Setting the Record of Somaliland Case Closed

[NASSIR]

It is my patriotic honor to share with you this monumental document, which sets the record of the former British Protectorate straight. It is a Hard copy from the colonial office

 

There was no legal Independence for "Somaliland". The Independence date for the protectorate was a mere preparation to unite the protectorate with the state of Somalia.

 

Particularly, read Constitutional Conference, 9th February, 1959 Annex II

 

 

Report of the Somaliland Protectorate

Constitutional Conference.

http://nspu.org/publications/SL_Constitutional_Conference_In_London_In_May_1960.pdf

 

Ps. I am currently so busy. I will be back when the time permits, IA.

[NASSIR]

[Gediid]

I dont quite understand the point you are making Caamir.You are just reaffirming what we have known all along that the Northern politicians wanted independence from the British followed by union with the South.The documents above clearly state that.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Gediid:

I dont quite understand the point you are making Caamir.You are just reaffirming what we have known all along that the Northern politicians wanted independence from the British followed by union with the South.The documents above clearly state that.

Not everyone comprehends what is clearly stated.

[NGONGE]

Heh. What an attractive cul-de-sac! I wonder how many will try to drive right through it.

Shush! Shush! Is that the sound of my guru's stallion galloping towards us?

[NASSIR]

Gediid, I think you haven't been following the 17 year long campaign of seceding from Somalia.

Pro-secessionist from Hargeisa have always hoodwinked the international media and African policy makers, and the hired apologist of "Somaliland" on this issue.

 

 

This is the line the pro-secessionist often regurgitate to sell their case to the international community.

 

The story started on June 26, 1960 when Somaliland gained its independence from the British. It was the first one of five Somali territories that emerged from foreign domination. The other four were French Somali Coast, the present Djibouti, Italian Somalia, present Somalia, and the two Somali regions each in Ethiopia and Kenya, historically known as the Reserved Area and Northern Frontier Districts respectively.

 

Somaliland was recognised by the United Nations, with its flag, its currency, its executive and judicial system, its police and military forces, its distinctive British governance and education and its internationally recognised borders. Bashir Goth

 

The independence for the protectorate came out of a request from our leaders and tribal elders in the North to join the Italian Somaliland, after learning the resolution passed by the U.N. General Assembly granting independence to Italian Somaliland, which had enjoyed 10 years of preparation for nation building to achieve self-governance. The British adminstration at the time was not willing to grant independence and as the adminstration acknowledged that "There were practical problems to be resolved if Independence were to be achieved in so a Short of time". Among the issues that needed to be resolved included:

 

• Termination of Protection Treaties entered with Somali tribes
• Grazing arrangements
• and statement of policy

 

I think this author Hirad captures the exact situation prior to our Independence on July 1, 1960.

 

Therefore, the “Somaliland Protectorate” had never transpired into a state of its own right to return to in 1991, as some have falsely claimed thereafter. I must re-emphasize that it had only existed for four days in which, essentially, preparations were being made for travel and, in effect, reunion with the other part. Hence, to speak of “ Somaliland” ever being a state is also a very flawed assumption. “ Somaliland” was, at best, defined by its colonial history not by its independence of only four days before immediate re-union with that other part of the partitioned Somali nation. A return to the state of “ Somaliland” represents a platitude or an empty inanity, at best.

 

 

I hope you get the gist of the message and acknowledge how the history of this protectorate are continuously falsified to better sell the idea, but the world can't be easily swayed as the elite in Hargeisa often articulate to the unsuspecting international press.

[NASSIR]

Originally posted by Oodweyne:

 

 

• Secondly
  , is it your contention, again, that this
  Legal Document, justifies the case against present-day
  Somaliland
  , given that your argument is, that there was no such thing call Somaliland - i.e.,
  from legal perspective
  - in which the present-day
  Somaliland
  could have return to that year of
  1991
  ; particularly if it withdraws from the old union of
  1960
  in which the then Somali Republic was based on.

Absolutely “Somaliland” had never transpired into a state of its own to return to its self-declaration of independence in 1991. If so, I would kindly ask you to bring proof without resorting to a long and superfluous explanation.

It all started when Britain liquidated its administration in the Haud and Reserved Areas without prior notice and consultation with her Somali subjects. Massive protest and demonstrations ensued in which Somalis expressed outrage with the administration’s neglect and surrender of these territories. In 1957, Britain for the first time indicated that it would not oppose the eventual union. Why do you think it did? In fact, the above events facilitated the formation of a committee led by Micheal Mariano in order to recover the Haud and obtain Independence to which the protectorate would allow it to unite with the south. And by the time delegates from the protectorate discussed with government leaders in Mogadisho, Somalia's constitution was complete. It was agreed in its general terms by both leaders that the government which they will form will be a unitary state with one flag, one parliament, one president, and integrating one judicial, economic and administrative system. The April Motion of 1960 called for an Independence and union with the trust territory of Somalia. There was no demand for Seperate Independent Statehood except uniting with the trust territory. Still, the British administration considered the motion precipitate despite its early indication of approving the eventual union of the two Somali territory.

 

Therefore, On top of administrative and economic neglect in the protectorate which retarded development, I shall repeat the transfer of Haud ignited the nationalist fervor and our people in the North demanded immediate unification with the rest of Somalia.

 

 

• Thirdly
  , is it your considered contention, that the old
  tribal leaders
  or the then recognised by the British Authorities
  clan-leaders
  of then
  British Somaliland's Protectorate
  , namely the descendent of the old
  tribal signatories
  in which the
  protectorate Treaties
  that Somaliland's validity under the British rule was based on, who requested the granting of independence from the British's government in
  London
  , were specifically
  not
  asking for an
  independence Statehood
  of their own, per se.

  They did not ask for Seperate Independent Statehood. The Protection treaties were invoked merely to end the Protectorate on June 26, 1990 in order to complete a successful and lasting union demanded by the leaders of both Regions.After the Protectorate was ended, the Legislative Council in Hargeisa passed and ratified the union law which stated in Article One,

   

  “”The State of Somaliland and the State of Somalia do hereby unite and shall forever remain united in a new, independent, democratic, unitary republic the name whereof shall be the Somali Republic.” Also, note the State reference is nothing but the characterization of the territories in their respective colonial history.

   

   

  • Fourthly
    , is it your contention in here, again, that
    Somaliland's
    political elites at eve of the independence, who were the ones who took part in that
    London Constitutional Conference
    , in which your argument alludes to, did not merely asked for a
    legal independent Statehood
    of their own from the British government, per se.

    I have already answered this question. The independence was to pave the way for unification. If yes, let me ask you these questions:

  • What was the flag of the "state" of British Somaliland?
  • Did it apply for membership?
  • And was there a single country that recognized its independence??

Kindly answer these questions with Proof

 

 

I have answered all of your questions and I regarded those you might think I didn't answer as repetitive

[Suldaanka]

The document there confirms what we all know/knew.

 

We are aware that Somaliland was independent for a couple of days and had a seperate government with her own ministers and parliament and constitution. Had it not been the SL people's desire to volunteerly initiate the union themselves neither the UK Gov't nor any Gov't in Southern Somalia would have made us to unite with Somalia.

 

So, Caamir, what else are you trying to prove here?

[NASSIR]

Do you know that SYL was the first Somali political party to open an office in the North.

 

When was the Union initiated? Before the "Independence" or after the much repeated five days?

[NASSIR]

Somaliland Moves to close its Borders: A response

By:Mohamoud Oogle

November 05, 2007

 

Dr Weinstein’s article which appeared in Wardheernews is certainly well informed on the recent developments regarding the “contest” between Somaliland and Puntland over the Sool region. One can only welcome his perceptive analysis and also concur with his insightful conclusion that Somaliland’s capture of Lascanod, the capital of the Sool region of Somalia, could unravel its much-vaunted internal peace and political stability and may do more harm than good to realising its long-sought recognition. Much as Dr. Weinstein’s assessments are to be commended, they are unfortunately accompanied by a number of fundamental misconceptions and misrepresentation of the facts.

 

“Somali land” and “Somalilands”

 

A common mantra of the secessionists and their foreign supporters is to present the union of former British and Italian Somalilands in July 1960 to form the Republic of Somalia as two historically separate and unrelated territories and peoples coming together for the first time on that date to establish their union, much the same way as the union of Egypt and Syria in 1958 when they formed the United Arab Republic (UAR); and to see the secession of Somaliland from Somalia as akin to the secession of Syria from the UAR in 1961. This analogy and other far-fetched ones are often used by the separatists as providing precedents for Somaliland’s recognition. Dr Weinstein’s article does implicitly if not explicitly echo this argument. The realities pertaining to the genesis of the union of former Italian and British Somalilands shares little with that of the UAR or with other failed unions one might care to mention

 

Dr. Weinstein should know that the history of the Somali people did not start at the time European “explorers” came to Africa in the late 19th century when they would claim to have discovered various African counties and often christen them after their kings, queens or self-serving “explorers”. The Somali people existed for millenniums in the Horn of Africa as disparate clans, admittedly lacking overarching common aspirations, but all the same remaining the most homogenous people in Black Africa.

 

When British “explorers” referred to their area as “Somali land”, it was a generic, descriptive name signifying that the land belonged to a people called “Somali”. “Somali land” in the end evolved into “Somaliland”, a name also adopted by the other colonial powers. British Somaliland, French Somaliland, Italian Somaliland and Ethiopian Somaliland have come to have “Somaliland” as their common denominator. As such, and contrary to the claims of the secessionists, the name “Somaliland” did not uniquely refer to the British part but to all the colonies; and hence a Somali in any one “Somaliland” could have claimed to be a “Somalilander.

 

If the colonisers looked upon the inhabitants of their respective colonies as their subjects, that was something not shared by the overwhelmingly nomadic Somali clans who were rarely ever in contact with the colonisers and their rule. Since their traditional grazing territory straddled those artificial colonial boundaries, and crossed them to and fro as if they never existed, these clans could have been technically identified, if they so wished, as being the subjects of any one of the colonial powers, depending on their whereabouts at any particular time or season. But that consideration was alien to them and belonging to their respective clans and leading their lives unhindered was what mattered to them most.

 

Britain may have carved “Somaliland Protectorate” out of the Somali homeland, but has it moulded during its 80 year rule a sentiment of “Somaliland” and “Somalilanders” out of the hotchpotch clans in its colony? The answer is no. While that task would have been daunting, requiring major and sustained investments in social, political and economic development, yet the British did not even try it. Britain’s colonial policy of divide and rule has been given as one explanation for this neglect. Others would say that Somaliland had little use for Britain other than to protect and provide fresh provisions for Aden, its far more important possession on the other side of the Red Sea. What ever the reason, and as independence approached, the territory was conspicuous for its abject underdevelopment in every sphere.

 

The union of British and Italian Somaliland

 

As the wind of change that was blowing throughout Africa in the late 1950s, and the end of foreign domination were dawning on the Somali people in British Somaliland, the drive for freedom was not independence for Somaliland per se but union with their fellow Somalis in Italian Somaliland, scheduled to gain its independence from Italy on the 1 of July 1960. In order to facilitate this union, the British government not only acceded to grant the independence to British Somaliland but brought it forward so that it was in time for the union with the South. All the pre-independence negotiations with the British were about the union with Italian Somaliland. And it was with that union in mind that the British granted independence to Somaliland Protectorate. Somaliland’s 5 day independence was merely a prelude to the union and nothing else.

 

Declaration of secession

 

Dr. Weinstein has to some extent fallen for the propaganda of the separatists that the secession enjoys support from non-***** clans in the territory. The truth of the matter is that the secession is largely supported by the ***** clan, openly opposed by the totality of the ****** clan except for a handful of paid collaborators, while the remaining smaller clans are ambivalent about it if not against it.

 

Somaliland’s juridical claims

 

Once that union become into effect, Somaliland ceased to exist and would not be revived by the declaration of secession by one clan in 1991. It sheer arrogance for one clan to claim that its declared secession is binding on everyone else in the former British territory and to use force to enforce it. It would require the consent of the Somali government and Parliament to agree to a referendum in the country as to whether a secession requested by one clan, which does not include other unionist clans in the region, should be allowed to secede. If the vote is in its favour, it is only through that process that Somaliland can gain international recognition and not otherwise.

 

Resort to force in Sool

 

The separatists, aware that their one-clan driven secession is seen for what it is by the international community, had embarked on their reckless invasion of Sool as a prelude to occupying all the recalcitrant ****** regions, thereby meeting the contidions for their recognition. The ****** clans are committed to Somali unity and there is no way that they can be converted to the secession at gun point.

 

The resort to force in Sool by Somaliland far from achieving their desired objectives may on the contrary have dangerous ramifications that could engulf the Horn in a wider ******/ ***** fighting. In its desire to win favours with the Ethiopian government, the Somaliland government had already antagonised the ****** ****** clan by handing to Ethiopia some innocent ******i residents in Hargeisa falsely accused as ONLF suspects. Far from achieving its goals, the secessionist enclave has poured oil on peaceful waters. The peace that hitherto prevailed in the region and the neighbourly co-existence among the different neighbouring clans could be the first casualties which in turn could affect Somaliland’s own stability and existence.

 

Atrocities against the *******

 

The atrocities committed against the ****** clan by the Siyad Barreh regime is beyond dispute. Although the figure of 50,000 killed is often repeated, yet the precise magnitude is unknown since there has never been any independent international inquiry. Whatever the scale, the secessionists had cynically exploited it by drawing intolerable comparisons with such historical pogroms/ genocides as the Holocaust and the Rwanda Tutsi genocide. The intention was to seek sympathy and support for their recognition from the international community and particularly from Israeli and Jewish lobby in the USA. Dr. Weinstein should have been wary of repeating such nauseating comparisons. It is all the more important to recast our minds into those events and dispassionately set the record straight to the extent possible

 

While no one is defending Siyad Barre’s regime, it should be born in mind that it was the ***** supported Somali National Movement (SNM)militia who initiated the fighting by invading Hargeisa and occupying some civilian residential areas. In the ensuing fighting for the control of the city, both antagonists had used long range artillery and mortar fire and indiscriminately shelled civilian areas. Both parties are therefore guilty of war crimes and in particular the government which also used Mig jet fighters flown by South African mercenaries.

 

Comparisons with Mogadishu

 

It is important to bear in mind that most of the residents in Hargeisa run away from the city at the height of the fighting and much of the damage was inflicted on buildings. It was a situation not much different from Beirut during the Lebanese civil war, or the fighting in Mogadishu some months ago between the Ethiopian army and the fighters of the Union of Islamic Courts. By all accounts, the fire power used by the Ethiopians in Mogadishu was prolonged and superior to that used in Hargeisa by the forces of Siyad Barre’s regime.

 

In the case of Mogadishu, just over a thousand people were killed, countess others injured, and over 400,000 displaced, leaving some districts destroyed as also was the case in Hargeisa. Even if reasonable comparisons can be drawn between what happened in Mogadishu and Hargeisa, what is needed is an independent international inquiry into all atrocities committed in the country, whether by the government of Siyad Barre in the North West and North East region, the Ethiopians in Mogadishu and the SNM in North West of Somalia.

 

The siege mentality

 

“Never again” and maintaining the spectre of the alleged atrocities in Hargeisa are part of the propaganda planks of the secessionists. What does it take to change that siege mentality? Not the fact that another dictatorship and government organised atrocities are very unlikely to emerge in Somalia; or that all the clans and regions will enjoy autonomy and equality under the new federal system in Somalia. For the secessionists, it is free “Somaliland”, all of it, and nothing else. In their eyes, the inalienable rights of other clans in the North West region to remain part of Somalia count for nothing. They believe they have god-given right to decide for every one else. As the invasion Sool attests to, this is a recipe for confrontation and conflict.

 

Alleged Puntland occupation of Sool

 

Dr. Weinstein is wrong to say that “Hargeisa lost control of Sool and Lasanod in 2003, when forces from Puntland successfully occupied the region based on clan affiliations with the population”.

 

First of all, Hargeisa had never controlled Sool until its capture of Lasanod on the 15 of October 2007. Secondly, Puntland had never occupied the region. The *********** and ******** clans in former British Somaliland had voluntarily joined Puntland in 1998. The driving reason for joining Punland was their fear that the well armed Isak militia might attack them and force them to join the secession. Indeed, it was this fear that brought the Puntland forces, most of them from *********** but also including others, to defend Lascanod against possible attack from Somaliland.

 

Mohamoud Oogle

Email:mohamoud_oogle@yahoo.co.uk

 

wardheernews

 

_____________

 

[ November 16, 2007, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar ]

[Suldaanka]

Originally posted by Caamir:

Do you know that SYL was the first Somali political party to open an office in the North.

 

When was the Union initiated? Before the "Independence" or after the much repeated five days?

When is a marriage a marriage? the time two agree to get married or the time when the Qaadi reads out the ritual?

 

No one is denying the fact that Somaliland people were the ones that were spearheading union of the two sides. No one is denying the fact that a union took place.

 

We all know that took place. But Somaliland's position today is not the same position as the 1960s. It is the opposite. The people who volunteerly initiated the union, have today also dissolved the union. It is that simple.

[RedSea]

Originally posted by Caamir:

 

 

Therefore, the “Somaliland Protectorate” had never transpired into a state of its own right to return to in 1991, as some have falsely claimed thereafter. I must re-emphasize that it had only existed for four days in which, essentially, preparations were being made for travel and, in effect, reunion with the other part. Hence, to speak of “ Somaliland” ever being a state is also a very flawed assumption. “ Somaliland” was, at best, defined by its colonial history not by its independence of only four days before immediate re-union with that other part of the partitioned Somali nation. A return to the state of “ Somaliland” represents a platitude or an empty inanity, at best.

 

 

-Somaliland, not British protectrate in this four days existed(meaning it was fully recognized and independent state):

 

_Preperations were made to unite with the South. Who made such preperation? the somalilanders themselves did. They had the will to do as they wished.

 

History in any book states that Somaliland was independent nation in the stint from of June 26-July 1st. However, whether you try to interpret your own way or not, the history will remain to be what it truelly was and that is that Somaliland did infact become independent state before they chose a union with the South.

[RedSea]

Originally posted by Caamir:

 

 

Therefore, the “Somaliland Protectorate” had never transpired into a state of its own right to return to in 1991, as some have falsely claimed thereafter. I must re-emphasize that it had only existed for four days in which, essentially, preparations were being made for travel and, in effect, reunion with the other part. Hence, to speak of “ Somaliland” ever being a state is also a very flawed assumption. “ Somaliland” was, at best, defined by its colonial history not by its independence of only four days before immediate re-union with that other part of the partitioned Somali nation. A return to the state of “ Somaliland” represents a platitude or an empty inanity, at best.

 

 

-Somaliland, not British protectrate in this four days existed(meaning it was fully recognized and independent state):

 

_Preperations were made to unite with the South. Who made such preperation? the somalilanders themselves did. They had the will to do as they wished.

 

History in any book states that Somaliland was independent nation in the stint from of June 26-July 1st. However, whether you try to interpret your own way or not, the history will remain to be what it truelly was and that is that Somaliland did infact become independent state before they chose a union with the South.

[Jacaylbaro]

Readsea, horta marmar baan kula yaabaa ,, maxaad kaga xiiqaysaaa dadkan SNPU daa u cusube ,,, u daa ruwaayadaa ha iska daawadeene

[NASSIR]

OOdweyne I knew your ***** **** brain stopped functioning decades ago.

 

Just Look at how my position and Mr. Ooge's are consistent. As a matter of fact, I came across his article right after I enunciated the facts Particularly as it regards to the content of the document.

 

You should answer the questions I raised. You don't have to prevaricate.

 

[ November 16, 2007, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar ]