Somalia: Nomadic Individualism and the Rule of Law

[Shumey]

As we all try to make sense of the insensible, i share this article with you. I know it is too long for SOL, but this historic speech-given in the 60s- sheds light on many issues affecting contemporary Somalia ..

 

 

Somalia: Nomadic Individualism and the Rule of Law

Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal

African Affairs, Vol. 67, No. 268. July 1968. pp. 219-226.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org

 

Consulted: Fri May 18 14:32:26 2007

 

SOMALIA: NOMADIC INDIVIDUALISM AND THE

RULE OF LAW

 

A talk by THE HON. MOHAMED HAJI IBRAHIM EGAL

Prime Minister of the Somali Republic

 

IT IS NOT easy to speak about Somalia. The very nature of the country, the

way of life of its people, and their cultural background, appear to evade

objective thought and rational explanation. Most of those who have chosen

Somalia as a subject for their scholarship have found themselves the inevitable

victims of one of two emotions : they have either become enamoured with the

Biblical character of the Somali way of life, the rich and the poetical language

of the people, the absolute independence of the Somali in character, thought,

behaviour and intellect-which at times may appear to outside observers as

even bordering close to anarchism ; or else they are overwhelmed with pity,

by the harsh nature of the country's environment, the persistent fight of the

Somali nomad against merciless odds, and his unawareness and even disdain

for any association with modem technological advancements and amenities.

I shall attempt today to find a happy medium between these two extremes.

However, being a Somali myself, I must forewarn and plead guilty to an

element of pride in some of the characteristics of my countrymen. Even though

many modern thinkers reject the validity of such a thing as a national character,

I personally believe that a people living in a country, conditioned to the same

elements, exposed to the same hazards, sharing the heritage of democratic

traditions, bound by language, religion and culture, and linked together by

the pursuance of a unique way of life, must inevitably develop similar

inhibitions and attitudes as well as a common and unifying philosophical code

of ethics and conventions. It is such ties that develop the characteristics common

to a nation and which can be described as its national character. This

national Somali character, therefore, with its strength, its weakness, but its

truly sublime love of freedom, strong sense of unity, and independence of spirit

forged over the centuries is what binds my people together and gives them a

pride in their institutions.

Somalia is geographically an arid country in which life is difficult and in

which the individual is engaged in a constant battle for survival. The vast

majority of the Somali people follow their nomadic way of life not from choice

but from the necessity of having continually to seek pastures for their livestock.

Grazing and water for their livestock are almost never found in close

proximity, and therefore the main part of the year is taken up by the great preoccupation

of moving the livestock to suitable pastures on the vast inland

plateaux and then driving them back to water. This process is repeated at

intervals of two to three weeks during the great dry season. The Somali

nomadic mode of life being almost unique in the world, the Somali has never

benefited from examples set elsewhere for the improvement and the amelioration

of his life. Also the previous colonial regimes that ruled the two parts of

the present Republic of Somalia made no serious attempts to interfere, for

better or for worse, with this traditional way of life. The Somali nomad was

thus left to his own initiative to develop those amenities which he considered

to be suitable to his own environment, to improve the existence of both himself

and his herds, and to build up an economy to sustain his essential needs.

Thus, practically unaided by any government, colonial or indigenous, he

has had by his own initiative and ability to improvise means of bringing water

nearer to the more permanent pastures for his livestock ; and for this purpose,

he has constructed cemented water reservoirs to retain water available during

the rainy season on the plateaux which ten years ago were only accessible to

his livestock for a few months of the year. These reservoirs-which are roughly

similar to your swimming pools in Europe-are now not only revolutionising

the economy of the nomad by almost trebling the numbers of his livestock but,

more important still, are creating permanent settlements which are slowly developing

into pastoral/agricultural villages with the resultant need for social

services. This development in the interior is happily matched by the determination

of the Somali to seek outside markets for his livestock by trading with

other countries. Again practically unaided by any government either colonial

or indigenous, he has had the good sense and the acumen to recognise the

potential and accessible markets for his livestock in the oil-rich Arab state

across the Red Sea. Today there exists a flourishing export of livestock on the

hoof to Saudi Arabia, to the Persian Gulf, to Egypt, to Kuwait and even as far

as Iraq. This in turn has enhanced the breeding of livestock in the interior.

These successful efforts are purely due to Somali diligence, initiative and

enterprise in which I and any Somali can with justification take some pride.

 

I would now like to go back to the history and the origin of this resourceful

individual, the Somali nomad. The origin of the Somali people, like that of

most other nations, is lost in the mists of history and has likewise become the

subject of mythical fables and folklore. Association with the Pharoahs as the

Land of Punt is one of these mythological fables that has received credit because

of certain evidences found in the ancient pyramids of Egypt. The history of

myrrh and frankincense shrouds Somalia with unrelated allusions in ancient

history. However my own belief is that the Somali people derive their origin

from the ancient empire of Adde whose capital was Adari, now known as

Harar, and whose main port was Audal now called Zeilah. This empire

flourished in the tenth and eleventh centuries A.D., and was part of the Arab

expansion during the Khalifate Empire. It is my opinion that after the decline

of that empire in the twelfth century those who stayed behind made their

home in the Horn of Africa, in scattered settlements among the indigenous

population. There was naturally a period of chaos when Islamic traditions disappeared and the whole country reverted to its former paganism, tribal strife, and the ' law of the jungle '. This chaos lasted for a period of several decades. Across

the Gulf of Aden, the rulers in Yemen were disturbed by the news of atrocities

and the reversion to paganism which reached them from the country over which

they had previously held suzerainty. At first they affected to ignore the situation,

but eventually after a period of reorganization in their own country and

the re-establishment of the Kingdom of the Imam, they decided to make

another attempt at resuscitating Islamic traditions in the Horn of Africa. They

decided to send over a group of eminent Sheikhs to settle at strategic points to preach and bring the people back into the fold of Islam. So, in the

earlier part of the thirteenth century, Islamic missionaries came back from

Arabian Peninsula and re-established Islam and the rule of law. The task of

these eminent Sheikhs was a tremendous one. Their main objective was to

re-establish Islam and Islamic culture and to create a society that would last

and develop within the traditions of the Islamic doctrine. So they took the

easiest and most natural course. They chose and concentrated on that portion

of the people with Arabic blood, the descendants of the people of the Adde

Empire, who were living in scattered settlements, organized them politically,

instructed them in the teaching of the Holy Koran and the Islamic tradition.

 

The rest of the population were relegated to serfdom and assigned menial tasks.

As the power of these people grew, they gradually expanded their suzerainty and

pushed the other ethnic groups further west and south.

These Sheikhs who came over from Arabia attained positions of great

stature and influence in the country. Their spheres of influence were so

strategically placed that the location of their tombs today gives a clear

impression of plan and purpose. They settled at strategic points along the coast

of the Horn of Africa. Each one concentrated on a particular settlement for

which he became a patron saint and over which he exerted a great spiritual

and secular influence. They adopted an indigenous form of teaching the Arabic

alphabet in the Somali language, so that the Holy Koran could be read in

Arabic despite the fact that the Somali could not understand its meaning.

Even today, almost every Somali can recite the Holy Koran in parrot fashion

without understanding its import and meaning. These Sheikhs, however,

achieved great success in the organization of the society and in the propagation

of Islamic doctrine. Unfortunately, over the years, the myths surrounding

these eminent Sheikhs have so developed and have become so engraved in the

minds of the people that they are regarded today as being the actual ancestors

of the different tribal groupings of the Somali people ; and whereas, in fact,

these present-day tribes are only the continuation of the settlements which these

Sheikhs organized and developed as political units. It is these myths and this

firm belief in one common ancestor for each tribal group that has set the

pattern of Somali politics in the modern age.

 

It is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of the development of the Somali

nation that, despite the original intention of these Sheikhs to bring about unity

between the different settlements, these over the years developed into hard

cores of legendary ethnic groups warring against each other in competition for

domination over pastures and over water. It was in such a state of affairs

that the first European travellers and colonisers of the Horn of Africa found the

Somali nation. This rife atmosphere lent itself easily to the designs of those

European and African powers who took pan in the infamous scramble for

Africa during the latter part of the nineteenth century. The British signed

Treaties of Protection with the coastal tribes along the Gulf of Aden and those

living in what later became the Northern Frontier District of Kenya in the

south ; during the same period the Italians established their sovereignty over

Mogadiscio and the neighbouring regions of Hiran and Alta-Juba ;and a few

years later over-threw the Bogor of Mijertainia and the Sultan of Mudug.

Emperor Menelik of Ethiopia followed suit by taking the ****** and part of

what is now the Harar Province into his Empire ;whilst the French established

themselves in Djibouti. This partition of the Somali territory and its peoples

was incorporated in a number of treaties defining spheres of influence between

these Powers. Throughout this balkanisation of the territory, Somali nationalism

was dormant. Except for the isolated and unsuccessful efforts of Sayyid

Mohamed Abdille Hassan, no unified resistance was offered by the Somali

nation to the designs of those who arbitrarily divided their country and

established suzerainty over their lives and lands. Even as late as 1946, intertribal

competition, jealousy and suspicion was so dominant that the attempt

made by Britain in the person of the Foreign Minister, the late Mr. Ernest

Bevin, to unite the whole Somali territory under British sovereignty was not

only opposed and thwarted by the major powers but was even resisted by the

Somali people. That chance of reunification, lost in the middle 1940s, is now

the utopia of a11 our endeavours and our diplomacy.

 

Soon after the last War, the first manifestations of Somali nationalism were

kindled in Mogadiscio and the first political party was established on a national

scale ; this was with the birth of the Somali Youth League, and the call of

nationalism took possession of the soul and minds of the Somali people

everywhere. From those early post-war days tribalism took second place and

nationalism became the order of the day. The once arrogant, overpowering

influence of tribal loyalties was replaced by national political consciousness.

The colonial powers recognised immediately the danger of this phenomenon

even before the Somali realized the impact and the import of this political

and social revolution. As early as 1948, the Somali Youth League was banned

and suppressed in the Ethiopian-held Somali territories as well as becoming a

proscribed association in the Northern Frontier District of Kenya. In the

former British Somaliland Protectorate, the colonial government's propaganda

was still effective and the Somali Youth League never made headway : but

the Somali National League was established and espoused the same objectives

and political aspirations.

 

It is perhaps strange that the people who permitted without concerted

resistance the partition of their territories and perhaps even indirectly encouraged

and condoned its balkanisation should react so violently in 1954 to

the cession of an area formerly held by the British to the Imperial Government

of Ethiopia. This was, however, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's

back. In the middle of the nineteenth century, only a few years after Britain

had cynically signed flamboyant Treaties of Protection with the people, it had

secretly signed treaties with Ethiopia ceding to that country a portion of those

very lands it had undertaken to protect. So, in 1954, at the zenith of the

nationalist movement of Somalia, the cession of what was known as the

Reserved Area and the Haud, the richest grazing areas of the land, their

importance enhanced by the building of the cement permanent water reservoirs

I have mentioned earlier, was like salt applied to a sore wound.

The dispute between Kenya and Somalia over the area formerly known as

the Northern Frontier District, and predominantly inhabited by Somali people,

is also a legacy of British colonialism. The British East Africa Company

signed Treaties of Protection with the tribes and subsequently handed over

responsibility for the territory to Her Majesty's Government. In 1915, the

Jubaland was given to Italy as a bribe for entering the War on the side of the

Allies, while the rest of the territory was administered as a self-contained and

completely separate area from the rest of Kenya until 1963. It was known

as a ' closed district ' and its inhabitants could only visit other parts of Kenya

by special permits and vice versa.

In 1962, at the London constitutional conference on Kenya, a delegation

from the former NFD was invited to advise the Colonial Secretary of the

political aspirations of the people. The delegation, led by their only member of

Parliament in Kenya Legislative Council, demanded secession from Kenya and

union with Somalia. The Colonial Secretary of the day gave the wise ruling

that Her Majesty's Government would appoint a Commission to go to the

NFD and ascertain the wishes of the people and would subsequently make a

decision on the findings of this Commission. 87.76 per cent of the people of

the NFD voted for union with the Somali Republic ; indeed, certain areas or

districts were unanimous and without exception in their vote for union with

Somalia. Despite this clear and undeniable manifestation, Her Majesty's

Government decided to ignore the Report of the Commission and refused to

fulfil the hope and the aspirations it had raised by its own action and by its

clear undertaking.

 

This unfortunate episode, nay, this classical example of the proverbial

perfidy of Albion caused the rupture of diplomatic relations and the severing

of the traditional ties between Somalia and Britain. Yet, throughout this long

period of unfulfilled promises, of broken treaties and of deliberate lack of

good faith, the Somali people have always maintained an inexplicable warmth

and high regard for Britain. It is perhaps a great irony that the Somalis, of

all the people in this world, should so genuinely and touchingly attribute to the

British an unimpeachable sense of justice and fair play. With all due

respect, in his own dealings with the British, the Somali was never shown

an example of this quality which he so sincerely attributed to the British.

As regards the Ethiopian sector, the military occupation by Ethiopia of

Harar in 1887 brought that country, for the first time, into direct contact with

the Somali people. A parade of Secret Treaties in the last two decades of the

nineteenth century gave Ethiopia a generous cut of the cake that was the

Somali Territory. However, the first attempt of Ethiopia to demarcate a

de facto boundary as a preliminary to setting up an administration was not

made until 1934, when an Anglo-Ethiopian Boundary Commission arrived to

implement the 1897 Agreement. This resulted in a storm of protest by the

Somali peoples, but the Italian occupation of Ethiopia, following the outbreak

of hostilities in 1935, caused the issue to fall in abeyance until the defeat of

Italy, and the restoration of Ethiopian independence, in 1942. Here, as in the

NFD, the Somali inhabitants had refused, and still categorically refuse, to

accept foreign claims to their territory, and the whole area is under military

rule as well as under emergency regulations. The continued unrest, together

with the difficulties which the nomadic tribes encounter in their seasonal

migrations, are a constant irritation and threat to stability ; which at times

has even resulted not only in armed conflict between the Somali tribes and

the Ethiopian occupation forces, but also in clashes between the Somali

Republic and Ethiopia.

 

This lamentable partitioning of the Somali people and their territories has

left the Somali Republic in a dilemma. As the only independent sovereign

Somali state, it has assumed the inevitable role of championing the cause of

those other Somali territories still under alien authority. These now find themselves,

with the exception of French Somaliland, the unnatural and the

unwilling appendages of other sister African states. Consequently, Somalia has

found itself in confrontation with these African states.

Somalia on its part cannot understand how the natural political aspirations

of the Somali peoples in these territories, and its own equally natural role and

responsibility to their cause could possibly be misunderstood and taken amiss

by any one with any clear knowledge and insight of the Somali problem. On

the other hand, the leaders of our neighbouring states share the view that it

is intolerable to have a sister African state interfering with what they consider

to be the internal affairs of their countries. These two diametrically opposed

concepts of the problem have led to bitterness, to open conflict and to unbecoming

postures and attitudes of confrontation.

Such was the situation which my Government inherited when it took office

in July 1967.

 

We immediately decided to make this problem our first concern in formulating

the new policies of the country. Naturally, the aims and the political

objectives of the Somali people are unalterable and are enshrined in our

constitution, viz, that we are obliged to seek the unification of the Somali

territories through peaceful and legal means. It was however open to us to

alter the policy of confrontation and to seek accommodation for a detente with

our neighbours as a preliminary to creating a suitable atmosphere without

abandoning the context of our political aspirations and objectives. From the

outset, we made it clear on every possible occasion that, as the Somali

Republic, we have no policy of aggrandizement against our neighbours, neither

do we want to claim territory that is not our own. We are, however,

irretrievably bound by unbreakable ties to our Somali brethren who still have

not had the opportunity freely to choose their own political destiny. Of the

five segments into which the Somali nation was artificially partitioned, only

two, namely the Somali Republic, have attained their right of self-determination.

It is only natural that the remaining three segments should also

seek to exercise this freedom of political expression, and whether they obtain

support from outside sources including Somalia is irrelevant to their own

struggle for independence. The desire for freedom stems from within and is

not being imposed from external sources as some would make the world believe.

This innate national and political consciousness is the real root of the problem

and the source of the continuous friction between the Somali peoples and the

governments which now control them. Therefore, at the OAU Summit Conference

in Kinshasa, I made tentative approaches to the leaders of both of

our neighbours, and I am glad to say that my initiatives have been richly

rewarded by a reciprocal show of goodwill and a desire for peaceful negotiations

from my colleagues across the border. The Arusha Memorandum of Understanding

which I signed with President Mzee Jomo Kenyatta last September

has not touched upon the substance of our dispute with Kenya, but it has

set up a firm foundation for an understanding and machinery for a mutual

quest for a solution to the dispute. Its salient point is that Kenya recognises the

existence of a major dispute and lends itself to seeking a solution for its

settlement, whilst Somalia on its part undertakes to respect the sovereignty of

Kenya. It is my sincere hope that in the process of discussing possible

solutions to the dispute, and in the mental engagement of thinking out possible

proposals acceptable to those directly involved, we shall eventually turn up

with an equitable solution acceptable to all concerned. In that alone, there is

hope ; and there is no valid reason why there should not be a good chance for

settlement so long as there is goodwill and so long as both parties are realistic

in their approach. In the meantime, we have decided to leave the people in the

area in peace in the pursuit of their daily life, unimpeded by emergency

regulations and by political strife. I have great confidence in the personal

relationship which I have established with the Mzee, and I am convinced that

he is just as anxious as I am to solve this problem once and for all.

 

In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to say that even though Somalia

has never before taken a prominent role in African affairs, yet our people have

shared the anxieties, the misgivings and the tribulations of other African states

over certain events taking place on our continent. Prominent among those

events is the question of Rhodesia and the illegal regime of Ian Smith. I do

not think it is wise for African leaders to ignore facts and to blind themselves

to the realities of any situation. I am for giving credit where credit is due,

because it is only then that the condemnation of the wicked can be forceful

and effective. I should like to pay a special tribute to the present

Government of Her Majesty for the decision to continue their arms

embargo against South Africa. This measure is all the more significant as

it was taken at a time when Britain was in the grip of its greatest financial

crisis. I know that this decision was made out of deference to African public

opinion, and therefore, it would be more than unfortunate if African leaders

failed to appreciate this most magnanimous gesture of goodwill to Black

Africa. Nevertheless this appreciation is no compensation for our disappointment

and abhorrence of the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards

Rhodesia and towards the illegal regime of Ian Smith. An eminent spokesman

of the Labour Party said in a recent BBC interview ' that sanctions against

Rhodesia had not failed but only they had not succeeded.'! I can only say

that this is a subterfuge of the flimsiest guise, and the closing chapter of the

splendour and the glory of the British Empire should have had a worthier and

a more becoming finale than the tolerance of the absolute negation of its lofty

fundamental principles by a band of terrified traitors.