The Majayahan: Lesson One

[SOO MAAL]

The Majayahan: Lesson One

 

 

May 11, 2006 By:Abdillahi H. Muse, Canada

 

The unexpected blow of Majayahan rendered Puntland State unconscious. The community lived around the exploration site were passionate in defense of their collective integrity and the nation’s national interest. They were hardly immoderate in their attacks on government forces that attempted to put up a fight but eventually forced to eat a humble pie. Contrary to the government’s claim of conspiracy against Puntland, the incident was neither a premeditated action to deride Putland nor a challenge to the current authority. It was purely a fight between right and wrong, a hero and a villain, and between the good and the bad.

 

 

In expressing his concern about the potential of factionalism and interest-group politics to destroy democratic institutions, American James Madison wrote in 1787-1788 “A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, government and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good.†Inducing other communities to reject the Majayahan creed as well as condemning them in the bulk is an example of the difficulty of keeping military man’s head (General Cadde) when he loses his temper.

 

Unlike constitutional democracies, African rulers with military backgrounds, most often then not, shortchange their civic responsibilities and succumb into costly temptations or personal egos that lead nations into chaos and disarray. Without unreasonable and irrational military intervention, human casualties, dithering and embezzlement they are unable to rule. That mythology has become their rule of thumb.

 

 

 

I am not implying here that the Majayahan community, who courageously stood up for their rights, freedom and justice, is distinct and deserves special treatment from Puntland government. Nor is it to my purpose to dispute the facts and issues on the ground that are very sensitive, to say the least. But the crust of the argument is how the government of Puntland interpreted the community’s stand and how it deliberated it’s responsibilities.

 

 

 

According to the available information with regard to the Majayahan problem, Puntland’s lack of sensitivity and the foreign company’s ignorance of the issue was the root cause of the events that led up to the crisis and unfortunate loss of lives. Apart from his caustic comments and derogatory language, the President of Puntland and his close advisers have miserably failed to preserve and protect the civic liberties and privileges of the Majayahan community.

 

 

 

While Puntland signed agreements with the Australian mining company, Range Resources, the natives, the people in Majayahan and elsewhere have not been included in the business equation in any shape or form. The Majayahans should have been consulted with prior to sending the Range exploration team. All parties involved (government, local community and the mining company -Range Resources Ltd) must have encouraged a clear public debate. The way to strike the right balance between the mining company and the government is to respect the rights of affected people- the Majayahans. Experience suggests that the best results are achieved when all parties are involved right from the beginning. Unless the community living around the exploration and/or mining or oil fields feels that they are involved in the decision- making process concerning the exploration or development of their resources, they are more likely to make their feelings and voices heard and to demand action. It is the responsibility of Puntland Authority to put in place procedures to ensure that the interests of local communities are appropriately addressed.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the government of Puntland took a unilateral decision instead of adopting a participatory approach. By the same token, Range Resources Ltd, exposed itself to accusations of complicity in the violence or of fuelling or even causing civil war and subsequently risk the wrath of popular protest. It also dismally failed to cooperate with the Majayahan community leaders. Working together through a proactive process could have averted the tragedy.

 

 

 

Today, it is the Majayahans that has been intentionally excluded from all consultations and negotiations concerning exploration for mineral deposits in their area. Tomorrow, it could be anyone, anywhere and anytime. Hence, it is regrettable that many Puntlanders or Puntland supporters are not sailing on the same boat with the leadership on this policy. They cannot come to the government’s defense until it recognized the birthrights, the civic rights and the unalienable rights of all those who have founded and supported puntland including the Majayahans.

 

 

 

Besides, Somalia has always been a nation scarce of natural resources but faith, resilience, and hope prevailed among it’s inhabitants. Destroying or departing from these noble practices because of foreign influences and western materialism is a recipe for disaster and looming tragedy. Crisis in Majayahan could have been averted had all the parties involved exercised traditional restraint, understanding and respect. In this regard, the Puntland Authority in particular should know that armed conflict could deter rather than encourage and promote private investment. In order to attract foreign investment, Puntland must have some degree of peace and stability, as well as good governance and the rule of law.

 

 

 

In contrast to Range Resources and Puntland approach, the example set out below depicts how the Northern states or constitutional democracies conduct their economic and business developments:

 

 

 

In 2002, the Newfoundland State of Canada, and Inco miningCompany agreed on developing a mine in Labrador. The Labrador Inuit and Innu had endorsed agreements with Inco. The agreement specified how the Aboriginal groups would benefit from revenue sharing, environmental protection, hiring quotas, and job training. The various agreements are expected to create thousands of jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, and contribute to the economic growth for Canada’s poorest Province

 

In round two of many bargaining business meetings, Newfoundland province demanded that Inco build a smelter in the province to smelt the ore it mined, and the Innu nation demanded a 3% smelter royalty and a guarantee that the mine would be in operation for at least 25 years. After 4 years of wheeling-dealing, the mine became operational in 2006. However, the consultations and negotiations took 13 years (from exploration to operation phase) to address all outstanding issues concerning the local community, company and government prior to developing one mine while it took Puntland to award all it’s natural resources in few months to an inexperienced junior mining company with no track record in mining, let alone oil and gas!

 

 

 

Abdillahi H. Muse, Canada.

[Xudeedi]

Thanks brother. This is a good article