Xaaji Xunjuf Posted June 26 7 hours ago, Arafaat said: Garaad Jama says it all. The Garaad's Argument on the Independence of Somaliland on 26 June and my counter argument for his assertion. Garaad has posited that June 26th is not a date of independence for Somaliland, but rather a day marking the territory's inclusion into Somalia. The Significance of June 26th, 1960 Garaad claims that June 26th was not a day of independence but merely a day when the people of Somaliland were allowed to join Somalia. This assertion is fundamentally flawed and inaccurate . Historical records indicate that June 26th, 1960, was indeed the day when British Somaliland gained its independence from the United Kingdom. This event was celebrated with the raising of the Somali flag, symbolizing the region's newfound sovereignty. If, as Garaad suggests, this date did not signify independence, the subsequent Act of Union and the formation of a joint parliament with Somalia would have been unnecessary. The Premise of No Independence Garaad’s assertion implies that without independence, Somaliland’s people were effectively "caged" without a functioning system or political parties. This narrative is contradicted by historical evidence. Upon gaining independence, Somaliland operated as a sovereign state with its own government, albeit briefly, before uniting with Somalia. Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal served as the Prime Minister of Somaliland during this short-lived period of sovereignty, highlighting the existence of a structured political system. The Union and Independence Garaad’s argument overlooks critical historical events and agreements. The leaders of Somaliland and Somalia, including Egal and Abdullahi Issa, held multiple meetings to discuss and formalize the union. Iding to enter into a union with Somalia. This foundational fact invalidates Garaad’s claim that British Somaliland had not achieved independence first, it would not have had the legal standing that there was no independence. Political Parties and Representation Garaad jamac further argues that the existence of political parties such as USP, SNL, and NUF during the pre-union period negates the notion of Somaliland's independence. However, the formation and operation of these parties demonstrate a functioning political landscape. Egal’s decision to allocate parliamentary seats to the USP, despite their inability to secure them independently, underscores the active political maneuvers within an independent Somaliland. The Flag and Symbolism Garaad accurately notes that the Somali flag was raised in Somaliland, signifying unity among Somali territories. However, he misinterprets the symbolism. The five-pointed star on the flag represents the five Somali regions: Garaad's interpretation of historical events and symbols presents a skewed narrative that warrants correction. His claim that the Somali flag was exclusively the flag of Italian Somalia is fundamentally inaccurate. The Somali flag, in fact, was designed to represent a superstate encompassing the Somali-inhabited regions from Kenya's North Eastern Province to Djibouti, Dire Dawa, and beyond the Awash River, marking the border with the Amhara region. It was not the property of Somalia, Somaliland, or Djibouti alone; rather, it symbolized the unity and aspirations of all Somali people Djibouti, the Ogaden region in Ethiopia, the Northern Frontier District (NFD) in Kenya, Somalia, and Somaliland. This star underscores the intention of unity among these territories, not a lack of independence. Had Somaliland not been recognized as independent, the star would not have included it. Garaad's assertion that the Somali flag belonged solely to Somalia undermines the flag's true significance. The flag was conceived to symbolize the pan-Somali aspirations, uniting various Somali regions under a common banner. By claiming it was exclusively Somalia's, Garaad distorts the flag's intended representation of a broader Somali identity and heritage. Some even argue that the flag is an ethnic symbol, further reinforcing that it transcends any single nation's claim. Garaad's jamac efforts to rewrite history seem to stem from his political discontent with Somaliland. He attempts to downplay the significance of June 26th and elevate July 1st, driven by a fear of what the former represents—Somaliland as a distinct entity with its own identity. By attributing all significant historical milestones and symbols to Somalia, he aims to diminish Somaliland's achievements and status. Contrary to Garaad's claims, the independence of British Somaliland on June 26th, 1960, was a standalone event, separate from the July 1st independence of Italian Somalia. The notion that the trusteeship of Italian Somalia somehow influenced or was integrated into British Somaliland is baseless. Each territory's path to independence was distinct and independently recognized by the international community. Garaad's narrative, driven by personal grievances against Somaliland, seeks to alter historical facts. His assertions about the Somali flag, the independence dates, and the relationship between the trusteeships are not only misleading but also an attempt to undermine Somaliland's unique historical and political identity. Revisionist History and Self-Determination of the Garaad clan, Garaad’s statements appear to stem from a desire to revise historical narratives, possibly to align with contemporary political ambitions of wanting to unite with H@rti kin . While revisiting history can be constructive, it must be grounded in factual accuracy. Garaad is entitled to advocate for the self-determination of his clan and express their desire not to be part of Somaliland. However, this should not involve distorting historical events such as the Act of Union, the existence of the Somaliland Protectorate, and the established boundaries. Garaad’s argument contains several inaccuracies and contradictions and some blatant lies . While it is legitimate to oppose political integration with Somaliland based on current preferences for self-determination, it is essential to base such opposition on factual history. The events of June 26th, 1960, the subsequent union with Somalia, and the political activities during that period are well-documented and indisputable. Therefore, while Garaad may reject Somaliland's political ambitions, misrepresenting historical facts undermines the credibility of his position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xaaji Xunjuf Posted June 27 There is nothing inherently wrong with the desire for self-determination that he envisions for the Garaad clan; their right to shape their own future is perfectly understandable. He asserts that his current stance is in opposition to what his father once opposed, and thus he opposes the aspirations of the masses in Somaliland. However, his reasoning falters when he seeks to dictate what he believes is best for his clan while simultaneously entertaining the notion that his clan serves as a bridge to obstruct the political ambitions of Somaliland. If he opposes the Republic of Somaliland, that is his prerogative. However, he must also respect the wishes of the people of Somaliland who do not wish to be governed by Mogadishu, just as he does not wish to be ruled by Hargeisa. Somaliland is fully capable of thriving without the Garaad clan or Eastern Sool; their absence poses no existential threat to Somaliland's survival. He further claims that his grandfathers fought for the Dervishes to create a Somali state. Yet, he neglects to mention that the only survivors from his clan were those who sought refuge in Western Somaliland, while the rest of his kin perished. Moreover, it is crucial to note that his great-grandfather, Garaad Ali, was opposed to the Mad Mullah. The Mad Mullah executed him, accusing him of being a British spy. This is a fact recorded in historical British chronicles, which document that Garaad Ali Korebas, the father of Garaad Jamac, was killed by the Dervishes under suspicion of espionage. By glossing over these historical details, he presents a skewed narrative. The assertion that his forefathers were aligned with the Dervishes is, therefore, fundamentally flawed. Accurate historical recounting reveals that his great-grandfather was, in fact, an adversary of the Dervishes. This nuanced understanding of history is vital for any meaningful discourse on the political and social dynamics of the region. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
