N.O.R.F Posted September 1, 2006 An answer to Samaters second response to the international crisis group report on Somaliland. By: Adam Mohamed Egeh (Mardaadi), Toronto, Canada Nimankaan lo’daydii casayd laanta ugu duugay Nimankaan dukaanada lakiban laba laba u siiyay Wax la liqiyo xoolaba ragaan ugu laxaad yeelay Haday aniga leebkiyo warmaha ii lisanayaan Kal laxiibaan leeyahay iyo laabta xuunshadae Waa waxa rag igu laacayaa laxam dhaqaaqa. Waxa tiriyay :- Mohamed Nuur fadal The response of the two Samaters to the ICG (International Crises Group) report on May 23, 2006 is highly inflated with fallacies. Distorting the facts with such a calumny, to belittle the civil administration of Somaliland and appease that other group, certainly reveals the nature of their camouflaging diabolic misinformation. In addition, the disturbing anomalies inherent in their writings are the lack of objectivity, integrity and transparency, as it pertains to the restoration of Somaliland independence and the unjust affair that followed the union between the North and the South. Furthermore, the Samaters insensitive insinuation that the inhabitants of Hargeysa, Burao, Berbera and Gabiley are in search for claiming some sort of privileged pain, as a result of atrocities the Somali military regime inflicted on them is akin to playfully adding fire to the painful wounds the Issaq people chose to put behind them. This is a sordid allegation, which is a very macabre way aimed to criticize the victims of terror rather than the perpetrators of terror. Conscious with the difficult situation in Somalia and the unique circumstances facing the Somaliland, I intend to articulate the following five items: - Separating fallacies from facts The union between Somaliland and Somalia was unlawful Fifteen years of nation building cannot be reversed Somaliland meets the Montevideo criteria for statehood Separating fallacies from facts Fallacy Samaters claimed that some communities in Somaliland enjoy the freedom to express and spread their preference for the restoration of Somaliland independence, while others were coerced to support the pro independencedemand of the armed wing of Somali National Movement.1 Reality Check Contrary to Samaters account, the Somali National Movement refrained from settling old scores. Instead, the liberation movement adapted a policy of reconciliation to establish a genuine and lasting peaceful coexistence among the communities in the country. Encouraged with SNMs virtuous approach, the leading elders of every community participated the Buroa conference in 1991. On May 18, 1991, the elders of all Somaliland clans unanimously agreed on to withdraw from the act of union and restore the independence of Somaliland. The decision for independence was all-inclusive, free from all sorts of intimidation. It was at this conference, where the elders of Somaliland succeeded to lay the initial building blocks of the peace and stability for Somaliland.2 Therefore, the Samaters affront insinuation that SNM intimidation was a factor in the outcome of the conference is outrageous and despicable. The premises of their claim is an outright lie, misleading and deceptive. Their allegation that indigenous communities were forced to support the agenda of pro independence is absolutely nonsense. The two professors intentionally engineered fallacious demonstration of how the events of Somaliland independence unfolded. In the mean time, the primary purpose of this conscious deception is nothing but, to persuade the international public opinion and AU countries to withhold the recognition of Somaliland. Fallacy The report of the two Samaters alleges the circumstance surrounding the presidency of Dahir Rayale Kahin becoming the president of Somaliland was purely accidental, void of inherent democratic principles of constitutional society. The crux of their arguments alludes to existence of a political agenda to neutralize the stand of pro unity communities in the western Somaliland, with the purpose of securing their support for the restoration of Somaliland independence.3 Reality Check During the Hargeysa conference of 1997, Dahir Rayale Kahin was elected as the vice president of Somaliland, and served this post for about five years prior to running for the presidency. Upon the death of the late president Egal in South Africa on May 2002, the two houses cited the constitution of Somaliland and immediately endorsed the presidency of Mr. Kahin on a record time. Subsequently, the new president emerged as the chairman of UDUB party and declared his candidacy for the upcoming presidential elections of Somaliland. Mr. Riyal was in for the challenge of his life, as the candidate of Kulmiye Party Ahmed Mohamed Mohamoud Sillanyo was very famous and a force to reckon with. Pre election popular opinion polls predicted a slam-dunk for Mr. Sillanyo and did not give an iota of chance to Mr. Kahin winning the presidency of Somaliland. The presidential election was held on May 2003 and president Rayale’s UDUB party emerged as the true victor. The margin of votes separating between the parties was only a mere 80 votes in favor of UDUB party. President Rayale was declared the winner, only when the matter was taken to the supreme court of the Somaliland. The international observers who were monitoring the presidential election declared it as being conducted openly, freely and in accordance with internationally recognized election procedures. Therefore, president Rayale was elected through the freely and democratically expressed will of the people of Somaliland. Fallacy Responding to the ICG description to statehood, i.e., “the claim to statehood rests on the territory’s separate status during the colonial eraâ€, Samaters claimed that such a description “privileges the colonialism as an indelible historical experience that trumps choices Somalis had made in pre-colonial as well as post-colonial era and the resultant experiences. 4†Apparently, the Samaters are trying to legitimize the expansionist agenda of Puntland, Reality Check The description of the International Crisis Group refers to the Article 4 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, which binds member states to respect the borders that existed during the achievement of their independence. Even though Samaters convenient chose to ignore this fact. Before the borders of Somaliland were establish, the British imperial was sensitive to existing tribal affiliation of Warsangali and Dhulbahto had with their ***** cousins in Southern Somalia. The British gave them a clear choice. Either join the Italian Somalia or remain in Somaliland. The two clans opted to stay within the vicinity of Somaliland, citing inherent cultural alliance with the Somaliland communities. Therefore, Samaters are entertaining an argument that cannot stand the test of historical experience of the country. This Somali adage is definitely germane in this context. “ Shuruudi aabahaa ka wayne†roughly translated as “ a treaty carries a bigger weight than the agenda of your father.†5 The union between Somaliland and Somalia was unlawful The people of Somaliland were once the architects of Somali unity. On June 26, 1960 Somaliland got its independence from the British. The sentiment of nationalism and Pan Somalism were all time high and Somalilanders were so enamored with the idea of bringing all ethnic Somali speaking communities under one nation (NFD, Djibouti and ******). The union took place on July 1, 1960, the day the Italian Somalia became independent. Unequivocally, the Somalilanders sacrificed their independence for the sake of attaining Greater Somalia. The union between British Somaliland Protectorate and Italian Somalia was unconstitutional, since the parliaments of Somaliland and Somalia did not ratify it as a single act of union. Not a single year elapsed when the people in the north showed the initial signs of resentment about the ill-fated marriage between the two Somali regions. That feeling was expressed in 1961, when a young army officer by the name of Hassan Kayd - a Sandhurst graduate and other northern military officer's launched an unsuccessful coup in the north against the Somali government. These northern officers were brought to Mogadishu for trial. Citing the illegality of the union the British judge in the court dismissed the case against the officers on the grounds that as Northerns, they could not be tried and judged by a Southern court, because it had no jurisdiction over the citizens of Somaliland, as the Act of union between the two states was not enacted in to the law. 6 To further substantiate the illegal nature of the union, the appendices of this article - The unlawful merger of two states, by Abdi Abdillahi Hassan on Sept. 16th, 2000 had this to say: Appendix 1 The Development of the constitution of the Somali Republic By Dr. Haji N.A. Noor Muhammad M.A: ( Madras), LL.k (Yale): J.S.D. ( Yale) “Advocate of the supreme Court of India: Member of the Madras Bar; Vice-president of the supreme court of the Somali Republic, his services being provided to the government by United Nation under the Opex programme.†“Would be presidency, a council of ministers and legislative Assembly, that the constitution of Somalia would serve as basic for the constitution of the new republic, and that the administrative, judicial and economic systems of the two territories would function separately until provision was made for their integration.†“It was envisaged that each Territory, upon becoming independent and prior to the unification, would conclude a separate agreement with the respective administrating power regarding the transfer of authority, and regarding economic aid and other arrangements.†“The Somali Protectorate became independent on 26 June 1960 and Trust Territory of Somalia on 1 July 1960. (5) on 1 July the legislatures of two newly independent states met at Mogadiscio in Join session and proclaimed the establishment of the Somali Republic.†“The same day, the president of the legislative assembly of Somalia, Hon. Aden Abdulla Osman, who was elected as the provisional president of the Somali republic, promulgated the constitution, which was originally prepared for Somalia, and from that date the constitution, which was originally prepared for Somalia, came into force throughout the republic.†“While there was no doubt that full and lawful union had been effected by the will of the Peoples of Somaliland and Somalia through their duly elected representatives, some doubts where expressed concerning the legal effects of the instruments relating to the union. The act of the Union of Somalia and the Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law (6) where both drafted in form of bilateral agreements, but neither of them was signed by the representative of Somaliland and Somalia. The Somalia Act of Union was approved "in principle" but not enacted in to the law.†“The decree-law of 1 July 1960 was signed by the provisional president to the deal with some of the legal effects of the union. However, in the absence of conversation into law in accordance with Article 63 of the constitution. This decree-law never came in to force.†Appendix 2 SOMALILAND- 1991 REPORT AND REFERENCE BY JOHN DRYASDALE GLOBAL -STATS ltd, suite 10, 98 Goldstone villas, Hove BN3 3RU U.K. Copyright Global- stats ltd, 1991 The merge was unlawful 1.4.1. How Somaliland merged with Somalia.- “On April 6th of that year, the elected legislative council of British Somaliland passed a resolution calling for independence and unification with Somalia.†“A join meeting that month of legislatures of Somaliland and Somalia declared that two territories would be united on July 1st. Five days earlier, the "State of Somaliland" became independent. Mean while, both legislatures independently prepared the text of an "Act of union". “Discrepancies between the two texts were such that on June 30th the Somaliland legislature, whilst agreeing in principles to act of union, insisted that the two governments agree to the text of single act of union to presented for approval of the join legislatures.†“At midnight of June 30th Somalia became independent under terms of its own constitution. On July 1, the two legislatures met elect a provisional president of the Somali republic, though no act of union had been signed. The president has immediately signed a decree entitled the "law of union of state of Somaliland and Somalia". It was not promulgated since it had not been passed by the national Assembly.†“A consultative commission for integration was than appointed and its finds were subject to a referendum held in July 1961. The Somali national league, the principal party of the north, campaigned against the ratification of the constitution. Percentage votes against were: - Hagias (72%), Berber (69%), Burro (66%) and Erigeron (69%). The total number of votes cast in Somalia as whole was said to be 1, 952,660 out of which 100,000 votes were said to have been recorded in the North.†“The new constitution was promulgated, but not before a dramatic military coup detach in the North had unsuccessfully attempted to restore sovereignty Somaliland. The senior officers were brought to trial in Mogadishu before a British judge on charges of treason. He acquitted the officers because the Southern Somalia had no jurisdiction over citizens of Somaliland. There had been no act of union between the two states.†Fifteen years of nation building cannot be reversed Today, the Republic of Somaliland is fifteen years old and had fiercely refused to take the path many African nations pursued during their independence. They chose to become a true democratic state. Some of the foreign reports that visited Somaliland were quite impressed how the deliberations in the Lower House are carried out. They confessed that these deliberations are among the freest in the world. The people of Somaliland said no to one party state that is why this state is marching towards the institutionalization of full-blown democracy. Multiparty system has been created, aimed to neutralize the influence of tribal affiliation. The question that comes to mind is why sowing the seeds of democracy are very successful in Somaliland, while the southern Somalia is still wracked by unceasing clan warfare and total anarchy? Apparently, the achievements of Somaliland to establish the major organs of civil society through a democratic process are not per chance. Therefore, the answer to the preceding question is two folds: The will of the people remains the major bedrock for this success. The Somaliland people choose to rebuild and develop their country. There is a general consensus among the communities in Somaliland that the only way to development and nation building is through a democratic process. The elders, politicians, businessmen, tribal leaders and the intelligentsia all agreed to assemble a democratic form of government; a broad-based government of regional reconciliation including representatives from all clans of the country. Eventually this facilitated the establishment of a government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives. In addition, the principle of equality of rights, opportunity and treatment are guaranteed for every citizen. When every region of the country is fairly represented in the government and no community is left underrepresented, the nexus that holds the nation together gains a substantial strength. The mutual agreements of the community were clearly enshrined in the constitution of the Republic of Somaliland, which was adapted throughout a National Referendum held on May 31, 2001. The people of Somaliland voted for the constitution and 97.09% accepted it. Foreign observers monitored the referendum and declared it as being conducted openly, fairly, honestly and in accordance with internationally recognized election procedures. The results of the referendum were very convincing and clearly indicative of the will of the Somaliland community, i.e., a state laboriously striving to develop the country by way of democratic process. The rights of the individuals, freedom of opinions, freedom of movement, freedom of public demonstration, the right to own private property, and freedom of press and media are guaranteed under the constitution of Somaliland. The other major contributing factor to the easy transition to democratic system is the deeply rooted cultural conditions that have been hospitable to the tender shoots of democratization process. The nomadic communities in Somaliland have their own distinct cultural traditions that tend to nourish the spread of democracy. Long before the arrival of the European colonial powers in the area, the ethnic communities of Somaliland developed a traditional form of democracy, unique to their own environment. This concept of pastoral democracy with an effective and efficient built in mechanism of conflict resolution was under the hegemony of tribal elders. These conflict resolutions are normally conducted under the wisdom tree. The big shadow of the wisdom tree serves as the traditional courthouse. Tribal chiefs, Sultans and elders are the final arbiters for all unexpected situation perceived as a potential treat to peace and the harmony among the various clans. Any verdict rendered by these elders is always binding on the parties in conflict. Furthermore, the nucleus of this culture did not suffer significant injury during the British rule of Somaliland Protectorate. Therefore, the fast based democracy taking shape in Somaliland stems from the homogenous blend of that traditional Pastoral Democracy combined with some contemporary democratic ideas adapted according to the needs of this vibrant and viable state of Somaliland. When the British set foot on the coastal city of Berbera, the tribal leaders entered a historic agreement with the British colony. The British were asked not to interfere with the culture of the indigenous people, and neither British children are to be born on the soil of Somaliland nor British citizens are to be buried in Somaliland. The British honored these demands, as their colonial style was distinct from that of other major colonial powers such as the French and the Italians. The British practiced a policy of indirect rule; they administered Somaliland through the chiefs and clan elders - an indirect form of rule that left the cultural practices of the society fully in tact. In contrast, the faction leaders in Southern Somalia have failed miserably to lift their country from the chaos and anarchy, which are the hallmarks of Mogadishu. Numerous mediation efforts by the UN, the IGAD and the neighboring countries did not bear fruit. The leaders of the south were unable to map out a viable political agreement intended to rebuild the fundamental foundations of civil society. Paradoxically, the only known agreement the faction leaders in Southern Somalia have in common is not to allow the restoration of Somaliland independence. Understandably, the binding clue that used to counterbalance and keep the defunct Somali Republic together suddenly vanished from the scene. They desperately need a new strong molecular structure capable of replacing the missing link. Italy colonized the Somali communities in the south. Apart from their imperial intentions, the Italians were involved in major economic activities in the south, such as crop plantation, hotels and the local shops. The colonial style of the Italians was direct rule. They mingled with the ethnic communities and created a working class from the indigenous population employed in the plantation and other sectors of Italian businesses in the major towns. With the meager economic incentive available to them, this emerging working class, and the government employees become a subordinate group very close and loyal to the colonial master. The Italians also married from the ethnic societies, thus creating a maternal kingship within the southern communities. As a result, the colonial master was able to neutralize the cultural aspects of the native society. This type of colonial practices and the fact that cultural homogeneity was not wide spread; the southern Somalis suffered an insurmountable cultural disorientation. The lack of uniform cultural traits that connect them rendered each tribe to be confined to its own dwelling places minding their own interests. That is why the elders in the southern Somalia are chronically inept in undertaking regional reconciliation and effective conflict resolutions among the local clans. The state of Somaliland has all the attributes statehood. It has a fully functioning administration, police, military, national currency and immigration department that grants visitors a visa at the airport. The local businesses are booming, of course under the sprit of free market. There are six different commercial airlines operating in the country, and three different telephone companies providing a fairly affordable communications both locally and internationally. Somaliland achieved all these without receiving an iota of economic assistance from the international communities. The Republic of Somaliland is free from foreign debt, because the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund do not provide economic and development aid to Somaliland, as these two organizations do not acknowledge the statehood of Somaliland. In Somaliland the elders are the backbone and the brain behind the stability in Somaliland. Their pious efforts to secure lasting peace and stability throughout the country will not only serve as beacon light, but a vivifying force that encourages every individual to respect the law and order. Undeniably, they are strong pillars in the edifice of learning the democratic principles. They are also a galaxy of unique hope and virtue whose exemplary determination for the betterment of the country was and will remain a perennial source of guidance and inspiration to everyone in Somaliland. The elders are such a source of strength and vigor to which Somaliland cannot afford to lose. 9 Somaliland meets the Montevideo criteria for statehood The Montevideo convention on the rights and duties of states is the most well-known and generally accepted definition of statehood. This treaty was signed at Montevideo, Uruguay on December 26, 1933. Its criteria indicates that the state should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; © government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Without a doubt Somaliland meets all the aforementioned requirements. The report of the International Crisis Group on May 23, 2006 had this say about the Republic of Somaliland versus Montevideo Convention Criteria for Statehood. “Permanent population. Somaliland’s population is estimated at over three million. If recognized, it would rank 38 th among the 55 African states. Although some inhabitants are nomadic pastoralists who practice transborder migration, the permanent population is stable.†“Defined territory. Somaliland’s territory is defined by three colonial treaties signed between the British on the one hand and the French (1888), Italians (1894) and Ethiopia (1897) on the other. The boundaries which encompass an area of 137,600 square kilometers are those received at the moment of independence from the British in 1960. In terms of size, independent Somaliland would rank 36 th among the 55 African states. Under international law, boundary disputes do not invalidate a state’s claim to a defined territory, although they often considerably complicate recognition by other states.†“Government. Somaliland possesses a functioning central government that is in effective control of most of the territory to which it lays claim. In addition to the symbolic trappings of statehood – a national flag, currency, crest and the like – it has a constitution (approved by popular vote), democratically elected authorities at all levels and basic state institutions including a bicameral parliament, independent judiciary, permanent electoral commission, army and police and custodial forces.†“Capacity to enter into relation with other states. Somaliland has entered into formal and informal cooperative arrangement with a wide variety of states and intergovernmental organizations, including Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Denmark, UK, US, and the UN. Cooperation has covered a range of issues, including security, trade, immigration and development assistance.†In addition, a legal opinion prepared by the South African Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed stated that Somaliland meets the fundamental requirements of statehood, clearly concurring with the arguments of ICG. 10 Conclusion The alternative recommendations of the two Samaters are far from being an honest initiative intended to advance the welfare of all Somalis. It is nothing, but a skillfully groomed deliberative tactics destined to galvanize the critics of Somaliland. With academic acumen comes academic responsibility and intellectual honesty. When they do cite the historical evidence of Somalia and Somaliland, any careful reader will acknowledge that their report is a piece of junk, dressed up in the language and format of real research to give it a sense of credibility. Evidently, the scholarly report of the Samaters as well as their dedicated 35 years to sympathetically understand the inner workings of Somali society clearly stops short to provide pragmatic solutions to the Somali problem. Instead, the two professors joined their side in the ongoing tug of war Somali affair to advance their pursuit of futile vision of united Somalia. Likewise, forgetting to mention the legacy of late president Egal’s skillful leadership to help Somaliland attain its present democratic state, peace and stability conditions is dismaying laps. Such one-sided report, replete with doctored history aimed to create misleading impression about Somaliland, through the use of rhetoric, falsified evidence and deceptive omission of historical facts through ellipsis makes the two professors guilty of intellectual dishonesty. By: - Adam Mohamed Egeh – Mardaadi August 2006 bulahar@msn.com Toronto , Canada Notes Samaters response to International Crisis Group, Rebuttal: Round two, May 23, 2006, page 7. Adam M Egeh (Mardaadi), The Triumph of Democracy in Somaliland, Sep 2002, Page 4. Samaters response to International Crisis Group, Rebuttal: Round two, Page 9. Samater’s response to International Crisis Group, Rebuttal: Round two, Page3. Interview with Adam Fara nacab, Toronto, Canada, August 2006. John Dryasdale, Report and Reference – Somaliland 1991. Abdi Abdillahi Hassan, The Unlawful Merger of Two States, September 16, 2000. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim (Sabeysse), Cry, The Crusaders of Somali Unity, April 17, 2005. Adam M. Egeh (Mardaadi), Could it be the success of Somaliland that tends to irk? September 16, 2003 International Crisis Group, Somaliland: Time for African Union Leadership, Africa Report NO 110, May 23, 2006 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xiinfaniin Posted September 1, 2006 The success of Somaliland does indeed sit well with Samaters. What doesn’t sit well with them, and for that matter with me, is this secessionist drive; this mindless surge to separate from the rest of the country. I know these men, and though secular (they are lay in religious matters), their commitment to Somalia’s territorial integrity and their objection to foreign intervention is the most genuine I have seen. Their critique of Somaliland is a valid one, and it’s solid, if I might add, in its argumentum foundation. What they have beef with is not the peace and stability of their brethren but it’s solely the separatist agenda that they object. Given that glaring fact, I find the title of this thread misleading and disingenuous. I think in the end Somaliland’s intellectuals and its well-meaning public will realize that the secessionist initiative is reaching a dead-end! That they have a better role to play and an honorable position to take within a larger Somali body politicks than cornering themselves in narrow spot. That it’s unfitting for a community who envisioned and pioneered the birth of Somali state to have become the ones who rascally take delight in its rapid demise---Somalia’s dismemberment. By any angle you look at it, there's nothing to gain from separating from Somalia. To the contrary, secession might just be precursor for opening that proverbial Pandora jar. I believe separatism is “curiosity that killed the cat†kinda thing! Many people whom I’ve come to admire are so fond of it, but can’t rationally explain why it must be so. A puzzle of great proportions it really is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sharif_seylaci Posted September 1, 2006 Somaliland is doing so good so far samatars brothers are just haters. they belive in a mogadisho wich is dead the past 16 years no prespective noo future no somali natinalisme in somaliland we build companys its economical stable for nor but most in portend its peacefull And noo guns alowd in the streets of hargeysa burco berbera borame ceerigabo Samatar brothers cant handel that thats why they so obssesed with somaliland Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duufaan Posted September 1, 2006 what success? Half million people isolated and dying starvation. Any child wearing his father close will be noticable sooner. samattars are preffossianal and objective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Socod_badne Posted September 1, 2006 The success of Somaliland doesn't sit well with me as well. Everytime I'm reminded of Somaliland's success, inexorably and helplessly I lose myself in paroxysm of envy and hate. I keep asking myself: why them and not us? These self-pity binges last quite sometime before they subside. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedSea Posted September 2, 2006 Originally posted by Duufaan: what success? Half million people isolated and dying starvation. Any child wearing his father close will be noticable sooner. samattars are preffossianal and objective. Duufaan, do you have no respect for our right to know act? what is the matter with you son, what starving kids, and where on earth did you gather all this information from, the last time I have been there, everything was Allhamdulilah. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naxar Nugaaleed Posted September 2, 2006 The success of anyone does not sit well the Samaters. They seem to to be always ready to critize those try to something but rearly bring good ideas them selfs. None the less, its painfully obvious that the IC whatever, is a shameless advocate and supporters of the Secessionist. It is also clear that there is a very undemocratic atmesphere in hargeisa, burco and berbera triangle were no one is allowed to express their true feelings about Somali Unity be they journalist, scholars or citizens. If they only knew that Reyale and his crew do not care about "sovereignty of Somaliland" but only about getting richer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duufaan Posted September 2, 2006 Red-Sea. That is true general in somalia. HarGeysa is not different with all NGO. Hargeysa was better when it was the commersial center for the whole somali region in ethiopia. Just imagine all poor people there without work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
