessness, pirates have turned the waters off Somalia into some of the most dangerous in the world. In Kenya last weekend Abdullahi Yusuf, Somalia's President, finally admitted that insurgents now control most of the country and have advanced to the very edge of Mogadishu. His Government, he said, was close to collapse. There are several insurgent forces, but one of the most powerful is the Shabab - a group of virulently anti-Western jihadists that has now eclipsed the Islamic Courts movement of which it was once part. Somalia's nightmare may be only just starting. President Yusuf predicts wholesale slaughter if the Shabab seize Mogadishu. Diplomats fear that the Shabab will wage all-out war with other insurgent forces, including those of the Islamic Courts, for control of the country once Ethiopian troops - the common enemy - are withdrawn. And unlike the Courts, the Shabab has no truck with moderation: in the port city of Kismayo last month a young girl who complained that she had been raped was stoned to death for adultery, while in Balad two dozen Somalis were flogged for performing a traditional dance. Whatever happens, Somalia will be another horrendous legacy for Barack Obama, but somewhere on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border one man will be celebrating. Shabab openly supports al-Qaeda. It has adopted suicide bombings and other tactics. “Al-Qaeda is the mother of the holy war in Somalia... We are negotiating how we can unite into one,” Muktar Robow, a leading Shabab commander, recently told the Los Angeles Times. “We will take our orders from Sheikh Osama bin Laden because we are his students.” All in all, hardly a resounding triumph for the War on Terror.

Adam Zeyla said: "Just imagine how strong they would have been today had they not been so myopic.Now there power resembles June 2006 (so basically there myopic policies made them crumble and then they re-organised and returned to their previous status but at the cost of 10 000 Somali people, how disgusting is that?) I don't see how one can ostracize Shaykh Shariif when there are other 'very important' characters who we all saw a few weeks after the invasion living in fancy hotels"

Djibouti (HAN) November 7th, 2008 - The Somali people and Somali Diaspora get their best news for their son, Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, he was elected to be ICJ judge seat. He joins during the process, Ronny Abraham (France), Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan), Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade (Brazil), and Christopher Greenwood (United Kingdom), all of whom were elected earlier today on the first ballot. We will post again later with details of the process series of ballots. Dr. Abdulqawi A. Yusuf, a Somali national, is a prominent public international lawyer who is currently Legal Adviser, Director of the Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs for UNESCO. The Security Council Actions: Five judges for the International Court of Justice were to be elected Thursday, with both the General Assembly and Security Council simultaneously considering lists of nine names. In front of the Security Council, a representative of the Somali mission handed out flyers for their candidate Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf. A French representative handed out the biography of Ronny Abraham, and told Inner City Press that "if the African candidates get a majority, it will all have to be re-voted." The other candidates ware Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan), Sayeman Bula-Bula (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Antonio Augusto Cançado Trindade (Brazil), Miriam Defensor Santiago (Philippines), Christopher John Greenwood (United Kingdom), Maurice Kamto (Cameroon), Rafael Nieto-Navia (Colombia). Inner City Press asked South Africa's Dumisani Kumalo about the three African candidates. Pointing at the U.S. Deputy -- and soon to be Acting -- Permanent Representative Alejandro Wolff, Kumalo said, "Now he has an African president, he's talking about judges." The African Group endorsed the Somali candidate -- the Somali representative handed Inner City Press a copy of the endorsement -- but the candidates of DR Congo and Cameroon did not withdraw. And so messages flew back and forth between the Assembly and Council. Some wondered, how did they do this before the Internet? Others were more practical: how would the new five rule on Serbia's case challenging the legality of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence? Background: His previous positions include: Legal Advisor (1994-1998) and Assistant Director General for African Affairs, UNIDO, Vienna (1998-2001), Representative and Head of the New York office of UNCTAD (1992-1994) and Chief of the Legal Policies Service of UNCTAD( 1987-1992), Lecturer in law at the Somali National University (1974-1981) and at the University of Geneva(1981-1983). Somali delegate to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Seas (1975-1980). Dr. Yusuf has also been guest Professor and Lecturer at a number of Universities and Institutes in Switzerland, Italy, Greece and France. He is the Founder and General Editor of the African Yearbook of International Law and is a Member of the Institut de droit international (Geneva). Dr. Yusuf is also one of the founder's of the African Foundation for International Law as well as the Chair person of its Executive Committee. He is the author of several books and numerous articles on various aspects of international law as well as articles and op-ed pieces in newspapers on current African and Somali affairs. Dr.Yusuf is also a member of the editorial advisory board of the Asian Yearbook of International Law, and a member of the Thessaloniki Institute of Public International Law and International Relations curatorium. He is currently serving as a judge ad hoc at the International Court of Justice. He is Dr. Juris (Somali National University) and holds a PhD in international law from the Graduate Institute of International Studies (University of Geneva). Prior to his doctorate he completed Post-graduate studies in international law at the University of Florence (Italy). Dr.Yusuf is fluent in Somali, English, French, Arabic, and Italian. The Security Council Action process The Security Council and General Assembly will both hold elections for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 6 November 2008. Five judges in total will be elected to the ICJ each for a term of nine years, starting on 6 February 2009. The Statute of the ICJ, in article 8, provides that: The General Assembly and the Security Council shall proceed independently of one another to elect the members of the Court. The process is intended to limit the possibility of the vote’s outcome in one organ influencing the vote in the other. Results are usually achieved quickly in the Security Council, but balloting in the General Assembly can take much longer. top • full forecast Candidates In this election, nine candidates are contesting five positions. The candidates are: Ronny Abraham (France), Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan), Sayeman Bula-Bula (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Antonio Augusto Cançado Trindade (Brazil), Miriam Defensor Santiago (Philippines), Christopher John Greenwood (United Kingdom), Maurice Kamto (Cameroon), Rafael Nieto-Navia (Colombia) and Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia). Two candidates—Ronny Abraham and Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh—are current members of the ICJ. (At the expiry of their first term in office, judges may be re-elected for up to two further terms.) top • full forecast Election Process The ICJ consists of 15 judges elected for a term of nine years each by the General Assembly and the Council. Five seats fall vacant for re-election every three years. No two nationals from the same state can hold office at the same time. Under article 10 of the ICJ Statute, those candidates who obtain an absolute majority (that is, more than 50 percent) of votes in both the General Assembly and in the Council are elected. A candidate must therefore obtain 97 votes in the General Assembly and eight votes in the Council. No distinction is made between the weight given to votes of permanent and non-permanent members of the Council. Each elector may vote for five candidates on the first ballot. If the number of candidates obtaining an absolute majority is less than five on the first ballot, a second ballot for the remaining positions will be held and balloting will continue until five candidates have obtained the required majority. On the second and (if necessary) subsequent ballots, each elector may vote for five candidates, less the number of candidates who have already achieved an absolute majority. This procedure applies in both the General Assembly and the Council. If more than the required number of candidates obtains an absolute majority on the same ballot in either organ, a new vote on all the candidates will be held. (It is theoretically possible in the Security Council if the votes are evenly spread for all of the candidates to get eight votes in the first ballot.) When five candidates (and no more) have an absolute majority in either body, the president will notify the other president of the outcome. The results are kept confidential by each president and are disclosed only to members of the second body after their own voting is concluded. (However, it is always possible that the numbers will leak from Security Council delegations.) In the event that the five candidates elected by one are not the same as those elected by the other, both will proceed (independently) to new balloting to fill the unresolved seats. As before, the results of each body will be compared only after the required number of candidates has achieved an absolute majority in each. This process will continue for three meetings, when, if all vacant positions are still not filled, the Council and the General Assembly may decide to convene a conference of six members (three from each) to recommend a candidate for the respective acceptance by the General Assembly and Security Council. In choosing judges to serve on the ICJ, members of the Council and the General Assembly will consider not only the qualifications of the candidates, but also their involvement in advocacy, relating to issues or disputes before the ICJ or that are likely to come before the ICJ in the near future. Under article 9, the ICJ Statute requires that the electors should ensure the representation of the world's "main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems" in the body of the ICJ as a whole. top • full forecast Political Issues of the judges Permanent members of the Council have no legal entitlement to permanent representation on the ICJ. However, judges from the P5 are usually present on the Court. This may favour election of the French and UK candidates. Regional considerations are also likely to play a role along with incumbency. This may well favour the Jordanian candidate as he is the only candidate from the Middle East and a well known member of the ICJ, having been its vice-president since February 2006. Background on the ICJ The ICJ is one of the four principal organs of the United Nations—the others being the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. All UN member states are parties to the Statute of the ICJ, which is an annex to the UN Charter. The ICJ is the only international court of a universal character with general jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is twofold. First, the ICJ has jurisdiction over all cases referred to it by state parties in the exercise of their sovereign free will. On 31 July 2008, 66 of the 192 states parties to the ICJ Statute had submitted a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction to the Secretary-General. This means that among these states, the ICJ’s determination of disputes is binding. States that have not declared their acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ may also consent to take a dispute between them to the ICJ by way of special agreement. In doing so, they consent to be bound by the ICJ’s decision. In the event that one state party fails to abide by the ICJ’s decision, the other may have recourse to the Council. Under the UN Charter, the Council may then make recommendations or decide upon measures to give effect to the ICJ's decision if it deems this necessary. Consent may be given either on a case by case basis or, more broadly, by submitting a declaration made under the compulsory jurisdiction procedure in the Statute (article 36). Further, some 300 bilateral or multilateral treaties provide for the ICJ to have jurisdiction in the resolution of disputes arising out of the treaties’ application. State parties to such a treaty will normally be bound by any determination by the ICJ resulting from its interpretation. Second, the Security Council or the General Assembly may request the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on any legal issue. The General Assembly may also authorise other organs and specialised UN agencies to request advisory opinions of the ICJ.

by Matthew Blood Wednesday, November 05, 2008 President Bush has often stated that history will be the rightful judge of his legacy. Some academics, such as John Lewis Gaddis and Fareed Zakaria, have already begun early revisions of the Bush years. But as historians mark the final score, they must not omit a serious examination of the administration's policies in Somalia, the consequences of which promise to reverberate for decades to come. Somalia today is approaching a cataclysm not seen since the early 1990s. The American role in the intervention, scarcely understood inside the United States itself, has added in no small part to the unfathomable misery that once again engulfs the war-weary Horn of Africa nation. The brutal Ethiopian military occupation that began on Christmas Eve 2006 has sustained heavy losses over the past 20 months. The conflict has strained Ethiopian resources, and Addis Ababa is currently reviewing its overall strategy. What remains of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), barring a massive new foreign military intervention, teeters on the edge of collapse. In its place a powerful Islamist insurgency is strengthening rapidly. Warlordism, criminality, and piracy are also reaching new heights. Meanwhile, the Somali population remains under siege, caught between the abuses of all sides as a society literally disintegrates. Underwriting a significant portion of the bloodshed, however, has been an American administration engaged in expansive warfare with a preference for covert military operations. Somalia has long been of strategic interest to American policymakers. The country sits aside the strait of Bab al-Mandeb, a key oil transit waterway between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean – the second closest point between Africa and the Middle East. Under the Cold War the allied dictatorship of Gen. Siad Barre was the longtime recipient of generous amounts of American military and economic largesse. In 1991, after years of unrest, rebellion, and protracted drought, Barre's regime collapsed into the famine, war, and chaos now virtually synonymous with the word Somalia. George H. W. Bush ordered American forces into the country a year later in support of the United Nations relief program, culminating in the Battle of Mogadishu and the now-famous Black Hawk Down incident. At the American withdrawal and international disengagement, no single actor was strong enough to establish and maintain control. Somalia fractured along semi-permanent tribal lines and warlord fiefdoms that would come to define the country's social and political landscape. For more than a decade and a half, the territory was left to fester in ungoverned criminality and violence, only rarely piercing international headlines. September 2001 and the wars in the Middle East brought renewed American focus to the Horn of Africa. For sometime, a diverse group of Islamists, clan leaders, businessmen, militia heads, and civic actors had been gradually coalescing into what would in 2005 become the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), a heterogeneous movement seeking to establish a semblance of law and order after years of chaos. The Courts proved themselves to be well organized, disciplined, and effective civil administrators. They were popular with average Somalis, even the less devout, all of whom were desperate for relief from the criminal gangs and brutality that had long ruled their country. The Islamists also began to challenge the weak, faction-ridden Transitional Federal Government – the successor to 13 previous failed attempts at creating a central government – which had been confined to the provincial town of Baidoa, headed by President Abdullahi Yusuf, a strongman closely linked to Mogadishu's warlords. Alarmed at the Islamic Courts growing strength and popularity, in early 2006, the Central Intelligence Agency began supplying significant quantities of arms and money to a coalition of secular Mogadishu warlords under the name Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (ARPCT). The CIA program had been a poorly conceived attempt to hunt down the small number of al-Qaeda affiliated individuals involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, then thought to be hiding in Somalia. But the operation failed disastrously and according to reports "the payoffs added to an anarchic situation that led many Somalis to turn to the Islamic Courts for protection." Recognizing the increasing power of the U.S.-backed Alliance, the Islamists struck preemptively and decisively, routing the warlords and seizing control of Mogadishu within a matter of weeks. For six months in 2006, the Union of Islamic Courts proceeded to establish security and the provision of basic social services in much of Somalia for the first time in 15 years. The peace provided by the Islamists also came with more conservative social policies and a type of sharia law. For average Somalis, however, the security of the Courts brought a brief respite from their usual suffering. The Bush administration, seeing Somalia and the Islamic Courts through the lens of its War on Terror and having botched the earlier warlord program, began stepping up aid to longtime ally and neighboring Ethiopian autocrat Meles Zenawi. Zenawi has held power in Ethiopia since the early 1990s and his regime is less than democratic. During a crackdown against popular protests after fraudulent elections in 2005, Zenawi's security forces massacred nearly 200 people, injured 760 more, and arrested an additional 20,000, among them opposition leaders, foreign aid workers, and journalists. Nonetheless, since 2002, Ethiopia has received nearly $25 million in overt U.S. military assistance while at least 100 American military personnel currently work inside the country in advisory positions as part of what the Pentagon characterizes as a "close working relationship" with the Ethiopian military. Less than two weeks before the invasion, mid-December 2006, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer publicly declared that "The Council of Islamic Courts is now controlled by al-Qaeda cell individuals, east Africa al-Qaeda cell individuals." The claim was dubious, and the Assistant Secretary of State provided no evidence. Horn of Africa specialist Ken Menkhaus notes that the Islamic Courts "movement as a whole was far from an al-Qaeda front. Only three foreign al-Qaeda operatives were said by the U.S. to be in hiding in Mogadishu, a number far lower than those suspected of residing in neighboring Kenya." Frazer went on to warn of "a risk al-Qaeda may take up bases in Somalia" but denied the United States would take military action against the Courts. Similarly, then-United Nations Ambassador John Bolton had told reporters days earlier "The United States strongly believes that a sustainable solution in Somalia should be based on credible dialogue between the [Transitional Federal Government] and the UIC, and we continue to work with our African and other partners toward that end." Behind the scenes, Gen. John Abizaid, at the time U.S. Centcom commander, had already visited Addis Ababa to express some last-minute reservations to Prime Minister Zenawi. The decision had been made, though, and ultimately Washington lent its support to the invasion. The Ethiopian military crossed the Somali border on Dec. 24, 2006, and reports indicate that "CIA agents traveled with the Ethiopian troops, helping to direct operations." The United States also provided important satellite intelligence and other battleground information from unmanned Predator drones. "A lot of what we taught them was used to fight that global War on Terror," observed an American military adviser who had trained Ethiopian soldiers now fighting in Somalia. In terms of weaponry, he noted, "They got what they needed." American Special Forces also conducted periodic operations inside Somali territory, possibly moving out of a rumored CIA base in eastern Ethiopia. The full extent and exact type of activities is not known, but reports of their movements have been confirmed by Somali officials. As TFG Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein explained to reporters in February of this year, "the presence of the CIA, the presence of [u.S.] troops, is not a big issue. We like that they are here. But right now they don't have a permanent military presence. They come in and out." U.S. warships moved into position off the coast of Somalia in anticipation of coming operations. Acting on intelligence from the ground, Washington ordered bombing raids targeting what it believed to be Islamic militants. American-piloted AC-130 gunships and cruise missiles have blasted Somali territory at least a half dozen times since January 2007. The first of these air raids killed what turned out to be 70 Somali goat herders whom the Pentagon had initially claimed were Islamic fighters. After several other attempts, in May 2008, the bombings finally succeeded in killing the leader of the al-Shabaab militia, Aden Hashi Ayro. Here too, the strike also demolished the surrounding homes, killing 10 others and leading to anti-American protests throughout the village. On the ground, the Ethiopian military captured Mogadishu before New Year's Day 2007. The most powerful army in the region devastated organized UIC forces. But the remaining militants fled and quickly melted back into the larger civilian population. As predicted, the collapse of the Islamic Courts and the subsequent Ethiopian occupation has led to a relentless Iraq-style insurgency – one that has been rapidly gaining strength. The insurgents have successfully used roadside bombs, hit-and-run attacks, and targeted assassinations against government officials to assault the TFG and its Ethiopian backers. Increasingly, however, they have been able to rout Ethiopian and TFG military forces in direct confrontation, moving to capture and hold entire swathes of territory for extended periods of time. Ethiopian and TFG forces, for their part, responded with a ferocious campaign to root out militants in Mogadishu and surrounding areas. The vicious counterinsurgency has seen the regular shelling of densely populated urban neighborhoods. Distinction between civilians and insurgents is often irrelevant to security forces that frequently prey on the Somali population. Looting, rape, torture, mutilation, and cutting the throats of victims are regular tactics of Ethiopian and TFG forces. These are, as it were, the same methods the Ethiopian military has used to suppress another ongoing insurgency in the ****** desert. The most recent report from Amnesty International recounts episodes too horrific to quote from here. Thus it is that Somalis remain caught in the crossfire between Ethiopian and TFG security forces, insurgents, warlords, criminals, and on occasion American gunships. The "more common complaint among ordinary Somalis," according to reporters, however, "is that the Ethiopians are 'indiscriminate' in their reprisals – and that this is why Mogadishu has been emptied of people." The human cost has been staggering. The forces of war and drought are rapidly converging on the Horn of Africa nation in a perfect storm against the Somali population. The civilian death toll since the invasion is fast approaching 10,000. More than a million people have fled their homes, including half of Mogadishu, and are now living in squalid, makeshift refugee camps. The food and fuel crisis that has affected international markets has combined with the disruption of fighting, looting, inflation, and a failure of the seasonal rains to push Somalia to the absolute brink. The country now stands on the verge of famine on a scale not seen since the early 1990s, when an estimated 300,000 Somalis starved to death. Recent UN estimates hold that more than 3.25 million people, nearly half the population, are currently in need of food aid. International officials have long been calling the situation the most horrific humanitarian disaster on the African continent. As in Iraq, the War on Terror in Somalia has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It has sewn the increasing radicalization and anti-Westernization of an entire population of poor Third World people. In recent months there has been new evidence for the first time of foreign fighters inside Somalia – decidedly not the case when Jendayi Frazer declared two weeks prior to the invasion that Somalia was "now controlled by al-Qaeda cell individuals." While the leadership of the Islamic Courts was originally a mix of moderate and conservative Islamic actors, the insurgency no longer maintains this character. A peace agreement between the former moderate elements of the Courts, now called the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia, and the TFG has already concluded to no effect. The old leaders of the Courts no longer control the insurgency. Battle-hardened al-Shabaab militants, perhaps poised to succeed the Transitional Federal Government, espouse a far more radical and anti-Western Islamic ideology. For the moment, the intervention in Somalia appears to be dreadfully coming full circle. In September, two Somali men in their early 20s were arrested at a German airport on suspicion of planning terrorist attacks somewhere in the West. They were released due to insufficient evidence – but German intelligence officials believe the men were arrested too early. Somalia has indeed been a third front in the War on Terror. A quiet front, but a front nonetheless. Six months after the Ethiopian invasion, Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters, "The very nature of some of our operations, as well as the success of those operations, is often predicated on our ability to work quietly with our partners and allies." Now, almost two years into the occupation, few can still maintain delusions of success in the Horn of Africa. Much about the affair recalls the disastrous American interventions in the Congo and Angola during the Cold War. But perhaps most troubling is that the current episode must be seen against the background of the recent creation of Africom and the larger militarization of U.S. foreign policy in Africa. What becomes of Somalia remains to be seen. What is certain is that we have taken a group of the world's most destitute, desperate, and brutalized people, and brutalized them some more. We might expect to see many more angry young Somali men bringing violence to the West in the future. Whether we know it or not, we have certainly brought it to them. This is the Bush administration's legacy and it will be with us for a long time to come.

Black agenda report Somalia: Will It Become Obama's War?1437somali-fighters A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford "George Bush and his Ethiopian military allies have reduced Somalia to a wasteland." Somalia's humanitarian crisis is nowhere near an end - but the cause of it might be. Ethiopia may be preparing to end its bloody occupation of its neighbor, which began with the invasion of December 2006, at the instigation of the United States. If the Ethiopians are, indeed, going, they are leaving Hell behind. Half the population has been displaced, in what the United Nations has called "the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa." The capital city, Mogadishu, once home to three million people, is empty of civilians. The puppet government installed by Ethiopia is said by the UK's Sunday Herald to "control just three small areas in Mogadishu and a few streets in Baidoa, the seat of parliament." If the Ethiopians withdraw, the so-called "transitional government" is unlikely to survive. The United States' own Voice of America reports that all of Ethiopia's opposition parties now demand the regime bring the troops home. It is also clear that the Bush administration wants the Ethiopians to remain in Somalia, as U.S. surrogates. Their departure could lead to a quick pullout of an African Union so-called "peace-keeping" force made up mostly of Ugandans, who have acted as proxies for the United States elsewhere on the continent. In less than two years, George Bush and his Ethiopian military allies have reduced Somalia to a wasteland. The U.S. is widely - and justifiably - despised by Somalis, who have been bombed and strafed by American airpower, and know full well that Ethiopia would not have invaded without massive U.S. urging and assistance. "All of Ethiopia's opposition parties now demand the regime bring the troops home." The Islamist forces that had brought a brief period of relative peace and stability to Somalia - and whom Washington claimed were linked to Al Qaida - may soon be in a position to claim military victory against the invaders and their American backers. Ethiopian politicians worry that their country's reputation in the world will suffer. Said one former Ethiopian lawmaker: "No Somali would consider Ethiopia as a savior.... They resolved to fight against us, and they are fighting, and in my opinion they are winning." The timing seems to make it certain that Bush's proxy war against Somali society will have to be rethought by the next U.S. administration. Barack Obama has said nothing - not a word - about the suffering of the Somali people, or to indicate what his policy will be on Somalia, the northern neighbor of his father's country, Kenya. Kenya is also home to a huge ethnic Somali population, and the site of a giant refugee camp where a quarter million displaced Somalis languish. A President Obama would have at his disposal the newly launched U.S. Africa Command, Africom, and a giant U.S. military base in Djibouti, the French neocolonial outpost on Somalia's northern border. With Ethiopia's occupation unraveling, the next American president will have to choose: Will he continue George Bush's murderous assaults on the Somali people, or allow them to rebuild their nation in ways of their own choosing. For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford. BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

The next couple of months are critical, will Obama continue following the footsteps of Jendayi Frazier's week policy in the horn, or do you see some genuine change in content and style of the foreign departments involvement in the Horn?

Too much..To much..

Addis Ababa Agreement superseded UN-led “Djibouti talks” between TFG and ARS-D. Mohamud M Uluso Sunday, November 02, 2008 Unfortunately as part of the ploy to fleece and blame the Somali people, on August 25, 2008 under the umbrella of Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the top three Leaders of the Transitional Federal Institutions of Somalia (TFI) - the President, the Speaker of Parliament and the Prime Minister- signed a “plot” agreement in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This agreement is binding TFG leaders while the agreements signed in Djibouti are not. Ethiopian leaders, probably irritated by the media reports of Somali opposition protesting over its participation in Djibouti talks, decided to terminate the process. They wanted to show one more time that Ethiopia is the most powerful stakeholder in the Somali affairs. In his September 2008 strategy paper for Somalia, Prof Ken Mackenhause pointed out that “the problem for Somalia is that Ethiopia is simultaneously the single most important external actor, yet its motives, interests, strategies and intentions are the most difficult to understand and predict…Ethiopia’s future policies thus constitute the key “wild card” in the Somali crisis.” To achieve its objective, Ethiopia took few steps. First, it exacerbated the persistent squabbles that have existed among TFI Leaders since its inception in 2004. Second, the Somali leaders were summoned to Addis Ababa at a time when the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the Faction of the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia (ARS-D) have been conducting “critical talks” for peace and reconciliation in Djibouti under United Nations mediation. IGAD, a cover up arm of Ethiopia, provided the letterhead for formalizing the agreement drafted by Ethiopia. AU signed as a witness. So, IGAD became duly committed to lead the new process under the Ethiopian chairmanship. As a result, the upcoming extraordinary meeting of IGAD in Nairobi, Kenya will mark the transition from Djibouti to Addis Ababa and will produce false slogans and impracticable actions. Similar extraordinary theatrical event took place immediately after Ethiopia invaded Somalia. Only Ethiopia knows the sequels of its plot. For sure, any process led by IGAD under the Ethiopian leadership forebodes more destruction and human catastrophe for the Somali people. IGAD, a dysfunctional organization, whose members are failed states, cannot reasonably bring peace and stability in Somalia. AU and IGAD have been supporting the war crimes actions and human rights violations perpetrated by the forces of Ethiopia, AMISOM and TFG against Somali civilians. Residents of Mogadishu have been deliberately driven out from their homes under the policy of “emptying the Capital” and are terribly suffering the merciless daily indiscriminate killings and lootings with impunity for almost two years. People are arbitrarily arrested and held indefinitely or disappear. However, the sentiment and goal of the majority of the Somali people is to re-liberate Somalia by ending the Ethiopian occupation and to re-establish a democratic Somali State. It was disturbing to watch the degrading treatment the sequestered “Leaders of Somalia” were subjected to in Addis Ababa where they have been vilified and accused for failing to fulfill their responsibilities. Ethiopian leaders seem determined to denigrate the nationalist spirit, dignity, independence and unity of the Somalis. In an interview with Newsweek in April 10, 2008, PM Meles said “An oversupply of national sentiment is not the problem in Somalia. The problem in Somalia is a lack of it. The problem in Somalia is an oversupply of sub-sub-clannish attitude. ..” In March 11, 2008 testimony, Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State said “This [Ethiopia] is a talented people destined by dint of population, location and energy to play a prominent leadership role on the continent [Africa] for a long time to come.” Therefore, the submissive attitude of TFI leaders gave credibility to the above observations. A brief analysis of the agreement reveals the following important points. The Addis Ababa agreement has brought the Somali dossier back under the control of Ethiopia/IGAD/AU and foiled UN efforts. Despite settling the dispute between the President and the Prime Minister over governance issues, the core message of the agreement is to remind the Somalis and the international community that Ethiopia is the “sole decider” of Somalia’s future. The agreement outlined the political agenda of the TFG until end of November or December 2008 without due consideration to expected power sharing between opposing parties and political change. The agenda includes the establishment of Benadir Administration, finalization of regional and state administrations, expeditious completion of the works of the constitution commission, enactment of electoral and party laws, national census and other means. The agreement also called the international community to put pressures including sanctions against all those who legitimately criticize and reject the Djibouti agreement which de-legitimized the struggle for the Re-Liberation of Somalia. The agreement recognized that TFG security forces are rogue elements because of the lack of clear command and control structures after 4 years of massive civilian massacre and human rights violations. It is agreed that reorganized security forces and Benadir Administration will undertake disarmament and stabilization mission in the capital because TFG imposes itself on South and Central Somalia by force with the use of foreign forces. Matters related to the redeployment and withdrawal of Ethiopian troops contingent with a clean action plan, to stabilization activities and capacity building, have been delegated to be discussed and agreed upon between appropriate departments of TFG and Ethiopia government. Leaders of the opposition forces like ARS-D should accept the political agenda of Ethiopia and visit Addis Ababa so that their forces can be part of the reorganized security forces of TFG. In plain language, Ethiopia refuses to accept the preposition that Somalis have the right to decide their own future among themselves. The Addis Ababa agreement characterized the Djibouti “talks or engagement” promoted by the UN Security Council as a process initiated by the Special Representative for Somalia of the UN Secretary General. It completely turned upside down the proposed UN Secretary General comprehensive integrated plan for peace and stability in Somalia. Lastly, the parties of Addis Ababa agreement appealed to the international community to support it through technical, financial, political support and others means in competition with Djibouti process. The latter remains an appendix to the former. The above analysis shows that Addis Ababa agreement superseded Djibouti talks and initiates new process under IGAD-Ethiopia control. The Somali crisis needs “trusted mediator” with ability to mobilize substantial international support for successful implementation of a peace plan. Ethiopia which is now under international criticism for human rights violations and oppressive laws on civil society organizations cannot play such role. Maybe, its efforts are tuned to complicate further the Somali situation before the current US Administration leaves office. The will of the Somali people will prevail sooner or later. Mohamud M Uluso Chair Arta Center for Governance and Development mohamuduluso@gmail.com

Yemen oo sheegtay in Ciidamo u soo direyso Soomaaliya Isniin, November 03, 2008(HOL): Dowladda Yemen ayaa waxay shaaca ka qaaday in ay Ciidamo u soo direyso Xeebaha Soomaaliya, kuwaasi oo ka qeybqaadan doona sugidda Ammaanka Soomaaliya. Wasiirka Arrimaha Dibadda Yemen Abu Bakar Al-Qirbi ayaa sheegay in ay Dowladdiisa ka qeybqaadato sugidda ammaanka Soomaaliya, isagoo dhinaca kalena Beesha Caalamka ugu baaqay in ay Soomaaliya Ciidamo u diraan, si buu yiri loo dhowro heshiiskii ay dhawaan ku gaareen Jibouti Dowladda Federaalka iyo Isbaheysiga Dib u xoreynta Soomaaliya. Abu Bakr Al-Qirbi oo u waramayay Wargeyska Yemen Post waxaa kale oo uu sheegay in Beesha Caalamka ay door muhiim ah ka ciyaari karto sugidda ammaanka Soomaaliya iyo meel-marinta heshiiskii ay dhinacyada Soomaalida ku gaareen Dalka Jibouti. Dowladda Yemen waxay horay u soo dhaweysay heshiiskii colaad joojinta ahaa ee ay Dowladda Federaalka Soomaaliya iyo Isbaheysiga Dib u xoreynta Soomaaliya ay ku gaareen Dalka Jibouti, waxayna xustay in heshiiskaas uu yahay mid wax weyn ka bedeli doona xaaladda dalka Soomaaliya, sidoo kalena gacan ka geysan doona sidii gargaar loo gaarsiin lahaa dad badan oo ku dhibaateysan gudaha Soomaaliya. Warkan ka soo baxay Dowladda Yemen ayaa wuxuu intaas ku darayaa in Heshiiskii Jibouti uu sahlayo in wax laga qabto dhibaatada ay Kooxaha Burcad Badeedka ku hayaan Bad-weynta Hindiya iyo Gacanka Cadmeed, iyadoo sidoo kalena lagu sheegay in uu dalka Soomaaliya ku soo dabaalayo nabad iyo amni. Salaad Iidow Xasan (Xiis), Hiiraan Online sxiis@hiiraan.com Mogadishu, Somalia

Letter to the members of the Somali Jaaliyadda .............................................................................................. Nairobi, 30 October 2008 Salaam Aleikum Dear friends I am writing once again to update you on the recent events both inside and outside Somalia and present some ideas on the way forward. We have entered a particularly challenging period in the peace process and Somalia is counting on all your support to help make it work and I always take seriously the views of the Jaaliyadda. I have just returned from Djibouti where, as you know, the TFG and the ARS signed on 26 October two important documents. The first is a joint Declaration signed by the TFG and the ARS welcoming international assistance to help form a Somali Unity Government featuring an inclusive parliament. This puts into practice the political cooperation outlined in Article 9 of the Djibouti Agreement. The other, signed by the leaders of the delegations to the Joint Security Committees, stated that a ceasefire will come into effect on 5 November and covered the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops and their relocation. Those who were saying that they are fighting only because of the Ethiopian presence in Somalia have no more reason to continue supporting or carrying out violence. Time has come to start putting weapons aside and embracing dialogue. Earlier, the Joint Security Committee, made up of representatives from both TFG and ARS traveled to Cape Town, South Africa to discuss future plans, helped by experts from the international community. In addition, such training helps to build confidence and provides crucial expertise for the important tasks ahead. I have been attending the IGAD meeting here in Nairobi which fully complements the work undertaken in Djibouti by my office. There is a determination among Governments in the region to push forward the peace process and we welcome their support and continued commitment. They plan to be more directly involved and plan to appoint a Special Facilitator for Somalia. We also held a two day meeting in Sweden to prepare for an international donors’ conference for the Reconstruction and Development of Somalia which we plan for early next year. This conference will raise funds for a one year package for the recovery of your country. Before the meeting, my representatives met some of you at the Horn of Africa conference in Lund, Sweden which I unfortunately was unable to attend. I am also preparing to hold expert and ministerial consultations on ways to address all issues related to the expanding piracy problem. Like all of you, I was deeply shocked and upset to hear of the terrible suicide bombings in Somaliland and Puntland which took so many innocent lives. I would like to express my condolences to the family and friends of the victims. I absolutely condemn these appalling acts and those who carried them out. The issue of impunity remains high on the agenda. Earlier this month, the French Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in charge of Human Rights and the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights came to discuss the human rights situation in Somalia. Both visited Dadaab refugee camp to speak to new arrivals and held discussions with several experts. A conference on Justice and Reconciliation in Somalia is planned for next year with a preparatory conference later this year. Meanwhile a large number of representatives from various governments and civil society organizations as well as prominent African and non-African personalities are calling and writing to New York and Geneva about the urgent obligations to constitute an International Commission of Inquiry for Somalia. The establishment of such an International commission is now urgent. The Commission should investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in Somalia by all Somali Parties since the beginning of the conflict. The Commission should identify the perpetrators of such violations at all levels including with a view to ensuring that those responsible by giving orders, funding or carrying out acts, are held accountable. An example of such a Commission is that of Darfur, established by UN Security Council resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004 which has led the International Criminal Court to issue warrants for arrests. The time has come has come to stop spoilers from derailing the peace process. Meanwhile we must push ahead with our efforts to reach stability in your country. Sometimes I find that Somalis mistakenly believe they have time on their side. This is not the case. You now have the framework for durable stability but it must be put into practice which requires the backing of all patriotic Somalis inside and outside the country to ensure that there is fast progress. Events are moving quickly and there is no time to waste. As always I appreciate your support to reconcile Somalis and ensure that peace again returns to your homeland. Yours Faithfully Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah

Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. Dear brother in Islam, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake. In response to the question you raised, we'd like to cite the following comprehensive fatwa issued by the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi; it reads: "Islam wants this nation to consult with each other, and stand as a united body, so no enemy can penetrate it. This is not what democracy is for. Democracy is a system that can’t solve all societal problems. Democracy itself also can make whatever it wants as lawful, or prohibit anything it does not like. In comparison, the Shari`ah as a political system has limits. If we are to adopt democracy, we should adopt its best features. These are the issues of methods, guarantees, and manners of a democratic society. As a Muslim society we should adopt it in an Islamic context of a society that seeks to live with its Shari`ah laws. Our society should abide by what have been made lawful by Allah and also what have been made unlawful by Him. In comparison democracy with a slim majority can cancel all laws and rules. It can even eliminate itself with this type of margin. In fact, in some case democracy may become worse than dictatorship. What I am for is a genuine type of democracy, for a society driven by the laws of Shari`ah that is compatible with the values of freedom, human rights, justice, and equity. I am against this type of distorted democracy that is adopted by many regimes in the Arab-Islamic world. I am really troubled by the four digit results of elections. Most rulers in the Arab world, as well as in the Islamic world are elected by 99.99% of the people. What kind of democracy is this? The people can never consent to anything with this margin. Furthermore, I want draw the attention to the issue of the spread of deviance in the democratic societies. We should take the “good”, and abandon the “bad”. For instance, many democratic countries have allowed types of sexual deviance to spread, and even legalized such behavior. Gays and Lesbians now can marry each other legally. Our democracy is different. It is well connected to the laws of Shari`ah. Yes we adopt some of the principles of democracy, but it is incumbent upon us also to uphold our principles. We have pillars of our Shari`ah that we have to abide by. We want the people to be consulted and participate actively in politics as well as in the process of decision-making. Shura has always been good for the Muslim society, and autocracy has always been evil since the beginning of mankind on this planet. History has told us about dictators such as pharaohs, the Nimord, and many, many examples. The Qur'an tells us about the story of Prophet Ibrahim [Abraham] (peace be upon him) and the Nimrod, the dictator who disputed the existence of Allah, and declared himself as a God. The Qur'an says: “Hast thou not turned thy vision to one who disputed with Abraham about his Lord, because Allah had granted him power? Abraham said: “my Lord is he who giveth life and death.” He said: “I give life and death.” Said Abraham: “but it is Allah that causeth the sun to rise from the East: do thou then cause him to rise from the West? Thus was he confounded who (in arrogance) rejected faith? Nor doth Allah give guidance to a people unjust.” (Al-Baqarah: 258) This dictator was so arrogant. To challenge the will of Allah, he asked two people who were passing by during his argument with Abraham to come to him. He ordered one of them to be executed on the spot, and told the other I pardoned you. He said to Abraham “see I gave one life, and I ordered one to death.” However, Abraham was smarter than the dictator and asked him, if he is really a God can he make the Sun rise from the West. The same story repeats itself with the dictator of Egypt, the Pharaoh who declared himself as a God and refused to accept the message sent to him. Throughout history dictatorships, despotic regimes, and unjust regimes have been associated with the issue of corrupting earth. The Qur'an says, “(All) these transgressed beyond bounds in the lands, and heaped therein mischief (on mischief).” (Al-Fajr: 11-12) Allah also says about the Pharaohs of Egypt: “…and remember, we delivered you from the people of pharaoh: they set hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons and let your womenfolk live; therein was tremendous trial from your lord.” (Al-Baqarah: 50) Islam has stood fast against these types of rulers and made it mandatory on the people to resist tyranny and injustices. To conclude, Islam is not anti-democracy. What we want is a free society that lives within the rules and laws of the Shari`ah which is very compatible with the values of democracy, freedom, human rights, justice, development, and prosperity." Both texts taken from islamonline.net

Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. Dear brother in Islam, thanks for the question you posed; it’s very interesting, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake. As regards the terms Shura (Mutual Consultation) and democracy, Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris, professor of Islamic studies, Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences, Washington, states: "What is Shura? Shura comes from an Arabic word shara whose original meaning, according to classical Arabic dictionaries, is to extract honey from hives. The word then acquired secondary meanings all of which are related to that original one. One of these secondary meanings is consultation and deliberation. The way consultation and deliberation bring forth ideas and opinions from peoples' minds must have been seen to be analogous to the extracting of honey from hives. It might also have been thought that good ideas and opinions were as sweet and precious as honey. According to this purely linguistic meaning, Shura is no more than a procedure of making decisions. It can thus be defined as the procedure of making decisions by consultation and deliberation among those who have an interest in the matter on which a decision is to be taken, or others who can help them to reach such a decision. The important matter on which Shura is made can be either a matter which concerns an individual, or a matter which concerns a group of individuals, or a matter that is of interest to the whole public. Let us call the first individual Shura, the second group Shura, and the third public Shura. Thus formally understood, Shura has nothing to do with the kind of matter to be decided upon, or the basis on which those consulted make their decisions, or the decision reached, because it is a mere procedure, a tool you might say, that can be used by any group of people - a gang of robbers, a military junta, an American Senate or a council of Muslim representatives. There is thus nothing in the concept which makes it intrinsically Islamic. And as a matter of fact Shura in one form or the other was practiced even before Islam. An Arab Bedouin is reported to have said, "Never do I suffer a misfortune that is not suffered by my people." When asked how come, he said, "Because I never do anything until I consult them, astasheeruhum." It is also said that Arab noblemen used to be greatly distressed if a matter was decided without their Shura. Non-Arabs also practiced it. The Queen of Sheba was, according to the Qur'an, in the habit of never making a decision without consulting her chieftains. In this context, the Glorious Qur'an narrates: "She (the Queen of Sheba) said: O chieftains! Pronounce for me in my case. I decide no case till ye are present with me." (An-Namal: 32) What is democracy? What is democracy? The usual definition is rule, kratos, by the people, demos. On the face of it, then, democracy has nothing to do with Shura. But once we ask: "How do the people rule?" we begin to see the connection. 'Ruling' implies ruling over someone or some group, and if all the people rule, over whom is it that they rule? (Barry, 208) The answer on which almost all democracy theorists are agreed is that what is meant by 'rule' here is that people make basic decisions on matters of public policy. How do they make those decisions? Ideally, by discussion and deliberation in face-to-face meetings with the people as was the case in Athens. Similarities Democracy, then, has also to do with decisions taken after deliberation. But this is what an Arab would have described as Shura. It might be thought that there still seem to be some differences between Shura and democracy, because the latter seems to be confined to political matters. But the concept of democracy can easily be extended to other aspects of life because people who choose to give the power of decision-making on political matters to the whole population should not hesitate to give similar power to individuals who form a smaller organization, if the matter is of interest to each one of them. The concept of democracy can be, and is, therefore, extended to include such groups as political parties, charitable organizations and trade unions. Thus broadly understood, democracy is almost identical with Shura. There is thus nothing in the primary or extended meaning of democracy which makes it intrinsically Western or secular. If Shura can take a secular form, so can democracy take an Islamic form. Islam and secular democracy 1. Basic differences: What is it that characterizes Shura when it takes an Islamic form, what is it that characterizes democracy when it takes a secular form, and what are the differences between these forms, and the similarities, if any? What would each of them take, if put in the framework of the other? I cannot go into all the details of this here. Let me concentrate therefore on some of the vital issues which separate Islam and secularism as world outlooks, and therefore give democracy and Shura those special forms when placed within their frameworks. Let us understand by secularism the belief that religion should not have anything to do with public policy, and should at most be tolerated only as a private matter. The first point to realize here is that there is no logical connection between secularism and democracy. Secularism is as compatible with despotism and tyranny as it is compatible with democracy. A people who believe in secularism can therefore without any violation of it choose to be ruled tyrannically. Suppose they choose to have a democratic system. Here they have two choices: a. They can choose to make the people absolutely supreme, in the sense that they or their representatives are absolutely free to decide with majority vote on any issue, or pass or repeal any laws. This form of democracy is the antithesis of Islam because it puts what it calls the people in the place of Allah; in Islam only Allah has this absolute power of legislation. Anyone who claims such a right is claiming to be God, and any one who gives him that right is thereby accepting him as God. But then the same thing would happen if such a secular community accepted the principle of Shura, because they would not then exclude any matter from its domain, and there is nothing in the concept of Shura which makes that a violation of it. b. Alternatively those secular people can choose a form of democracy in which the right of the people to legislate is limited by what is believed by society to be a higher law to which human law is subordinate and should not therefore violate. Whether such a democracy is compatible with Islam or not depends on the nature and scope of the limits, and on what is believed to be a higher law. In liberal democracy not even the majority of the whole population has the right to deprive a minority, even if it be one individual, of what is believed to be their inalienable human rights. Belief in such rights has nothing to do with secularism, which is perfectly compatible, as we saw, with a democracy without limits. There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy, and there are minor differences, but there are also similarities. The basic difference is that in Islam it is Allah's law as expressed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate. A true Muslim never makes, or freely accepts, or believes that anyone has the right to make, or accept, legislation contravening the Divine law. Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption. When some Muslims object to democracy and describe it as un-Islamic, it is these kinds of legislation that they have in mind. A Shura without restriction or a liberal Shura would, however, be as un-Islamic as a liberal or an unconstrained democracy. The problem is with secularism or liberalism, not with democracy, and will not therefore disappear by adoption of Shura instead of democracy. Another basic difference, which is a corollary of this, is that unlike liberal democracy, Islamic Shura is not a political system, because most of the principles and values according to which society is to be organized, and by which it should abide, are stated in that higher law. The proper description of a political system that is based on those principles is that it is Islamic and not Shuraic, because Shura is only one component of it. This characteristic of Islam made society immune to absolute tyranny and dictatorship. There have been Muslim rulers who were despotic, but they were so only in that they were not chosen by the true representatives of the Muslim people, or that they were not strict in abiding by some of the Islamic teachings; but none of those who called themselves Muslim rulers dared, or perhaps even wanted, to abolish the Islamic law. This emphasis on the law stood in the way of absolute tyranny in another way. It gave the `Ulama' (Muslim scholars) so much legislative power that it was their word, and not that of the ruler that was final on many matters. An interesting section of one of al-Bukhari's chapters reads: If the ruler makes a decision that is contrary to that of people of knowledge, his decision is to be rejected. 2. Similarities: So much for the basic differences, we now come to the similarities, and some of the less basic or minor differences. Islam and liberalism share certain values, basically those which the concepts of democracy and Shura entail. In liberal democracy there are rights which individuals have as individuals, even if they are in a minority. These rights are said to be inalienable and cannot, therefore, theoretically speaking, be violated, even by the overwhelming majority of the population. Such violation, even if embodied in a constitution, makes the government undemocratic, even tyrannical. One might think that the idea of inalienable rights is not compatible with the basic concept of democracy as rule of the people, because if the people choose, by majority vote, to deny some section of the population some of what the liberals call their human rights, then that is the rule of the people, and it would thus be undemocratic to not to let it pass. But on close inspection one can see that this is not so. It is not so because the concept of democracy entails that of equality. It is because the people are equal in having the right to express their opinion as to how they should be ruled that democracy is the rule of the people. But surely individuals have rights that are more basic than participating in decision-making whether directly or indirectly. To participate they must be alive, they must be able to express themselves, and so on. There is thus no contradiction between the concept of democracy or Shura and the idea of inalienable rights that sets limits on majority rule, because the former is more basic to democracy than the latter. If I am right in saying that these values are entailed by democracy and Shura, it follows that absolute democracy, that is not constrained by those values, is a contradiction in terms. Islamic Shura agrees with liberal democracy that among the important issues to be decided by the people is that of choosing their rulers. This was understood from the fact that the Prophet chose not to appoint his successor, but left it to the Muslims to do so, and this was what they did in a general meeting in Al-Madinah. When it was reported to `Umar, the second Caliph, that someone said that if `Umar died he would give allegiance to so-and-so as Caliph, he got very angry and said that he would warn the Muslims "against those who want to forcibly deny them (their right)". He later made a public speech in which he said: If a person gives allegiance to a man, as ruler, without a consultative approval of the Muslims, `ala ghayri ma Shurati-n min al muslimeen, then neither he nor the man to whom the allegiance is given should be followed. (Bukhari) As far as my knowledge goes, the manner in which this public right is to be exercised, is not specified in any authoritative statements or practice. The first four, the rightly-guided, Caliphs were chosen in different ways. Is the Islamic state democratic? Can a country that abides by the principle of Shura constrained by Islamic values be described as democratic? Yes, if democracy is broadly defined in terms of decision-making by the people. No, if it is arbitrarily defined. In judging which countries are democratic, we will use a strictly formal definition of democracy. A country is democratic if it grants people the right to choose their own government through periodic secret-ballot, multi-party elections on the basis of universal and equal adult suffrage. It could also have been specific on the periods of time between elections. Why should the right to form political parties be a condition for democracy? Suppose that a country gave its people, as individuals, and not as party members, the right to freely choose their government, why should that exclude it from being democratic? Why should government elections be periodic? Can't a country be democratic and set no limit to the term of its ruler so long as he was doing his job in a satisfactory manner, but gave the elected body that chose him the power to remove him if and whenever they thought that he was no longer fit for the job? Having said all this, I must add that I do not set any great store on the epithet 'democratic'. What is important to me is the extent to which a country is Islamic, the extent to which it abides by Islamic principles, of which decision-making by the people is only one component and, though important, is not the most important.

the listless lawyer The Young Ottomans, a group of Istanbul writers in the 1860’s, were perhaps the first group of Muslims to claim that Shari’ah was compatible with modern democracy. In fact, the Young Ottomans went further, claiming that Islamic law, correctly understood, required some form of constitutional government. They argued for a return to the spirit of classical Islam, which recognized the sovereignty of the people and the principle of government by consultation. The Young Ottomans advanced two arguments. First, they grounded their arguments for democracy in the concept of shura (consultation), which they derived from the Prophet’s command to “take counsel with them [the Prophet’s followers] in the matter” (Qur’an 3:158). Broadly speaking, shura requires rulers to consult with their subjects on matters of the law, and the Young Ottomans believed that this concept was therefore consonant with the democratic impulse to ground legal legitimacy in the consent of the people. Some contemporary Muslims have continued in that vein, arguing that shura coincides with “an integral component of the Western conception of democracy” (Muhammad Asad) because it “demands open debate among both the ‘ulema [the jurists or clerics] and the community at large on issues that concern the public” (Ali Abootalebi). Coupled with the viceregency of all mankind, which will be discussed in a future entry in this series, shura has therefore been interpreted as strengthening one of the values necessary for democracy: the belief that all people are fundamentally equal in their rights and responsibilities. This has led some Arab intellectuals, such as Sadek Sulaiman, to argue that shura and democracy are “synonymous in conception and principle, although they may differ in details of application to conform to local custom”. Within the context of Islamic law, such arguments are probably not sufficient to establish that democracy is authentically Islamic. Originally, shura did not merely signify consultation; it implied resistance to oppression and to government by force. After the third/ninth century, however, the jurists began to speak of shura as requiring consultation with ahl al-shura (the people of consultation) which was believed to be the same group who constituted ahl al-‘aqd (the people who choose the ruler - more on this on Friday). However, some scholars, such as Fazlur Rahman, have suggested that this later conception of shura was in error, as the Qur’anic conception of shura “does not mean that one person asks others for advice but, rather, [it means] mutual advice through mutual discussions on an equal footing”. In any event, the majority of classical Sunni jurists concluded that the determinations of ahl al-shura were advisory, not compulsory, and that instead (and it’s not entirely clear what this means) the ruler should make his decision in accordance with the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the consensus of the jurists, taken together. Further, contemporary Islamic arguments in favor of democracy sometimes claim that both shura and democratic theory flow from the belief that collective, majority judgments are more likely to produce a fair and just result than the decision of one individual. However, classical Islamic thinkers tended to distrust the laity, concerned that they might “be more content with choosing [to the caliphate] the wrongdoers instead of the righteous”, as Professor El Fadl put it. In response to contemporary arguments, then, it has been argued that the concept of ijma (the infallible consensus of the jurists) implies that the views of the jurists rather than those of the people receive primacy, and that ijma thus stands in tension with shura in that it does not “imply democracy in any modern application of the term”, as Malise Ruthven argued. Finally, the overlap between the principle of shura and the Western concepts of consent and popular sovereignty is not total. Consent, in premodern Islam, meant something closer to acquiescence. Some scholars, such as David Westbrook, have therefore argued that “the liberalism that informs… Western notions of democracy relies on consent in ways different from Islam” and that attempts to conflate the two fail to “confront the question of authority at the heart of the fundamentalist argument”. As John Esposito put it, “A major issue in democratization in Muslim societies is whether or not scholars and leaders have successfully made the transition from listing ‘democratic doctrines of Islam’ to creating coherent theories and structures of Islamic democracy that are not simply reformulations of Western perceptions in some Muslim idioms.” So while the concept of shura might provide some support for democracy within the context of Islamic theology, by itself this argument is too simple. On Friday, then, we will turn to the second argument that the Young Ottoman’s advanced: that the historical election of the caliphate permits the conception of an authentically Islamic democracy. The Young Ottomans’ next argument noted that Abu Bakr, cousin of the Prophet and the first Rightly Guided Caliph, was chosen by the acclamation of the Muslim community assembled together after the death of the Prophet. Since that time, the classical Sunni theory of the caliphate had always maintained the fiction that the caliph was elected by the leading men of the community, although the manner of election and the number of electors were exteremely ambiguous. Within the umma (community of believers), they pointed out, all are on equal footing. Though the ruler performs a different function, it is the umma as a whole that choose the ruler. Thus, the Young Ottomans argued that, taken together, the principle of shura and the election of the caliphate demonstrated that Islam was, and always had been, fundamentally democratic, and that “all the intervening centuries of autocratic rule had been a tragic diversion from the true path”. Turning to Islamic legal history, Abu Bakr himself is reputed to have said that “God has left people to manage their own affairs so that they will choose a leader who will serve their interests”. Even Abu Bakr, however, circumvented this method of choosing a successor by nominating Umar (the second Rightly Guided Caliph) without consultation. Further, the Islamic conception of political leadership changed over time. When the caliphs eventually lost their effective power, for example, jurists such as Al-Mawardi reconciled the king-making activities of the Buyids with the principle of election by declaring (with al-Ash’ari before him) that an election was valid even if only one elector was present. Obviously, this is not the most democratic of beliefs. Similarly, when the caliphate finally ceased to exist independently, the jurists transferred the concept of the caliphate to the sultanate, requiring only that the sultan acknowledged the universality of Shari’ah (in principle if not always in practice). While the Mu’tazili scholar Abu Bakr al-Asam claimed that the community as a whole retained the right to elect the caliph, with each person individually giving his consent, almost all the other classical jurists argued that the right to choose the caliph resided with those who had the power (shawka) to ensure the obedience of the public at large. Thus, it is not at all clear that the historical practice of electing the caliph reflects a recognition that contemporary democratic theory can be authentically Islamic. Though the arguments of the Young Ottomans, when examined carefully through the lens of classical Islamic law, seem to be unpersuasive, this does not mean that Islam and democracy cannot be reconciled.

Democracy and Shura Sadek J. Sulaiman Democracy Democracy literally means rule by the people, and this distinguishes it from any pattern of governance not deriving its legitimacy from the people's choice. Americans define democracy in the words of their sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln: "Rule of the people, by the people, for the people." The definition I usually offer is "public participation in decisions affecting public life." This participation can be either direct or indirect. In direct participation, the people decide the results by a majority vote. They discuss the issue at hand, then reach a decision representing the collective wisdom. Something akin to this happens in "town meetings." A clear example is when people vote on a "proposition" – a term Americans use when an issue that has generated considerable controversy is referred to the public for resolution. Proposition 187 on immigration in California is a notable example of direct participation. Another is the referendum by which Canadians rejected the separation of Quebec. With indirect participation, the people do not specifically decide issues but elect people to represent their views and make decisions. The elected representatives perform this task within the written parameters of a constitution. The American constitutional system is based on indirect participation, and the republican system in American constitutional law is centered on the principle of representation. It is appropriate to note, however, that the dynamism of the media in recent years has generated more direct participation in policy-making and legislating. The influence that media talk shows and opinion polls have on elected officials is unmistakably clear. Democracy's core principle is equality, the affirmation that all people are equal. Any discrimination among people on the basis of race, gender, religion, or lineage is inherently invalid. All people are endowed with inalienable human rights. To secure these rights, governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The chief characteristics of the democratic system are: 1. Freedom of speech, whereby citizens are able openly to state their views on public issues without impediment or fear, regardless of whether such views are critical or supportive of the government. In the democratic system, it is important for officials to know how the people feel about policies they adopt and decisions they make. 2. Free elections in which citizens regularly, in accordance with precise and constitutionally protected procedures, elect people they entrust with the affairs of governance. Elections legitimize all levels of representation, from the city council to the presidency of the state. 3. Majority rule and minority rights: In the democratic system, decisions are made by the majority, based on the general conviction that the judgment of the majority is more likely to be right than that of the minority. But majority rule does not give a free hand to the majority to do as it wants. Embedded in the democratic principle is the commitment that certain fundamental citizens' rights shall not be violated – for example, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the free exercise of religion. 4. Political parties in the democratic system play an important role. By means of political parties, people freely associate on the basis of their convictions about how to achieve a fulfilling life for themselves, their family, and their posterity. 5. Separation between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, whereby constitutional checks and balances among these three branches of government prevent potential exploitative practices. 6. Constitutional authority is the supreme authority on the validity of any statutory law or executive directive. Constitutional authority means supremacy of the rule of law, not the rule of individuals, in the resolution of any public matter. 7. Freedom of action for individuals and groups, provided they do not infringe on the common good. From this derives the freedom to own property, the freedom to work, the freedom to pursue personal goals, and the freedom to form various associations and corporations. These elements are common to any bona fide democratic system. They are particularly well articulated in the American constitutional system under which we live and whose characteristics, as a great and unique experience in the formation and evolution of nations, we try to understand. The essentials of the American democratic experience were present at its origin but expanded in scope and evolved in application over time. For example, even though the principle of equality as a foundational idea was firmly established in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the right for free men to vote on an equal basis was not granted until 1850. Black males were not allowed to vote until the fifteenth constitutional amendment in 1870. Females, both free and slave, were not given the right to vote until the nineteenth constitutional amendment in 1920. Finally, the poll tax was not abolished until the twenty-fourth constitutional amendment of 1964. Thus we see that the American state, one considered an exemplar of democratic systems, although based on a constitution, did not have its constitutionality complete at birth, nor is it complete today. This is because the democratic principle, although recognized as a universal human principle since ancient times, continues to demand better fulfillment in the experiences of all nations. We also see that the democratic principle is one thing and our endeavors to realize its requirements something else. In this latter sense, there is no such thing as an ideal democratic society. We must distinguish, on the one hand, between societies that uphold the democratic principle and endeavor to attain its fulfillment and societies whose rulers reject the democratic principle, exercise autocratic rule and privilege, and deny equality as a moral imperative. Shura As a concept and as a principle, Shura in Islam does not differ from democracy. Both Shura and democracy arise from the central consideration that collective deliberation is more likely to lead to a fair and sound result for the social good than individual preference. Both concepts also assume that majority judgment tends to be more comprehensive and accurate than minority judgment. As principles, Shura and democracy proceed from the core idea that all people are equal in rights and responsibilities. Both thereby commit to the rule of the people through application of the law rather than the rule of individuals or a family through autocratic decree. Both affirm that a more comprehensive fulfillment of the principles and values by which humanity prospers cannot be achieved in a non-democratic, non-Shura environment. I do not see Shura as rejecting or incompatible with the basic elements of a democratic system. The Qur'an mentions Shura as a principle governing the public life of the society of the faithful rather than a specifically ordained system of governance. As such, the more any system constitutionally, institutionally, and practically fulfills the principle of Shura —or, for that matter, the democratic principle— the more Islamic that system becomes. There are cultural specifics rooted in the history of every nation that might justify differences in how the democratic principle is applied, but no Arab or Islamic cultural specifics that explain the level of civic degeneration with which we Arabs are afflicted today. It is neither an Arab particularity nor an article of the Islamic faith that freedom of speech be suffocated in our national experience, that our people be denied free elections, that our affairs be conducted without the benefit of consensus, and that peaceful political activity be forbidden to our masses. It is neither Arabic nor Islamic that our nation's fate should rest in the hands of a few persons unbound by constitutional restraints. Some people claim that Arabs are not yet ready for democratic or Shura governance and that they do not appreciate the democratic principle and values needed to embrace the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of individuals. Such a claim is perverse, unfair, or bad judgment. Any nation that emerged from the civilization of Islam was enjoined to exercise Shura. Such nations were nurtured with the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity, values which sustain and enhance the human experience. Such nations simply cannot be less qualified to exercise democracy than other nations. I regard democracy and Shura as synonymous in conception and principle, although they may differ in details of application to conform to local custom. They reject any government lacking the legitimacy of free elections, accountability, and the people's power, through the constitutional process, to impeach the ruler for violation of trust. The logic of Shura, like the logic of democracy, does not accept hereditary rule, for wisdom and competence are never the monopoly of any one individual or family. Likewise, Shura and democracy both reject government by force, for any rule sustained by coercion is illegitimate. Moreover, both forbid privileges— political, social, economic— claimed on the basis of tribal lineage or social prestige. Shura and democracy are thus one and the same concept. They prod us to find better and better realizations of the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity in our collective socio-political experience. These principles merit implementation in national life across the entire Arab homeland. Let us hope that Shura or democracy— the choice of terms makes no difference— will find supporters who aspire to a new Muslim renaissance.

^^^^ How so sxb?

What oodweyne would say to this: My dear lad you have it would seem by some peoples thinking gotten to the nous of the matter-moreso- Used my preeminent ESL english to detract from my worthy postings on such matters. I shall as usual ignore any pertinent issues you may have raised and shall instead dear lad invite you to a cup of cha and invite you to a moment of sequestered reflection so that you might see the many/ myriad issues with you attempt at a post. _____________________________________ who are the somalilanders.........no really who are they, please tell me. _______________________________________________ A&T you have been a member since February, although you always have something intreasting to add to any discussion trust me it will be pointless to debate on the style of certain members postings.

That is the first sign of leadership, I have ever seen in a Somali politician.

Somalia: MPs Accept Terms The Nation (Nairobi) 31 October 2008 Posted to the web 1 November 2008 Lucas Barasa And John Ngirachu Nairobi Somali Federal Transitional Government MPs have welcomed the conditions by regional states to ensure peace and stability returned in the country. Led by Awad Ahmed Ashareh, the MPs however called for financial support from the international community to revive dysfunctional institutions. Civil war Addressing journalists in Nairobi, the MPs said the transitional government needed funds to set up strong police force, prisons department and judiciary. It further requires funds to resettle about three million people displaced following 18 years of instability. "We welcome efforts to salvage Somalia from effects of civil war that has left three million displaced. Activities of federal institutions should be financed for them to work," Mr Ashareh said. The MPs further want Somalis in diaspora to return and take up jobs currently done by expatriates. "Money used to hire one foreign expatriate can employ 10 skilled Somalis," Mr Ashareh said. On Wednesday, an Igad summit gave Somali authorities conditions to fulfil before its term expires in October next year or face stern action. President Abdullahi Yusuf and the leaders are to, among other things, appoint a new Cabinet and establish Banadir administration which includes Mogadishu in two weeks. Step down Six heads of State and Government also directed the leaders to draft a new constitution in six months. Meanwhile, Somalia Prime Minister Noor Hassan Hussein said he will resign once a government of national unity is formed with the opposition. Mr Hussein told a press conference at the Somalia embassy in Nairobi that the TFG is hoping for an extension of its term so that it can fulfil objectives laid out by Igad this week. The PM's position would go to the opposition once the unity government is formed. "I will be ready to step down," Mr Hussein said. The PM also welcomed the resolutions of the Igad summit.

Thirty years of uninterrupted work with its immense challenges and experiences has cultivated Islah movement in ways that have sharpened its common vision, mission and improved its views, strategies and operations. These views are shared among all Muslim Brotherhood affiliated organizations with slight differences regarding their diverse social realities. 1. Opening up to society Organizations face difficulties in the transition period from underground movement to open organization. This process requires not only changes of attitudes and norms, but also projection of a clear set of rules and policies. Social and political realities in Somalia changed drastically after the collapse of the state in 1991 and the transition from the rule of the state to clan supremacy. In reality, Islah were not well prepared to deal with new situations during the initial stages. The reason being that its training programs were focused mainly on reforming society ruled by state institutions and not in conflict. Theories of dealing with the clan conflicts were not well developed in the Muslim brotherhood literature. In particular when the scope of the conflict was so wide and causes the total collapse of state institutions. Moreover, in the general understanding of the members of Islah was that the clans were very much connected with that clanism that is abhorred and disavowed in Islam. Furthermore, after the collapse of the state, leadership of communities shifted from the state bureaucracy to the traditional leaders and armed political factions. To interact with such situation, the policy of “Dealing with the Reality” was finally adopted in 1995. The core philosophy of this policy was to break isolation of the movement and to open it up to the society at large. Objectives of thispolicy included encouraging members of Islah to participate actively in the existing social and political organizations and to engage assertively with all groups. The syndromes of isolation from society and assimilation with the clan culture are not healthy symptoms of modern Islamic activism. Instead, prudent and positive engagement is the only right way for the Islamic reformers. Indeed, it was realized after the implementation of this policy that Islah members could play skillfully the role of “cement or glue” to hold together the segmented blocks of Somali society. 2. Focusing on the educated elite Islam is a religion based on knowledge that shows great respect to scientists and the educated (ulama)40. Social change not only requires an enlightened elite but also understanding of the core philosophy of the movement, undertaking that change, inculcating the masses and taking a leadership role. Bearing these imperatives in mind, Islah generally recruits to its ranks young and educated segments of the society; young because they are energetic and open, educated because they may grasp the message easily and convey it to others41. This means that majority of its members is from young educated generations. Moreover, Islah had discovered that its perception and outreach program to the Somali intellectuals was poor. The new policy adopted had considered these intellectuals as partners for reform and looked for communalities instead of seeking uniformity. The fruits of this policy were tremendous and its application in the field brought tangible benefits for the Somali community. The space and reservations between modern Islamic activists and Somali intellectuals has been narrowed, whereas both the nationalistic intellectuals and Islamic activists were marginalized during the civil war bythe warlords and the bearers of clannish banners. Finally, Islah believes that creating a common front and forging an alliance of nationalists and moderate Islamists is the only way to dislodge clannish and extremist forces and to restore a functioning Somali state. 3. Respecting and cooperating with traditional Islamic scholars Islah considers itself as the continuation of the endeavors of generations of traditional Islamic scholars and the leaders of the national movements for independence. In fact, traditional Islamic scholars were the sole intellectuals until colonial schools produced new elites. They represent the spirit of Islam, leaders and teachers of the communities, protectors of the faith, and saviors of the nation from the attempted Christianization.42 Also, they remain the founders and core pillars of modern Islamic movements and always play a vital complementary role, particularly in the rural areas and among the mostly uneducated masses43. Islah widened its vision and discarded previous imprudent relations with the Sufi orders, by looking upon them as teachers, fathers and leaders of the communities and giving them due respect, encouragement and support. This deep understanding of the social dynamics of Somalia is antithesis to the prejudiced isolationist views that loomed early in the circles of the Islamic movement. These ideas were as a result of late Salafia influence that focuses on the traditional scholars of the Sufi orders and consider them as innovators and an obstacle to the revival of Islam. Conversely, while promoting and advancing authentic Islamic teaching and knowledge within the context of Islamic moderation, Islah respects and cooperates with the Sufi brotherhoods. 4. Respecting the leaders of the nationalist movement Leaders of the national movement for independence and statehood in Somalia have also received great respect and admiration from Islah. Certainly, considering the scarcity ofhuman capital and the limited organizational capacity that was available in the 1940s and after, these leaders had an exalted vision for Somalia. Their vision for Somalia was to establish a strong and all-inclusive Somali state in the Horn of Africa, where all Somalis might live in peace, harmony and dignity. To give them due respect, one has simply to imagine what Somalia would have been without their sacrifice and struggle. Modern activists of Islamic movements are graduates from the schools they established and beneficiaries of the opportunities they provided. Understanding this, Islah is very proud of what earlier fathers of the nation achieved with meager resources and limited capacities. This perception, based on respect and acceptance of all the good things they did, departs from the previous idea looming among Islamic movement circles of calling these leaders, secular anti-Islamic and colonial lackeys. Inclusiveness instead of sectarianism, and tolerance, patience and focus on major issues, agreed upon by the majority of the Somalis, is the only way to rebuild Somalia with a new vision rendering due respect for its historical personalities and sacred heritage. In doing so, it does not mean relinquishing critical review of our past in order to rebuild new Somalia. 5. Downplaying disputed issues of religion The basic references of Islam are the Qur’an and the Sunna of the Prophet Mohammad (pbh). However, these fundamental sources have been variously interpreted by scholars in different Muslim regions and times. Therefore, differences of interpretations in the doctrinal and legal aspects appeared, yielding four famous Sunni legal schools of thought: Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali. Somalis adhere mostly to the Shafi’i school of legal thought, so to protect community cohesion and avoid religious squabbles; Islah chose to adopt Shafi’i school of jurisprudence, while being open to the views of other scholars. Moreover, Islah rejects all divisive discourses and disputations on the detailed legal matters and focuses on major fundamental issues, mostly agreed by all Muslims. It also cooperates with other religious organizations, groups and individuals, to safeguard the religious unity of the Somali people. Furthermore, modern studies of Islam on state building and its institutions, and on what is in accord with Islamic principles and what is not, remain academic discourses. Certainly, politics is less developed field in the Islamic thought; hence, there is a plenty of space for Ijtihad offering many options to various organizations. 6. Rejection of Extremism and Violence Islam is a religion of peace, mercy and humanism, and forbids its believers to commit any acts of violence against innocent human beings. Thus, Islah rejects such violence and all forms of extreme views such as the idea of inevitability of clash of civilizations. Instead, it promotes cooperation, dialogue, understanding and co-existence of all people, races and religions. Islah understands that extremism and violence is a product of frustration, humiliation, feelings of injustice and lack of true understanding of religious values. Therefore, it is the conviction of Islah that respect of multiculturalism, democratization, narrowing of economic and political marginalization, and better understanding of cultures and religions will eventually create an environment of peace and cooperation among nations. In accordance with this understanding, Islah has denounced and rejected all forms of violence currently taking place in Somalia. 7. Restoration of national state institutions Many postcolonial African states have been pushing themselves to the brink of abysmal failure due to misguided programs of nation-building and economic development. Somalia is a classic example of such a collapsed state that polarized the population into clan lines and led to continuous clan fighting and conflicts. Reviving clan consciousness and weakening national awareness was evident during the civil war. Islah, being a national organization, strongly believes that reviving national consciousness and disowning clanism is the only way to recover the Somali state. Divisive clan interference in theaffairs of the state and clan competition for winning political power is the major element threatening to the existence of Somalia as a state. Accordingly, Islah contributed to the reconstitution of the national state during the Djibouti reconciliation conference in 2000, and always defends and supports national institutions, even if these institutions are established imperfectly and weakly, like the current Transitional Federal Government. The worst scenario and greatest disaster for Somalia would be the absence of the national state, which would eventually lead to the total disintegration of the nation into clannish cages and ghettos. 8. Promotion of civil society organizations Islah believes strongly that without vibrant civil society organizations, Somalia will remain at the mercy of segmented clannish groups. In pursuit of that viewpoint, from 1994 to 1999, the movement worked towards promoting more organized civil society organizations in Somalia. Members of Islah were encouraged to establish communityowned organizations and/or to join existing civil society organizations. Particularly in Mogadishu, many networked social and professional organizations emerged during these years, and Islah members were part of them44. These organizations had succeeded in unifying the public voice on the issues of peace, human rights and democracy. In the area of reconciliation, Islah established the Somali Reconciliation Council in 1994 to offer logistical support for reconciliation efforts in Somalia. As a result of these policies, hundreds of community initiatives in the fields of education, health, reconciliation, and developmental programs were directed to the communities. Civil society values, such as protection of human rights, promotion of democratic values and good governance, and promotion of peace received wider participation and support from Islah members. The growth of civil society organizations, such as professional bodies, charities, women andyouth organizations, those promoting human rights and political parties, is the only way out of messy political clanism. 9. Promotion of democracy Democracy is a western terminology; nevertheless, in its essence as a process is no different from the Islamic concept of consultation (Shura)45. Some scholars have said that democracy is similar to Shura that have developed modern institutions of political parties; and consultation is like democracy that is bounded by the Islamic ceiling and conforms to the general Islamic principles46. The concept of consultation is characterized in Islam not only as necessary code to healthy faithful communities, families, and individuals but also as a required value for piety47. Simplifying this notion, democracy in its ideal form is like pure water that does not have a shape and color; however, takes the shape and color of its container. Likewise, democracy takes the color and the shape of the society in which it is applied. Therefore, democracy exists in different forms corresponding to the will and the choice of the different people. Since nations are different in their culture, religions and system of governance, their application of democracy eventually takes different forms. This means that democracy is applicable to all races, religions and cultures. Western democracy is not unique; it is necessarily secular and takes a color and shape in accordance with the western society’s culture, values and belief system. On the other hand, democracy in Muslim societies has to abide with the Islamic values, and culture of the people. In that understanding of democracy, Islah promotes democracy and stands firmly against any form of dictatorial rule in any place in the world and under the pretextof Islam. Finally, Islah firmly exercises democracy within its organization and has been holding internal elections periodically over the last 30 years. 10. Protection of human rights Somalia is one of the many nations suffering from the worst kinds of human rights violations. During 21 years of military rule and 20 years of intensive civil wars, the basics of human rights have been grossly violated. Protection of human rights is a divine obligation and a God-ordained concept. In Islam, the human being is dignified and the whole Islamic legal system is founded on protecting the rights of that human being48. Mostly, the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December, 1948, and the other two international pacts of 19 December, 1966 on civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights do not contravene completely the Islamic law. Since these declarations are not binding, different religious groups and civilizations may have specific reservations and Muslims likewise, while abiding by the declarations in general, may disagree with some issues that could contravene Islamic principles. However, in general, Islah promotes the protection of human rights and believes strongly that without it civilized society can not be established. 11. Promotion of women’s rights Women’s rights, particularly their rights to political participation, are widely misunderstood by many Islamists and non-Islamists alike in the Muslim world and beyond. It seems that the ancient culture of societies and religious interpretations on the issues of women have been intermingled in the Muslim world. As a result, those communities where women’s rights are undermined by the culture tend to justify those practices from the religious point of view. However, "any fair investigation of the teaching ofIslam or into the history of the Islamic civilization will surely find a clear evidence of women’s equality with man in what we call today “political rights”.49 The position of Islah is very clear in this point. Islah openly advocates the advancement of the rights of women and strongly supports their social and political participation in community affairs. Moreover, Islah promotes women’s education in all its social development programs. The effect of these policies was so great that Somali women are now playing important roles in politics and social life that were hitherto believed to be in the domain of men. Taken from Abdurahman M. Abdullahi (Baadiyow) about Islah.

How We Fuel Africa's Bloodiest War What is rarely mentioned is the great global heist of Congo's resources By Johann Hari October 30, 2008 "The Independent" -- The deadliest war since Adolf Hitler marched across Europe is starting again – and you are almost certainly carrying a blood-soaked chunk of the slaughter in your pocket. When we glance at the holocaust in Congo, with 5.4 million dead, the clichés of Africa reporting tumble out: this is a "tribal conflict" in "the Heart of Darkness". It isn't. The United Nations investigation found it was a war led by "armies of business" to seize the metals that make our 21st-century society zing and bling. The war in Congo is a war about you. Every day I think about the people I met in the war zones of eastern Congo when I reported from there. The wards were filled with women who had been gang-raped by the militias and shot in the vagina. The battalions of child soldiers – drugged, dazed 13-year-olds who had been made to kill members of their own families so they couldn't try to escape and go home. But oddly, as I watch the war starting again on CNN, I find myself thinking about a woman I met who had, by Congolese standards, not suffered in extremis. I was driving back to Goma from a diamond mine one day when my car got a puncture. As I waited for it to be fixed, I stood by the roadside and watched the great trails of women who stagger along every road in eastern Congo, carrying all their belongings on their backs in mighty crippling heaps. I stopped a 27 -year-old woman called Marie-Jean Bisimwa, who had four little children toddling along beside her. She told me she was lucky. Yes, her village had been burned out. Yes, she had lost her husband somewhere in the chaos. Yes, her sister had been raped and gone insane. But she and her kids were alive. I gave her a lift, and it was only after a few hours of chat along on cratered roads that I noticed there was something strange about Marie-Jean's children. They were slumped forward, their gazes fixed in front of them. They didn't look around, or speak, or smile. "I haven't ever been able to feed them," she said. "Because of the war." Their brains hadn't developed; they never would now. "Will they get better?" she asked. I left her in a village on the outskirts of Goma, and her kids stumbled after her, expressionless. There are two stories about how this war began – the official story, and the true story. The official story is that after the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu mass murderers fled across the border into Congo. The Rwandan government chased after them. But it's a lie. How do we know? The Rwandan government didn't go to where the Hutu genocidaires were, at least not at first. They went to where Congo's natural resources were – and began to pillage them. They even told their troops to work with any Hutus they came across. Congo is the richest country in the world for gold, diamonds, coltan, cassiterite, and more. Everybody wanted a slice – so six other countries invaded. These resources were not being stolen to for use in Africa. They were seized so they could be sold on to us. The more we bought, the more the invaders stole – and slaughtered. The rise of mobile phones caused a surge in deaths, because the coltan they contain is found primarily in Congo. The UN named the international corporations it believed were involved: Anglo-America, Standard Chartered Bank, De Beers and more than 100 others. (They all deny the charges.) But instead of stopping these corporations, our governments demanded that the UN stop criticising them. There were times when the fighting flagged. In 2003, a peace deal was finally brokered by the UN and the international armies withdrew. Many continued to work via proxy militias – but the carnage waned somewhat. Until now. As with the first war, there is a cover-story, and the truth. A Congolese militia leader called Laurent Nkunda – backed by Rwanda – claims he needs to protect the local Tutsi population from the same Hutu genocidaires who have been hiding out in the jungles of eastern Congo since 1994. That's why he is seizing Congolese military bases and is poised to march on Goma. It is a lie. François Grignon, Africa Director of the International Crisis Group, tells me the truth: "Nkunda is being funded by Rwandan businessmen so they can retain control of the mines in North Kivu. This is the absolute core of the conflict. What we are seeing now is beneficiaries of the illegal war economy fighting to maintain their right to exploit." At the moment, Rwandan business interests make a fortune from the mines they illegally seized during the war. The global coltan price has collapsed, so now they focus hungrily on cassiterite, which is used to make tin cans and other consumer disposables. As the war began to wane, they faced losing their control to the elected Congolese government – so they have given it another bloody kick-start. Yet the debate about Congo in the West – when it exists at all – focuses on our inability to provide a decent bandage, without mentioning that we are causing the wound. It's true the 17,000 UN forces in the country are abysmally failing to protect the civilian population, and urgently need to be super-charged. But it is even more important to stop fuelling the war in the first place by buying blood-soaked natural resources. Nkunda only has enough guns and grenades to take on the Congolese army and the UN because we buy his loot. We need to prosecute the corporations buying them for abetting crimes against humanity, and introduce a global coltan-tax to pay for a substantial peacekeeping force. To get there, we need to build an international system that values the lives of black people more than it values profit. Somewhere out there – lost in the great global heist of Congo's resources – are Marie-Jean and her children, limping along the road once more, carrying everything they own on their backs. They will probably never use a coltan-filled mobile phone, a cassiterite-smelted can of beans, or a gold necklace – but they may yet die for one.

Khayrow I know you were referring to the article brother, just seemed that you were being a tad bit preachy my bad. Abdullahi Dool does raise a good point and one that any one of Islamist persuasion needs to address before having any hope of convincing the majority of the Somali people to even look at islamic governance in somalia. The shortcoming of the islamist program in somalia in the long run ultimately is the lack of success of applying descriptive prescription developed in Arabia in the diffrent historical, social, and cultural milieu that makes up somalia today. Some like bashir Goth on Awdalnews exaggerate with poetic license on this shortcoming, but that it is there and that it has to be addressed, is going to be the defining struggle in the islamist project and in Somalia in general for the foreseeable future.

^? It started well then unicorns and red M&M's filled the screen.

Khayr, brother come down here with the little people and realize that even if the islamists where to win the war outright for them to govern or for any part of their vision to be enacted a government suitable to the Somali people as they see fit will have to be devised. Otherwise they will also prove to be an interregenum in Somalian history.

By: Abdullahi Jama 13 Oct 2008 After 20 odd months of brutal occupation, the Ethiopian army maybe poised to withdraw from Somalia proper not because of the pledges they made before, as stated in the recent Djibouti agreement between TFG and the A.R.S faction led by Sheikh Sherif Ahmed, but they realized that their grand-plan to rule Somalia by proxy was simply not attainable. Reliable sources indicate that the Ethiopian military will retreat back to its recognized borders in the next few months. Currently, Ethiopia is mulling over three options: First, back to their former habits of launching forays and covert activities into Somali soil whenever they deem necessary, in order to cause security mayhem. Second, to supply arms and ammunitions to the Somali warlords in an attempt to reignite tribal warfare wherever they can. Third, to revive the decade old idea of “building blocks”, a bottom up approach meant to further fragment the Somali republic into tribal fiefdoms, namely Jubbaland, Shabelleland, Puntland, Somaliland, Hinterland, you name it. Whichever way the Ethiopians choose, they are confident of having Washington on their side. This is nothing new; the U.S does not have a policy of its own for Somalia. Therefore, it continues to borrow from the Ethiopians as usual. In other words, when it comes to the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia takes the lead and Washington follows. The Ethiopian withdrawal, if it happens, is not a direct result of the deeply flawed Djibouti agreement, which so far achieved nothing but diplomatic exercises and photo opportunities of the Sheriffs and the fanfare of Amb.Ahmed Ould Abdalla, the Mauritanian born UN Secretary General Representative for Somalia. The agreement per se, does not guarantee the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops; instead it created a dangerous loophole that opened a new window of opportunity for the greedy elites of Addis Ababa regime, glossing over the atrocities committed during their brutal occupation. Indeed, the personalities that are running the Djibouti show, have so far only succeeded to divide both camps of the talks; the TFG as well as the A.R.S. For now, the Ethiopians and their American allies have provided support for the Djibouti peace talks; it is unclear however, whether they support Somali nation-state to be reconstituted. Many observers believe that their intention is solely to split the A.R.S into militants and moderates, and cause internecine war between them, a tactic that echoes the Mujahin of Afghanistan after the departure of Soviet Union 1989. Surely, much of the sinister aims of Ethiopian occupation have been thwarted, thanks to the armed resistance, however, the following questions beg for immediate answers: Do we have plan B? What would the Islamic state look like if we agree to embrace one? Can the Resistance unite under the banner of Islam or will it remain divided, as it appears now, between factions and splinter groups of various schools and ideologies, some tending Jihadist International and others aiming at establishing a Somali State. All signs indicate that, the various factions of the resistance are on the brink of open armed conflict between them, let alone to produce a coherent political agenda in order to achieve effective governance. That is obviously disappointing viz a viz the challenges any Islamic state would face from the hostile International Community led by the USA. Perhaps, Islamic Revolution with strong local support is the only way out of the current political and security morass that engulfed the Somali nation for nearly two decades. It provides strong bonds and common values that can hold competing tribes together, it is an alternative to the defective and divisive power sharing figure of 4.5. However, such Islamic state cannot work in isolation. It should be accepted by hostile international community.Therefore, a strong leadership capable of addressing such challenges and particularly the regional hegemony of Ethiopia is needed. The Ethiopian regime battered by the armed resistance both inside its own turf and in Somalia proper, is on the verge political meltdown. As a result, it is likely that they clinch a truce with Somali r�sistance, as long as the Somalis would refrain from taking the armed struggle inside Ethiopia proper. The rhetoric of Somali clerics, such as Sheikh Hassan Dahir Awes, who is a strong believer of the cause of Somali irredentism, is unhelpful. Many Somalis question the wisdom of reigniting the embers of Somali irredentism at this particular juncture.Prof Ken Menkhaus was right when he lectured:” Neither the Ethiopians nor the Islamists have the ability to deliver a knockout punch. The only way this armed conflict will be short is if each side is trying to send a signal to the other. In other words, they bloody each other’s noses, then step back and assess the very high risks to both sides, and someone steps in to mediate”. I personally believe that, if Ethiopia was left its own devices, we would probably deliver a knockout punch; however, Ethiopia relies on the full backing of the USA, whilst Somalia has no friends to turn to for help. Only the tiny but important state of Eritrea sided with Somali cause. They too are under pressure from the arrogant Ethiopian rulers, whose ultimate goal is to exercise unchallenged hegemony in the Horn of Africa. The Somali province in Ethiopia which indeed like their brethren in Somalia faces constant humanitarian catastrophe, ethnic cleansing and gross human rights violation, speaks for itself. We can only help them when we reconstitute our own. The irony is that the Islamists have no program that allows Somalia to regain its lost prestige, preserve the rights of its people and interact with the world at large. Their main focus is to fight the occupation. There are no signs of leadership both in the opposition camp and the TFG.The latter unfortunaly is discredited in the eyes of its people as collaborators of Ethiopian invaders. The AL-Shabab phenomenon is a different story. Some of their beliefs are bonkers. A perfect example is, Sheikh Mukhtar Robow’s recent interview with BBC stating that Al-Shabab is affiliated with Al-Qaeda.Such brinkmanship is merely confrontational, it pits the world’s lonely super power against starving people of Somalia, and it also gives much needed propaganda to the enemy. The Sorrow is that Somalia’s future is left in a limbo even if the Ethiopians withdraw tomorrow. The blame, in my opinion, should be placed at the feet of the so called Somali intellectuals which seem to be shortsighted. The international community is also to blame. It reacted only to Somali people’s solutions after long years of neglect. The Islamic Courts were a Somali solution to long years of agony; they provided relative calm after 17 years of mayhem. Unfortunately, the Ethiopian invasion has closed that window of hope. The West is reeling between ignorance and arrogance with regard to Islamic resurgence around the world and Somalia is no exception. The resurgence of Islamic sentiment that begun in 19th century in Egypt has reached Somalia in the last quarter of 20th century in the form propagation (Da’wa) until it became a radically armed vanguards led by Al-Ittihad Islam in 1990s due to dismal performance of Siad Barre regime coupled with general discontent that stemmed from Somali Army’s disgraceful defeat in the ****** war. What was a peaceful Islamic resurgence (Sahwa Islaamiya) has now been transformed into insurgence. The upsurge in violence is direct result of changing world, the pressures of globalization, the dramatic increase in ecomic, cultural, social and political dominance of the West and the growing interdependence in trade and security across the world. Therefore, the violence should be understood as a response and r�sistance of the hegemonic West and their allies in Horn of Africa. It is not however, as many observers noted, a launching pad of AlQaeda that aims to take Jihad across the globe, such an idea does not have a support in Somalia, and the world knows that. The Islamic insurgency in Somalia cannot be resolved by military means. The only viable option is integration into political mainstream, and the adoption of Sharia Law is placed at the centre of that solution, if Somalia is ever to be reconstituted. The so called secular warlords and petty opportunists currently shaping the TFG do not hold a card in Somali politics, and cannot lead such a fundamental societal transformation. It maybe wise for the hegemonic West and their regional allies to accept the grim realities on the ground. My advice to the West: Give support for local solutions based on Somali culture and religion, encourage Somali religious scholars and intellectuals to devise a suitable form of government, which is able to regain the trust of Somali people, and interact with the rest of the world. And only, that type of government will be able to stop the fanatics that tend to destabilize the region in the name of Islam. Until that happens, Somalia’s problems will unravel with increased dimension, further plaguing other peaceful parts of the world. The latest carnage in Mogadishu on 23/24th September is a shocking reminder, hundreds of innocent civilians have been indiscriminately shelled, thousands more have been forced to flee their homes. Sadly, the UN continued to ignore such a barbaric killing. If this does not constitute to war crime, under the Statute of Rome, no one including Radovan Karadzic should be brought before the ICC in Hague. It is clear; somebody somewhere has duly authorized such a policy of collective punishment. The double standard of the United Nations is quite evident in the words of Amb.Ahmed Ould Abdalla in his interview with Hiiiraan Online on 26/09/2006. He was asked about the indiscriminate shelling of civilians by the TFG troops and their Ethiopian and AMISOM allies. His answer. I quote.” Every day without a peaceful solution, we will see more violence, killing and injustice”. That undermines the integrity and the fairness of the UN in crucial moment it needs to win over the Somali populace for its peace efforts. In fact, its position is further weakened by its failure to practice what it preaches. Almost certainly, until a new president sits in Washington, and hopefully removes the Rastafarians[ ] from the State Department, the Ethiopian rulers will continue to unwisely use the carte blanche given by Bush Administration, conduct pogroms against Somali ethnic groups inside Ethiopia and destroy lives and properties in Somalia proper, in the name of so called” War On Terror”. Abdullahi Jama Email:benadam43@hotmail.com

Regular good cop bad cop act going on.