Why Somali Unity Case Won’t Fly?

[Jacaylbaro]

For almost two decades a debate between supporters and opponents of Somaliland independence raged over its recognition. But lately, Somali unionists’ unity assertion is waning away while Somalilanders appear determined to win their country’s sovereignty. And although the debate has taken many turns and twists, it may hit rock bottom soon.

 

The following paragraphs summarize points made by both the proponents and opponents of Somaliland independence.

 

Con: If Somaliland is recognized, the population in parts of Sool and in Eastern Sanag regions of Somaliland would rebel against independence—a civil war would erupt.

Pro: first, unlike before many people in those regions now support Somaliland. Besides, without marginalizing anyone, ignorantly or intentionally, even if they oppose Somaliland’s recognition that is their God-given right, but they don’t make up the bulk of Somaliland population and in real democracy the majority always rules. Similarly, if the population for instance in Togdheer or Sahil regions oppose Somaliland independence—they too don’t make up the majority of the population. Furthermore, the inhabitants of parts of Sool and Eastern Sanag regions have been coexisting peacefully with the rest of Somaliland population for the past almost 20 years, so arming themselves to attack Somaliland Army, all of a sudden, is inconceivable, if not suicidal. What’s more, Sool and Eastern Sanag population luckily escaped the chaos that pulverized Somaliland to dust in late 80s, and they are not willing to voluntarily start a firestorm. For sure, they would not even permit Somalia to attack Somaliland through their region—much less instigate a war against Somaliland on their own. In addition, some of the finest Somaliland Army commanders and politicians in fact hail from Sool and Eastern Sanag regions.

 

Also, rest assured Somaliland government won’t be dumb enough to impose its authority forcefully on those regions after it’s recognized. Indeed, as the record shows, Somaliland policy towards those regions has been very diligent. Hargeisa—Somaliland capital—proved clearly that it can handle any crisis in the country effectively and peacefully. Repeatedly, its effective strategy to pacify the country has been demonstrated by the authority's willingness to negotiate with local tribes. And once Somaliland gets its recognition, if anything, the government will be more cautious towards those regions rather than provoke them. It is far more logical for the people in those regions to join and participate in all aspects of Somaliland society than to wage a war against the government, especially, when no one is shoving Somaliland down their throats and they are in full control of their land and its resources. So the feeble assertion—the population will revolt against Somaliland independence has no merit and reached a deadened.

 

Even if they are allowed to join Somalia, and Somaliland becomes independence, for sure you will have some *********** and ********** tribes from the regions in question who would say, “We are part of Somaliland historically, geographically and culturally. Our bloodlines run deep in the rest of Somaliland people, and we want to be part of our society”. A case in point: my brother-in-low who hails from *********** tribes of Sool region and in fact members of his tribe don’t want to have anything to do with *****ten tribes of Puntland much less join Southern Somalia. So in essence, while we try to please some tribes in Sool and Eastern Sanag by allowing them to join Somalia as they wish, we strip others of their inalienable rights to remain within Somaliland. So what now? Even if Somaliland abandons Sool and Eastern Sanag that doesn’t mean finally those regions will reach a lasting peace.

 

Con: Recognizing Somaliland will destabilize Somalia.

Pro: What there is left to destabilize, in the first place? Could Somalia be worse than it is now? Of course not! After all, with the exception of trade, Somalia and Somaliland have not been interconnected politically and militarily for the past 18 years, so the notion that Somaliland recognition will make Somalia more chaotic than it is now is absurd, if not ludicrous. Why?

 

The preceding unionists’ argument is equivalent of saying: once recognition is granted, much needed International funding would pour into Somaliland; it would be able to borrow money to rebuild its roads and institutions; its economy would grow; its people would have jobs, education, access to clean water and health care system; it would rebuild its navy to protect its marine resources—no longer would it lose millions of dollars every year to illegal fishing; it would rebuild the environment and fight against deforestation; it would collect small weapons from the public to further pacify the country; it would remove thousands of landmines buried in the country, which are still killing people after 18 years—and such progresses would destabilize Somalia. Patently, that is a backward mentality.

 

To the contrary, Somaliland recognition would be a blessing in disguise for Somalia, if not for the whole region. Somaliland is the only country that can honestly mediate the Somali warring factions—and they too know that fact. So without a doubt, recognizing Somaliland would mean the end of chaos and anarchy in Somalia.

 

Similarly, Somaliland could mediate Ethiopia and ****** Liberation Front ONLF rebels who have been fighting for their self-determination in the Eastern region of Ethiopia known as ******ia.

 

Con: Somaliland cannot stand on its own economically.

Pro: Yet it has been on its own for the past 18 years without tangible foreign aid or recognition. And despite the Arab countries’ embargo imposed on Somaliland livestock and their efforts to isolate Hargeisa politically and economically, and despite that the Western countries pay fake lip services to boosting Somaliland economy, and despite Africa’s indifference to Somaliland’s economic and political limbo—against all odds, Somaliland stands strong in the Horn of Africa. Shouldn’t Somalilanders have starved to death by now? Isn’t miracle why Hargeisa hasn’t disappeared from the radar system yet?

 

Con: Somaliland is too small to be a country.

Pro: Yet as Mrs. Edna Adan Ismail—the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Somaliland—explains in her paper entitled, “The case of Unitary Government in Africa”, Somaliland: is bigger than 80 countries including England and Wales combined, and Somaliland has a larger population than 83 countries are full members of the United Nations.” http://tinyurl.com/2g64wy Case closed! There isn’t much to argue about this notion. Again, the assertion that Somaliland is too small collapses all by itself just as stars collapse into a black hole.

 

Con: Somaliland doesn’t fully control its borders.

Pro: Neither do many other countries control their borders. Not even powerful nations armed with nuclear weapons do fully control their borders. The U.S. struggles with hundreds of illegal Mexican immigrants crossing its borders every day. Similarly, Pakistan exerts little control over some of its big provinces. Russia is another case. It does not control all its territory either. Also, most of the African nations don’t fully manage their borders. So how is Somaliland different?

 

With exception of small remote towns and villages in Eastern Sanag and parts of Sool, Somaliland is in charge of all its six provinces including their provincial capitals.

 

Con: Recognizing Somaliland would open the door for Africa’s disintegration—it would open a can of worms.

Pro: First, Somaliland does not violate the African Union A.U. charter about changes to borders. The A.U. charter states that pre-independent borders cannot be changed. Remember, Somaliland got its independence before Somalia; and Somaliland joined Somalia voluntarily. Second unlike Somaliland, Eritrea—which wasn’t even an independent country when the colonials departed—didn’t open a can of worms after it succeeded from Ethiopia. And as a new republic, Southern Sudan is about to be cantoned from the rest Sudan. Additionally, as Mrs. Edna states, “…the dissolved marriage between Senegal and Mali in 1960, Egypt and Syria in 1961, Rwanda and Burundi in 1962, Senegal and Gambia in 1968, Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau in 1975…” did not open a can of worms. http://tinyurl.com/2g64wy So why would Somaliland be an exception? Clearly, there isn’t a shred of evidence that indicates recognising Somaliland would further dismantle Africa into smaller states.

 

Con: We don’t believe the colonial borders; they were drawn by the “white man”.

Pro: Tell me one single border in the world that the “white man” didn’t draw? Besides, if you don’t believe the colonial borders, how come no one is making a big fuss about Djibouti borders? Shouldn't it part of greater Somalia too? (Blame selective amnesia!)

 

Con: Somaliland and Somalia belong to a homogenous society. We are the same ethnic with the same culture, religion and language, so we should not break up.

Pro: Inarguably, Somalis belong to one family. However, the majority of Arabs too have the same culture, religion and language, yet they have their own separate countries. Americans, Canadians, Australians, Brits, and New Zealanders belong to the same people, with the exception of their diverse minority communities. Yet they have their own separate countries. So while we are undeniably the same ethnic, we have different interests and strategies. And there is no doctrine craved into stone that binds us together forever.

 

Con: Ethiopia is our enemy and it is bent to destroy Somalia.

Pro: Ethiopia is our natural adversary. Surely, Ethiopia would seize every opportunity to achieve its goal to neutralize its rival. However, it wasn’t Ethiopia that compelled Somaliland to separate from Somalia. Just revisit our dark history.

 

Con: The world is becoming a smaller place. Even the Europeans are uniting to form a common front against their adversaries and have an economic cooperation, so there is no point for us to disintegrate.

Pro: (Monkey see monkey do!) For one thing, the nascent European unity has a lot to learn from our failed unity. That is, 49 years ago we established unity and failed three decades later. Way before globalization or European unity surfaced, in June 26, 1960 we came together; thirty one years later the union between Somaliland and Somalia ended in bitterness. Somaliland declared its independence in May 18, 1991. So why should we join Somalia again and possibly experience another free fall into abbeys? Better safe now than sorry later!

 

For another, the European unity allows each country to stand as a separate nation with its own flag, army, borders, and all the other characteristics of a state, so if Somalia is really ready to form the European style of unity with Somaliland—we’re all ears.

 

Con: A referendum should be conducted among all Somalis to ask whether Somaliland should break away.

Pro: How naïve do you think we are on a scale of one to ten? Remember, in 1961 when a group of Northern (Somaliland) disgruntle army colonels staged a coup against the Mogadishu regime, because they were very unhappy that the fact Somaliland got nothing in power sharing, instead of addressing their grievances, the Somali regime conducted a nationwide referendum about whether Somaliland should remain within the union or break away; and of course, as it was easily predicted, overwhelmingly the Somali population said no to Somaliland’s quest to withdraw from the union. So for us, to let Somalis decide our fate again would be ******. No thanks! We would pass this time.

 

Besides, when we joined Somalia in 1960, it was not the Somalis who decided whether Somaliland should join Somalia. It was the Somaliland people who out of love for their Southern fellow Somalis joined the union without any preconditions. So once again, only Somaliland people can have a say about their future.

 

Furthermore, every society in the world decided its fate. A case in point: the population in Quebec province of Canada, a French speaking society, goes to the polls once every few years to vote whether they should remain as part of Canada, or stand as a separate entity. In other words, the rest of Canada does not decide the fate of Quebecers.

 

By the same token, Somalis won’t decide the fate of Somaliland people. Period! See the beautiful pictures of Somaliland people demanding their independence. http://tinyurl.com/3bw6r4 or http://tinyurl.com/2l6zkg Looking at the pictures of these flag-waving patriotic Somaliland crowd, it is unimaginable to see them joining Somalia again.

 

Con: In 2001 referendum on Somaliland independence was not fair because the population in parts of Sool and Eastern Sanag regions didn’t participate in it.

Pro: Truly, not all the population in those regions voted. First, it was their God-given right not to vote, if they didn’t want, which was the case. Second, in democracy if you don’t vote someone else would vote for you—someone else would decide your fate. Also 97.1% of those who voted agreed to stand as a separate country. So if someone didn’t vote, that is his/her loss as well as right. And despite the unionists’ baseless claims that the referendum was not fair, the facts state otherwise. According to the International observers the referendum was: "Openly, fairly, honestly, and largely in accordance with internationally recognized election procedures." http://www.somalilandtimes.net/Archive/44/4407.htm

 

Allowing minority unionist groups (perhaps from every region in Somaliland) hijack the wishes of majority is not only undemocratic but also poses far more threats to Somaliland than earthquakes do. Remember, Somalia collapsed in the 90s because small minority dictated the majority. We must not reinvent the wheel.

 

Also, don’t forget half of the Somaliland populations have been born the last 20 years. This means the only nation they know as theirs is Somaliland and its flag. Similarly thousands of young Somaliland Diasporas can only relate to Somaliland because for almost two decades they haven’t missed the Somaliland celebration day, May 18.

 

It is important to note: many older Somaliland generations argue because of the marginalization of Somaliland people during Gen. Siade Barre’s regime and the horrific atrocity committed against them in late 80’s, they won’t have anything do with Somalia any more.

 

Others, especially the younger generation, it is not so much of what happened in the past that triggers them to chauvinistically advocate for independence, they just don’t see the benefit of unity. Also, they may not relate to the atrocities of the 80’s, however; the relentless attacks towards Somaliland from unionists, the failed Somali regimes’ repeated claims of having jurisdictions over Somaliland—when they barely control few blocks in Mogadishu—and showcasing a handful of pro-unity Somaliland individuals in Somali government to obfuscate the reality on the ground, just to name few blunders, have compelled younger Somalilander to pursue independence.

 

Con: Somaliland is dominated by one tribe.

Pro: So are the majority of the African and Middle Eastern countries. For example, former Somalia was dominated by one tribe. Actually, the former regime was referred to as the MOD (*******, ******, ***********) government. http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo016/fmo016-2.htm Similarly, Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti are controlled by Trigray, Kukuya and Issa tribes. Hence, Somaliland is not immune to this plague of tribal domination, but unlike many countries, Somaliland’s dominant tribe—****—is at least willing to share power with the other tribes. And in fact, the current democratically elected president of Somaliland, Mr. Dahir Riyale Kahin hails from none-**** tribes namely, Gudabiirsay.

 

Also, no offence to anyone but both ********** and ******ia are known regions found in the map. They both associate with tribal names. But have you ever heard Isaqenia or Hawiyenia? (**** and ******: dominant tribes in Somaliland and Southern Somalia, respectively.)

 

For Somaliland opponents, neither making tireless efforts to disintegrate Somaliland along tribal lines, nor protesting against Somaliland independence and launching a smear campaign against Somaliland and its leaders would let you win the hearts and minds of Somaliland people. If anything, the strategy for achieving unity has so far backfired. See these links for more nonsensical rants towards Somaliland:

http://www.awdalnews.com/wmview.php?ArtID=11281 and http://tinyurl.com/32wswz

 

Con: Somaliland is occupying Sool and Eastern Sanag, and it is forcing the population who wish not to be part of Somaliland to join it.

Pro: first, if the preceding argument holds water, why isn’t the population fighting back? Second, it was the population in those regions that evicted Puntland militias from Sool province. http://www.somalilandtimes.net/sl/2007/301/9.shtml

 

Pro: the population in parts of Sool and Eastren Sanag share tribal lineages with that of Puntland people. Therefore, these regions should remain part of Puntland.

Con: that argument cuts both ways. What about those who strongly feel that they are geographically, culturally and historical part of Somaliland that the pro-unity groups constantly label them as “traitors”? Also, isn’t hypocritical to claim advocating for unity while promoting the interest of certain tribes?

 

Col.Abdullahi Yussuf, a former warlord from Puntland region and president of the recent collapsed Somali regime, annexed Las Anod, the provincial capital of Sool region, in 2003. He argued since Lasnnoders have tribal affiliations with Puntlanders, the city should be part of his tribal fiefdom. Similarly, he claimed Eastern Sanag region and the border village of Buhodle in Togdheer province of Somaliland.

 

Now here is something to dwell on: the border between Somaliland and Ethiopia cuts Buhodle village into half. Puntland leaders resolutely oppose the Somaliland section to remain part of the country because the villagers share tribal lineages with Puntland people not with Somaliland’s. That is,Villagers are part of the ***** tribes: *****ten, ********** and ***********. However, these leaders have no objection—at all—to the second half of the village to remain within Ethiopia. Let me get this right! So then a mind-boggling question is: are the residents of Buhodle ethnically closer to Tigrians (Ethiopians) than to Somaliland people? Of course not! This is the problem with Puntland leaders and some unionists. Time and time again, where logic and common sense prevail, they fail.

 

Con: people in Sool and Eastern Sanag should join Somalia as they wish.

Pro: Be careful what you ask for—you may not like it. Hypothetically speaking let’s say Somaliland agreed to join Somalia. Now we have the republic of Somalia (Somaliland and Southern Somalia). What if the Issa tribes of Somaliland in Awdal region decide to join Djibouti? After all they have tribal “lineages” with the people of Djibouti. We must respect their wishes too. Now the tribal affiliation crap is backfiring, isn’t it?

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

The logical reasoning to keep Somaliland and Somalia together fails all by itself. Those who advocate for Somali unity fall short to shed some light on the benefits of Somali unity versus separation. Much of their argument is based on emotional reasoning—not rational thinking. The unionists cannot convince the average layman (like me) to stay within the union much less persuade the world to hold back Somaliland recognition.

 

In fact, out of frustration, the unionists in many occasions cause more harm than good to Somali unity—a counterproductive strategy. Too often when they fail to put their point across, they resort to maliciously attacking Somaliland and its people, the very same country that they want to bring back to Somalia. Paradoxically, unity is often hacked to death by the same people who pretend to promote it. Ignoring their emotional keen-jerk, the unionists fail miserably to convince the world the benefits of Somali unity versus separation.

 

Also, many unionists don’t believe the international observed and approved Somaliland referendum on independence held in 2001; they also don’t accept Somaliland borders because they were drawn by the British. Yet they have no problems with Djibouti borders. They also have no problem with ripping Somaliland apart as to create feuding tribes and establishing tribal borders.

 

Doubtlessly, under the pretext of advocating for the self-determination of Sool and Eastern Sanag people and campaigning for Somali unity, the so-called Somali unionists have been wrecking havoc in Somaliland and dividing its people along tribal lines—while these unionists have their houses burning in Somalia.

 

Furthermore, unionists call anyone from Sool or Eastern Sanag that supports Somaliland—a “traitor”. Well, for that matter the rest of Somaliland people who support independence are also traitors by default. Then the question is: why would unionists want to unite with Somaliland—a country filled with “traitors”? You see the problem is: unionists speak out of both sides of their mouth.

 

And above all, unionists want to make sure the Somaliland section of Buhodle village remains part of Puntland, but they have no objection to the second half to be part of Ethiopia.

 

But in all fairness to unionists, not all of them see the destruction of Somaliland as prerequisite for Somali unity.

 

As for Somaliland, the people in parts of Sool, Eastern Sanag as well as other regions have the right to exercise their freedom and voice out their opposition to Somaliland independence peacefully. But since Somaliland is a democratic state, it will be heading whatever direction the majority chooses without marginalizing sections of our society. The majority spoke loud and clear: 97.1% voted for independence in 2001.

 

Evidently, day after day as Hargeisa disappears into a thick fog, panic attacks increase among the unionists. But they should know better not to worry. Just as easily we joined Somalia in 1960 so too we can simply withdraw from the union.

 

Somalilanders have been rebuilding their country for almost the past 20 years, so why should we hand a working administration with its flag, army, police force and currency to Somalia again, as we did in 1960? Are we supposed to gamble with our lives every few decades, just to start from scratch again?

 

 

 

Dalmar Kaahin

dalmar_k@yahoo.com

[Che -Guevara]

load of crap

[Jacaylbaro]

You did not read it all in 3 minutes ,,,,

[AfricaOwn]

^^Mind is conditioned to against SL . These dudes don't warrant No dialogue. Just shoot them in the head if they ever approach you.

[Che -Guevara]

This is an intellectual fart.Xaaji high on jaad wrote this.

[Jacaylbaro]

Mind is conditioned to against SL

.... Taaba dheh

[Maaddeey]

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro:

You did not read it all in 3 minutes ,,,,

Haddaad wada akhrisay, inta nuxurka le highlight saar.

[Thankful]

Con: Recognizing Somaliland would open the door for Africa’s disintegration—it would open a can of worms.

Pro: First, Somaliland does not violate the African Union A.U. charter about changes to borders. The A.U. charter states that pre-independent borders cannot be changed. Remember, Somaliland got its independence before Somalia; and Somaliland joined Somalia voluntarily. Second unlike Somaliland, Eritrea—which wasn’t even an independent country when the colonials departed—didn’t open a can of worms after it succeeded from Ethiopia.

And as a new republic, Southern Sudan is about to be cantoned from the rest Sudan. Additionally, as Mrs. Edna states, “…the dissolved marriage between Senegal and Mali in 1960, Egypt and Syria in 1961, Rwanda and Burundi in 1962, Senegal and Gambia in 1968, Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau in 1975…” did not open a can of worms.

http://tinyurl.com/2g64wy

So why would Somaliland be an exception? Clearly, there isn’t a shred of evidence that indicates recognising Somaliland would further dismantle Africa into smaller states.

The nations that Mr.Dalmar Kaahin mentioned that gained independence are actually examples of why poor nations should not be given independence! Mali is considered one of the poorest countries in the world; Guinea-Bissau's per-capita gross domestic product is one of the lowest in the world. About a third of Gambia's population lives below the international poverty line of US$1.25 a day. We all know what happened in Rwanda! So as you can see the international community is reluctant to give anymore poor African enclaves independence because doing so will almost immediately result in them knocking on their door and begging for money! NW Somalia has a huge drug problem and is dependent on foreign aid and remittance from the Diaspora. That's why no nation is willing to recognize it. Those other poor African countries are example of the problems that will cause.

 

It's obvious to all that the only reason South Sudan is of such great interest is because of its oil wealth. There are many countries that have a substantial economic interest in seeing them break away from Northern Sudan. Do you think if South Sudan was not rich in oil we would be hearing about their referendum for independence or the war crimes in Darfur? Of course not the conflict would have been ignored like so many other African ones.

The key is that there is no economic interest in recognizing NW Somalia, if they had proven oil reserves like South Sudan (Arab states) or rich in other resources, it would be a completely different story! But since they do not, the rest of the world has no time to recognize an enclave that has nothing to offer it in return. Djibouti has proven to be useful as a strategic military base, so NW Somalia wouldn’t be needed.

[AfricaOwn]

Originally posted by Thankful:

NW Somalia has a huge drug problem and is dependent on foreign aid and remittance from the Diaspora. That's why no nation is willing to recognize it. Those other poor African countries are example of the problems that will cause.

 

Why is Somalia currently recognized then? What do they contribute internationally? They oughta be un-recognized based on what you're saying.

[Thankful]

Come on, you can't unrecognize a country! It was formally recognized because of its importance during the cold war and even before that the french, british and italians took parts of it because of it's startegic location.

[AfricaOwn]

Originally posted by Thankful:

Come on, you can't unrecognize a country! It was formally recognized because of its importance during the cold war and even before that the french, british and italians took parts of it because of it's startegic location.

Why are they needed NOW?

 

and just..

 

Originally posted by Thankful:

Djibouti has proven to be useful as a strategic military base, so NW Somalia wouldn’t be needed.

[AfricaOwn]

double

[Taleexi]

Dalmar is a sick man with twisted, and distorted reasoning. As we know it: Dalmar has only jurisdiction over his tri-cities so, if he is a wise man he should speak on behalf of his capacity.

[Hales]

The question should be why you should seccede in the first place? because the article doesnt address it just talks about the implications in case seccionism happens.

 

There are no solid reasons for seccession, seccessionism is usually based on ethnic differences. In this case their are none

 

Edit: its saddening how British colonialism has ruined the Somali people; i cant think of a nation in Africa thats been affected this much, colonialism has already been universally agreed on to have a negative impact on the ruled people for example all the genocides in Africa such as in Rwanda, the ****** from Ethiopia, Kuwait, Kurds and Christian Iraqis in Iraq, the division of Korea into North and South. In every case its been mainly negative.

 

And the cajiib thing after all the deaths the crazies from the Northwest base everything on it.

 

Even the British are laughing at the ********* of that country, otherwise they would have recognized you. Theyve used that territory simply for their own gain for travel between India and youll use to create more bloodshed and more division between the Somali people.

 

 

Actually simple there will be no Somaliland, were either going to invade you lot by force or if that doesnt work introduce a one Somalia policy; like the one used against Taiwan by China

So in any case the international community would be forced not to recognized you

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

First of all somaliland in an independent state located in the horn of africa somaliland borders Djibouti to the west , And Ethiopia to the south And Somalia to the east

Somaliland has a unique history

 

Somaliland was a separate colony and gained it’s independence from the United Kingdom in 1960 before the illegal merger with the then Italian Somalia.Which was under a united nation Trustship for 10 years.

Upon it’s independence Somaliland was granted UN member ship and recognised by some 34 countries.

Its not about being poor, its more about that you can Be independent and have all the resources and manage it in a right way in your country and the man power and the leadership to furfill all of that you need to be functional state.

Somaliland is a self reliant nation with working Democratic institution also it has an independent judicary system a police force a millatary force A navy all of that said. Somaliland is a Functional State.

 

So somaliland has proved itsself as a fully capable state with a stable economy.

As for pan somalism for the somali speaking people and uniting all those areas under one Administration is something that becomes day after day just a fairytale.

Somali is just a language there is no point of uniting somali speaking people there are 23 arab countries in the world,how many countries Are English Speaking countries?

Somaliland is a democracy and promotes Equality and peace, and is built on a consensus amongst its diverse population

we are an example for the koonfurians who are blowing up Mosques in mogadisho