Somali Unity: Earned or Enforced?

[Paragon]

Topic revisited. Below is Part II that ensues the initial Part I of this topic. Since I once promised to post the remaining parts (one of which has now been published by Dhahar.com), I thought it would be best to update you fellow nomads who have contributed to this topic.

 

------ Revised Part I can be found HERE.

 

SOMALI UNITY: Enforced or Earned? Part II

 

Feb 10, 2008

 

(B) The legality of Somali unity or disunity

 

There are those who rightly posit the argument that the agreement of Union, which the North and South of Somalia have entered into, is still legally binding. Does this argument have a strong appeal? The answer is yes. Since the agreement of union was signed, there has been no known occasion in which it was revoked. Whatever grievances the northerners might have had, they have never been able to be in a position to revoke it, or cut ties with the South. Such revocation has been particularly made difficult by the fact that, in the last thirty years of Somali statehood, the country has either been under dictatorship or in chaos. In the nine years the country has known its shoddy democracy, that is before it was curtailed by dictatorship, the country was in the phase of national integration. Thus, whatever other protestations the northerners might have made, it was in the years of rule of Siad Barre that have vocalised them, and later animated their resistance, the kind of politics they believed has disadvantaged them. Since the country was under dictatorship, attempts at expression through political means would have been futile exercise. Hence the northerners’ latterly choice of active and armed rebellion was the avenue pioneered by the current TFG president, Abdullahi Yussuf, with the help of Ethiopia. Were Northerners also to raise the question of secession, which they were legally well-placed to seek, such an attempt would also have fallen on deaf ears.

 

What needs to be understood is that legal agreements are entered by two independent parties, with their best interests considered. To revoke such a legal agreement, therefore, requires the presence of these parties, functioning operatively, who, at the realization that their interests are not best served in unity, agree to go their different ways. In Somalia’s case, and especially during the early 1990s, the total collapse of the central state has raised legal questions for the state of unity in the country. The country entered a legal limbo in which the unity that comprised of parts of the country found themselves in positions where previously agreed upon national institution, was no longer in existence.

 

Thus to uphold previous unity agreements, became comparable to a situation where a consenting husband and wife have abruptly died, stating in their will their desire to their grown children to by the byways of pre-set family laws. And since there was a marital agreement between the father and the mother, the children being told that their deceased parents’ agreement legally forces them to remain, albeit a leaderless family unit, under the dictates of their parents’ will. Is this logic a plausible one? To some, it may be, but in the obvious sense, the grown children are not bound by marital agreements their parents entered into. On the contrary to what one might argue, the grown children, whenever they are determined to be of their own sound decisions, are legally in a position to mind their own affairs.

 

This has been the condition of both the North and the South of Somalia, when the state collapsed. The collapse of the state has legally freed both sides from any strictures the Act of Union might have placed upon them. The parent, which was the national state, has died, and with it, the unity. There are no agreements or rules in chaos but disunity. In all things that come to exist, the advent of one phenomenon dispenses one previously binding, or gripping, circumstance. For example, the advent of independence has freed all African countries from the bounds of colonial laws and rules. In Somalia, independence freed the country from colonialism and unity the disunity. Thus, the chaos of the early 1990s that had ushered in disunity, has freed Somalia’s regions from unity. This displacement of one thing by the advent of another can easily be stretched further, and widened, to territorial disputes based on colonial borders raging within the country. It is of paramount importance that we recognize that the advent of unity with Somalia has nullified, or displaced the formation of British Somaliland borders, for former the division that existed between the two parts of the country were replaced by a unity, ensued by a creation of provinces.

 

So although the northerners might have been freed from unity, by the death of the national state, it cannot automatically be claimed that SSC regions are part and parcel of current Somaliland. It is worthwhile understanding that after the early 1990s’ chaos and disunity, all Somali regions were placed in a level platform, upon which they can decide on their affairs as befits them. Unity or cooperation between regions, if need be, is thus dependent on the forging of new agreements by concerned and interest-oriented parties. Pursuing policies contrary to this may thus be construed as coercion and forceful occupation. This point brings us to the third part of this writing, the territorial implications of unity and disunity.

 

© The territorial implications of unity and disunity..coming soon, Insha-Allah.

 

---

 

A. Isseh

 

Email: ali.isseh@gmail.com

 

Exclusive DHAHAR Contributor.

 

Copyright@dhahar.com Dhahar.com

[Jacaylbaro]

Intaana waa lagu fahmay ,,,, nice argument though i don't agree some of the points.

 

 

Still to wait for part 3 ..........

[NASSIR]

Originally posted by Isseh:

 

------ Revised Part I can be found

HERE

I like the revised Part I. Thanks Isseh.

 

I can't wait to read Part III

[Abu-Salman]

Morality is intimately lied with one's faith, which provide a basis for values as well as priorities.

 

In that light, one may well disregard so-called "interests", by tolerating some real or imagined "unjustice" due to our imperfect nature as humans.

 

More important in the Context of Bro Isse Part One, yes, of course, there is an unshakable moral foundation for Unity in Somali Context as well as among Muslims in general as Allah commanded us in the Qur'aan and the prophet's SCW applied it through his Sunnah.

 

In conjunction with all those moral foundations, so-called specific interests are almost anecdotal compared to the need to end Ethiopian Occupation of the Hawd (largely populated by "Northerners") or the Reserved Area etc.

 

Thus, the very concept of "Specific Northern Interests" is a gross simplification and impossible to define...

[Cige]

I'm really surprised those who always repeat Northrens, Somaliland etc. as whole the community of the former Somali British protectorate are Secessionist.

 

let's not ignore the fact:

 

If Hargeysa, Burao and Berbera TRIANGLE want to stand alone and seperate from Somalia, not only we would be happy but we would encourage them to do so tomorrow and we would congralutate them for many reasons, but to generalise those who are living in the former British Somaliland is the source of IGNORANCE and please please stop all these justification and come to bottomline.

 

are those people are all happy to disunity and Secession or only one CLAN out of FIVE clans wants and promotes the Secession?

 

those who always repeat HONEST etc. please answer this questiuon HONESTLY !

[Jacaylbaro]

Waar maxaad ma la ooyaysaa ??? ,,,,,,,