“The “SOMALILAND� MYTHOLOGY INDICTED Calling the Spade a Spade

[Xudeedi]

This is just Part I of what is to be a longer debate on this issue. Finally, our brother, Abdalla Hirad, would let us, we, the unionists and the secessionists, see the light at the end of the tunnel. He delves into the subject from every perspective, personal testimony, legal implication, John Lock's second treatise on the "state on nature", expert testimony such that Samatar, Lewis, Faisal Roble, etc.

 

“The “SOMALILAND†MYTHOLOGY INDICTED

Calling the Spade a Spade

Part I:The Charges

By: Abdalla A. Hirad

May 03,2006

 

 

Source

[RedSea]

aaaaah same old arguments, Allahu Akbar when will this cycle of nonsense ever stop from both sides.

[Xudeedi]

I probably think you and Duke have something in common. Why do you use words like "Garbage", "nonsense" when you can formulate a well-written opinion that can be filtered and siphoned into this discussion.

 

In my opinion, vulgar words you nomads employ are a violation to the Golden rules of this thread/forum, but they go undetected all the time.

 

 

From: Hargeysa, Somalistan

 

 

Mr. Red Sea, how quick are you to climb on the bandwagon of Somalistan.

[NASSIR]

I congratulate the author for the monumenal work he has done. I can relate to that article for its academic

richness, eloquence, and length in pursuing the

subject case by case.

 

I gather he will be writing Part II and III as the paper states. Saxib, this one is Tsunami and I think that this time the never-ending pool of secessionist articles that have been submerging us will be to put to rest.

 

Thanks

[RedSea]

ASSALAMU CALAYKUM,

 

The reason that I won't give any meaningful feed back or a opinion to this article that you claimed is well scripted is because the article itself doesn't carry any meaningful message that we can all benefit from. It's basically a Qabilist minded fellow who is accusing of others of being Qabilists, is that something that deserves a pleasant feed back from any reader. Because basically literacy looses any importance once minused like this author and his respondents have.

 

Suprise suprise Mr. Maakhir, have you given up on your "Maakhirland" independent state dream my freind, how quick of you to get off you Maakhirland bandwagon.

[Xudeedi]

Man, you are very unethical, insecure and fanatic in such blaring aspersions that you are casting on the author when you have nothing fruitful to add into the discussion.

 

On top of that, I find it hard to believe that you would start with "Asalamu Caleykum" (our holy greeting) and utter such charges without proof or constructive criticism.

 

 

Be crafty, inventive; make your message powerful by attacking the message of anyone you disagree with, not him personally.

 

Someone said, 'You can curse like a stevedore and yell like a fishwife, if it fits your mind ' I disagree with him. Look at the opposite

 

 

Suprise suprise Mr. Maakhir, have you given up on your "Maakhirland" independent state dream my freind, how quick of you to get off you Maakhirland bandwagon.

Where have I said I was dreaming of Maakhirland. Saxib, I don't even think you are a genuine Northerner. You are just here to distort the image of our Northern brothers. They are more strong than you can portray them to be

as though they have a deep-seated anxiety about their National Identity

 

 

 

 

Asalamu Aleykum. :cool:

 

 

I recommed you visit this thread, read # 9

http://www.somaliaonline.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000773

[Xudeedi]

Icons of Somali Unity: Invisible to foreigners like Professor Jhazbhay

 

 

By:Omar Ali Haji

Qarshe Tima-Ade International Center

May 03,2006

 

Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay’s namesake Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, was a great Muslim poet and philosopher. Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal was a pioneer of Muslim unity and played an important role in the creation of the great state of Pakistan. Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal called for unity all over the world, while Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay of South Africa calls for the balkanization of a homogeneous African country.

 

Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay’s country of South Africa stands for unity, reconciliation and brotherhood. When Nelson Mandela gained his freedom and walked out of Robin Island, after spending half of his productive life in the prisons of a repressive regime, he opted for uniting his country despite its painful past. South Africa owes its greatness to its diverse ethnic groups. People of different race, colour and ethnicity live, and work side by side, to build a great nation. Yet, Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay, is calling for the balkanization of a homogeneous African country.

 

Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay serves on the ANC’s Commission of Religious Affairs. It is an awesome responsibility that calls for dialogue among people of different ethnicity and religions. On the contrary, the Professor is calling for the balkanization of a homogeneous African country.

 

Somali Unity may be invisible to some

It is the responsibility of knowledgeable historians to educate the Professor about this homogeneous African country and its right to remain united. This unity may not be visible to foreigners like Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay.

 

Somalis have more in common than the people in South Africa. Somalis, regardless of their regional affiliations share the same ethnicity, speak the same language, follow the same religion, and have the same colour. Following the European scramble for Africa, Somalia fell prey to colonial rule and ended up being carved into several spheres of influence. After the Second World War, Somali speaking people became united again under the victorious power, Britain. For unknown reasons, Britain handed back the south to Italy, a fascist country that lost the war, the Northern Frontier District to Kenya, and the Haud and Reserved areas to Ethiopia. Britain’s brutal behaviour was nothing short of, the divide and rule tactics it used to divide African and Arabian Peninsula countries into small powerless states.

 

Despite the lack of a central government, a protracted civil war and the creation of many seemingly autonomous enclaves like Somaliland and Puntland, Somalis have many icons that unite them. Some of these icons that are unique and undeniable are:

 

Daallo unites Somali Cities

 

There is an airline called Daallo. It is based in Dubai. It is owned by a number of businessmen from the North and the South. It flies to all parts of Somalia to connect Somalis. It has branches in all major cities of Somalia. It brings mangoes, papaya and bananas from the south to Hargesia and transports kat from Hargeisa to the south. It is the most unifying symbol Somalis have today.

 

DahabShiil Unites Somalia’s Finances

 

There is a money transfer agency called Dahabshiil. It is based in Hargeisa, and owned by a businessman from the north. It has branches in all the villages and cities of Somalia where people transfer money to their families. Its employees travel freely all over Somalia without hindrance.

 

Telecom Groups connect Somali families

 

Several telecom groups, such as Somali Telecom Group STG, unite Somalia’s telecom companies in the North and the South. They have microwave towers that extend from Lughaya in the northwest to Raskambone in the south. They connect Somalis all over Somalia.

 

Qarshe and Tima-Ade unite Somalia’s hopes for a united Somalia

 

The legacy of the great composer and singer from the north, Abdillaahi Qarshe taught Somalis to love their country, and their flag with its 5-edged star. Here is a passage from his famous song for the beloved flag:

Every nation has its own flag

Ours is as blue as the sky

On a cloudless day

Let us fall in love with its beauty

O white Star

 

You have given us hope

You are our first-born

Rise and shine like the bright sun

 

Somalis also share the legacy of a great northern poet of Allama Iqbal’s caliber who alerted them to the destructive nature of tribalism decades before they destroyed their beautiful country as a result of tribal divisions. His name is Abdillaahi Suldaan Tima-Ade, and he had a great vision for a united Somalia.

 

Traditional Leaders solve Somali disputes

 

Somalis have a dynamic system to resolve conflicts in the north and in the south. Recently, some of Somali traditional leaders in the north helped bring peace to Puntland by successfully mediating between two warring sides. Somalis from every walk of life hope that they will do the same in the south as well.

 

Nomads unite Somalia’s seemingly-autonomous enclaves

 

 

Somali Nomads move freely even across international borders. Their constant search for water and grazing areas take them across different areas of influence that foreign observers may think of as rigid boundaries. Camels grazing in the north may move to the Ethiopian side of the border or to grazing areas in the south in the time of drought. Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay must know that, more than 70% of the Somali people are nomads, and it is not wise of him to suggest locking them in Bantustans like the apartheid regime tried unsuccessfully to do to South Africa.

 

These important icons of unity should help foreigners ignore and not be fooled by the rhetoric, political manoeuvring and shameful petty differences among the politicians. Somalis are one people and should remain one.

 

Achievements in the North and the hopes for the South

 

 

Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay’s articles focus on the achievements of the North. The Northerners and their achievements are not a hidden secret as he calls them. Somalis know about them. The world knows about them. All Somalis acknowledge their achievements and they are proud of them. There is widespread agreement that the world should also acknowledge the achievements of the north and reward them handsomely for that. But there are many ways to achieve that short of secession.

 

Countries that have suffered from protracted civil wars usually emerge stronger and wiser. The United States is a good example. It has become the most powerful country in the world after going through a long and disastrous civil war. Somalis hope and believe that they also will stand up on their feet again and become the Hong-Kong of Africa as UN Ambassador Sahnoun predicted recently in an interview with Reuters, thus admitting his earlier wrong assumptions like Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay that Somalis could not unite again. Somalis are dynamic and entrepreneurial businessmen. All they need is a democratic system of government, caring and visionary leaders, and responsible and sympathetic friends like the South African Government represented by its patriotic ANC leadership who know what it means to be oppressed and divided.

 

Evidently, Somalis are deeply troubled by their present situation, which is very similar to the Indian situation described by Allama Iqbal in the following lines:

 

The sight of thee makes me weep, O India

For thine is the most tragic all stories,

Leave not the trace of a single petal in this garden. O flower-gatherer,

Thanks to the feuds of the gardeners, their path is smooth"

O people of India! You will be destroyed if you do not understand,

Your very story will be erased from the book of the stories of nations,"

 

Now that the north has solidified democratic rule in their part of the country, all Somalis hope that the northerners will have the time to help bring peace and prosperity to their brethrens in the south. There is no doubt that they will do a better job than foreign mediators who have so far failed to bring stability to Somalia.

 

Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay, should not add to the misery and the suffering of the Somali people by calling for the balkanization of a homogeneous African country. Somalia has suffered 15 years of civil war and world neglect. His calls for the recognition of (Somaliland) as a state may lead to more bloodshed and misery and contribute to further regional instability. The recent incident at the small village of Adhi-Addeye, where Somaliland and Puntland clashed over non-existent borders, highlights the dangers that lurk ahead. The Professor probably means well, but the road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions like his.

 

Omar Ali Haji

Qarshe Tima-Ade International Center

qarsheic@gmail.com

Note

 

 

Qarshe Tima-Ade International Center for Unity is an independent, non-profit, non-government organization based in the United States and Canada. It lobbies for the unification of all Somali speaking people through peaceful and non-violent means and the prevention of conflict in the Horn of Africa

 

Ps.

The article is featured on a number of Somali sites.

[RedSea]

Assalamu Calaykum.

It's firsts that I have seen someone denying for someone who has wished him/her a blessing. I wished for peace be on you, and you are denying it. It's the Muslim greetings my friend, and everything else comes after it.

 

I still think it's piece of garbage for what you have posted, both this one and the one before that.

 

Mr. Maakhir, have you forgotten the hate that you were speading around when the little conflict over the Sanaag resources was going on? You actually did say that it would be a great idea to have state named Maakhirland, did you not?

 

About the other thing of whether I am not real Northerner and what not, well I don't need your approval to be eligible , so come down little fellow. Besides, why do you give much care of anything that is anti Northerners aka Somalilanders if hate is not full of you. If I was trying to distort their image, you would have felt that through my words.

 

Assalamu Calaykum.

[Duco Qabe]

Thank you Brother Maakhir for posting Mr. Hirad's Piece. It is a very thoughtful and and elonquently presented article of the benefits of Somali Unity Vs. secession. It brings out a lot of the propaganda and falsfood spread by our fellow secesionists. It is remarkable piece and I certainly enjoyed reading it.

 

I do not think for a moment that Mr. Red Sea has actually read the article. Because, if he has read it he would not have accused the author of clannism. The simple cold fact is there is a real debate among the northerners regarding the unity of our nation, and that has nothing to do with clannism.

 

A word of advice for Mr. Red Sea is to respect the forum and participate in the on going discussion in a civil manner or to keep his mouth shut.

 

Duco Qabe

[Duco Qabe]

Thank you Brother Maakhir for posting Mr. Hirad's Piece. It is a very thoughtful and and elonquently presented article of the benefits of Somali Unity Vs. secession. It brings out a lot of the propaganda and falshood spread by our fellow secesionists. It is remarkable piece and I certainly enjoyed reading it.

 

I do not think for a moment that Mr. Red Sea has actually read the article. Because, if he has read it he would not have accused the author of clannism. The simple cold fact is there is a real debate among the northerners regarding the unity of our nation, and that has nothing to do with clannism.

 

A word of advice for Mr. Red Sea is to respect the forum and participate in the on going discussion in a civil manner or to keep his mouth shut.

 

Duco Qabe

[Taleexi]

Dear Mr. Maakhir,

 

First of all, thanks for sharing with us the Somaliland’s assessment given by this prolific writer Mr. Hirad. Before I go further, I am compelled to remind all SOL nomads, of course including me, that golden rules are still out there to be reciprocated.

 

In his reading ““The “SOMALILAND†MYTHOLOGY INDICTED†Mr. Hirad critiqued the notion of Somaliland, its legality, morality, feasibility and then displayed the necessity of collaborating all concerned parties, be that may the Transitional Federal Government or other northerners who are not from Hargeisa, if Somaliland’s leadership is inclined achieving any sort of mutual benefit, in reference this author has eloquently put to the surface the ill-intentions of some outstanding, foreign academics who stepped out from their relevant duties, and revealed their true colors, to misinform the international community with their biased, fabricated, twisted reports and papers, some of them being but are not limited to Prof. Lewis, Prof. Jhazbhay.

 

Let it be reminded in this time and age, where information travels in nanoseconds around the world, every individual is entitled to his/her opinion but what matters is the substance or the essence of any message uttered by the professors, will it change anything regarding the reality on the ground?, how long will the intellectual insult of their audience continue?, as evident GOOGLING would be suffice for any reader to figure out which region of the north supports what, will appeasing the secessionists in Hargeisa bridge the gap of mistrust among Somalis?, these above and many more questions must be addressed before having any viable debates concerning Somaliland recognition and the author said “let us call a spade a spadeâ€, meaning that, it shall be defined who really the Somaliland entity represents.

 

Short of that, our debates and critiques will remain in futile and unproductive.

[Xudeedi]

I do believe that the fast majority of the Somali people will support an alternative and politically viable cause of action that can reconstitute the fractured Somali national state under the banner of national unity and without the destructive force of tribalism. Hence, our strategy must be to frame that alternative in an honest and intelligent way.

 

Second, I do believe that the perceived threat posed by the South African mercenary; Iqbal Jhazbhay, is at best puffed up and indeed highly exaggerated. The fact is that Iqbal Jhazbhay is a third rate junior lecturer; in a third rate University of a third world country! Hence, I do not know why everyone is calling him a Professor! Last time I checked, and I admit that it was a while back; his university website indicated that he is indeed a junior lecturer with no active research portfolio.

 

More importantly, he does not seem to have a sharp intellectual fire Power and analytical talent that could produce highly convincing political, economic or moral arguments that could justify the secessionist madness in some quarters of the northern part of our beloved country. The facts is that Iqbal Jhazbhay has virtually no academic record of any sort other than providing limited teaching hours to undergraduate students in his University. You do not have to take my word for it! All you need to do is to google his name and his university before you even finish reading the rest of this email. Chances are that you may not even get a single record returned by the biggest and the mightiest search engine in the entire cyber world! So what’s the fuss?

 

I fairness, I do not believe that anyone could come up with a Convincing argument, political, economic or otherwise that could reasonably justify the balkanization of one of the most homogenous countries in the entire African continent and indeed in the Arab peninsula! It is a hopeless exercise I suppose! Hence, I would not worry too much about this little mercenary man in South Africa.

 

Having said that, I believe that anyone of us could draft a short note that could tell Iqbal to mind his business in his own country and collect his checks from Riyaale in silence or else face a devastating intellectual firestorm from Somalis who do not like foreigners telling them how to run their own country! In short, as Cabdillaahi Suldaan Timacadde so eloquently stated in one his famous poems, Hashaan Gaadawaynoow libaax uga gaboon waayey inaan goroyo cawl ugga taggaa waa wax soo gudhaye・

 

On a more positive note, the fact that the secessionists opted to hire a foreign mercenary to advocate their cause is, without a doubt, a sign of weakness and political desperation on their part. Obviously, they have realized that no self respecting Somali intellectual will come to their rescue and take up arms for a doomed political mission as the balkanization of the Somali national state for myopic triblist political agenda! It is mission impossible if you ask me. And it a mission that cannot, will not and should not succeed on my watch. I intend to puncture forcefully its weak intellectual tires.

 

 

One Nation, One Somalia.

 

With best regards,

 

Mukhtar "Bill" Ainashe

Washington, DC.

[Xudeedi]

Originally posted by Mansa Munsa:

Dear Mr. Maakhir,

 

 

Let it be reminded in this time and age, where information travels in nanoseconds around the world, every individual is entitled to his/her opinion but what matters is the substance or the essence of any message uttered by the professors, will it change anything regarding the reality on the ground?, how long will the intellectual insult of their audience continue?, as evident GOOGLING would be suffice for any reader to figure out which region of the north supports what, will appeasing the secessionists in Hargeisa bridge the gap of mistrust among Somalis?, these above and many more questions must be addressed before having any viable debates concerning Somaliland recognition and the author said “let us call a spade a spadeâ€, meaning that, it shall be defined who really the Somaliland entity represents.

 

Short of that, our debates and critiques will remain in futile and unproductive.

Well said Mansa Munsa, My biggest concern comes when the south is mistaken for every other region barring the regions of the former Protectorate. I was trying to open a topic for the clarification and the description of the South, which regions of which, but fortunately, Hirad inserted that view in his article.

 

 

DucoQabe, I knew he rushed into a judgment without giving the piece a chance to read to himself. Pardon me Mr. Red Sea if you misinterpret my advice as an intent to degrade.

 

On Attained Peace and Democracy in “Somalilandâ€

 

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that “Somaliland†fares much better than the deep “Southâ€â€”that is in the area between Mogadishu, Baidoa and Kismayo—earlier dubbed the “death Triangleâ€. But it has not been faring any better than the Central regions and “Puntland. So, despite the peace and stability often claimed—and obsessively repeated by those wedded to the notion of “Somalilandâ€â€”the situation has remained amber-like underneath the ashes, waiting to flare up with the slightest touch of straw on a windy day—God forbid. Surely you will agree with me, dear “Somalilanderâ€, that, for example, the situation has been so polarized in Burao that the kids from the east side of town hardly go and hang out with those in the west of town. One must, however, admit that the conditions have remained better in Hargeisa. In reality, and in general, one can only speak of relative peace. And it has only been as peaceful as any place northwards of Mogadishu. True though, the comparison weighs heavier towards “Somaliland†in relation to the “Death Triangleâ€, which has remained the bone of contention between those forces competing for national power—because of the zone’s significant economic, strategic and symbolic advantages—and therefore the object of strong and recurrent violence throughout the last 15 years.

 

 

Abdalla Hirad

[RedSea]

Assalamu Calaykum,

 

To Mr. Maakhir, Mr. Ducoqabe, and Mr. Mansa Munsa.

 

First before you feel so proudly attached to the author and his article, have you asked yourself what benefit would this bring to Somalis other than widening the rift and the gap between Somalis? I still to this day don't understand why some nomads who claim to be pro "Somaliwayne" and pro "Somaliland" continue to post and give so much care to something that has been written down by some indivdual in order to get their point across. I am fully aware that this is a political discusion board, so we can instead discuss how the problems can be solved and we can come to middle ground, instead of tired and lame arguments that have no positive ending.

 

There is no difference at all of someone just uttering such a Qabilist words orally and someone puting those words on a paper as this particular article. I think the author should have spend his time writing on how the problems occuring within Somalis can be extinguished and should look at things in an open minded and unbiased way.

 

I would never appriciate an article or an author who spends his/her time just making attacks and remarks then waiting for a respond from someone else who doesn't agree with him/her. What he needs to do and what you need to focus on is how can the problems accuring within Somalis be solved today, rather than adding potreluem to the flames, it's better to try to put it out even it has to be through writing. It's obvisouly waste of time and waste of literacy, because literacy looses any meanings and becomes big fat zero once it evolves around Qabiil.

 

Finally, my advice to you and to my self, let us pray for ourselves that Allah cures our sicknes of Qabilism. Let us turn to Allah to solve our problems, and let us turn to the Quran and the Sunnah as manuals to guide us to the straight path. This is the only way to solving our problems, a warlord, criminals, and qabiil will not solve anything.

 

Assalamu Calaykum.

[Xudeedi]

The evil axis of Iqbal Jhazbhay, Matt Bryden and the secessionists

By Mohsin Mahad

May 08,2006

 

The Africa continent has become a by-word for political instability and humanitarian and environmental disasters. Civil wars, secessions, draughts, hunger and disease have become the familiar face of Africa on the world media. No country in Africa has suffered from these inflictions more than Somalia did. While humanitarian crisis draw the compassion and generosity of the outside world, clan and/or regional secessions taking place in African countries invariably attract a different crop of outsiders: fortune hunters, misguided and ill-informed partisans, mercenaries fighting for the highest bidder, paid-up lobbyists, con-men, dotty colonial old-timers nostalgic for a return to their good old days in their former colonies- and so the list goes on. Each time an Africa country has succumbs to clan/regional secession; these undesirables descend on it like vultures and feast on its political misfortunes for their own selfish ends. This was the case in Katanga, in the Congo, in 1960; it was the same in Biafra, Nigeria, in the 1960’s; and it is certainly so in the case of the one-clan driven secession in certain areas of the North of Somalia. In all these cases, the international community stood firmly in its support for the territorial integrity of the countries concerned. All the same, these foreign predators had prolonged civil wars and secessions and their egregious actions had inflicted untold harm and suffering on African countries.

 

The pro-secession utterances of the likes of Professor Ian Lewis and John Drysdale might be grist to the mill of the secessionists, but most Somalis can take it in their stride and ignore it as the futile mutterings of old men eager to find a niche in the politics of their former colony. But at least, their life-long association with former British Somaliland gives them certain claim to speak up on the on-going secession in the North even if what they have to say is routinely predictable.

 

But what does one make out of the support to the secessionists by Iqbal Jhazbhay, a South African of Indian origin, who, from the Southern tip of the African continent, is barking out for Somalia’s break-up? By all accounts, he has no in-depth knowledge of the social and political history of the Somali peoples in the Horn of Africa, before and during its colonisation by Europeans and Abyssinia, and seems to parrot what his secessionist mentors had fed him. His recent article in Wardheernews, entitled “The African Union and Somaliland,†is unabashedly a recycling of the familiar secessionist mantra. What is bound to pain most Somalis is that the man who is stabbing their country in the back and calling for its dismemberment should come from South Africa of all countries, and especially from someone who claims to serve on the ANC's Commission on Religious Affair and, in addition, is director on the board of the South African Institute for Global Dialogue. This is a country that Somalia and the rest of Africa had spared no moral or material support for its liberation from Apartheid.

 

Happily, Mr. Iqbal Jhazbhay speaks for himself and no one else. No true South Africans worth their salt would ever entertain harming their fellow African countries. Apart from anything else, they know their own country is vulnerable, more than most other African countries, to destabilization and disunity given its simmering, deep-rooted social, tribal and racial divisions. The Boer demand for a separate independent region for their ethnic group might be dormant for now but it is not over for ever. The Zulus, under Chief Buthelezi, have not totally reconciled themselves to the new South Africa. This divisive heritage from Apartheid is what the promotion of the rainbow nation, the brain child of former President Nelson Mandela, is meant to overcome. Despite all the progress made since the end of Apartheid, South Africa is by no means out of the woods. Rather than throw stones at other fellow, conflict-stricken, African countries, the South African government, together with a number of prominent personalities, like Nelson Mandela and Arc Bishop Desman Tutu, have commendably given the highest priority to play a leading role as peacemakers in Africa’s troubled spots. By contrast, Iqbal Jhazbhay has betrayed both his profession as well as his religion. As a director of the board of an institution whose raison d’étre is to promote dialogue and reconciliation in conflict areas, he chose to do the opposite. As someone who is presumably a Muslim, he opted for satanical conspiracies and evil-doing rather than follow the teachings of Islam, where support for reconciliation, peace and unity in Muslim conflict resolution is a corner stone of the religion.

 

With the above introduction, I would like to respond to a number of issues raised by Iqbal in his above-mentioned article.

 

Reviving the ghost of former British Somaliland.

 

Both Iqabal Jhazbhay and Matt Bryden’s support for the independence of what the secessionist call “Somaliland†is based not on any national or international law but on the cranky claim that the area existed at one time, from the late 19th century until 26 June 1960, as a British territory. They claim that this by-gone colonial status as a British territory, with its own borders, and their subsequent transient 4 days independence before union with Italian Somaliland, gives them an inalienable right to put the clock back, reclaim their freely forgone separate independence, and resurrect the defunct former British colony even if it has ceased to exist for the past 46 years. Worse, they had adopted the mendacious secessionist claim that all the clans in the former British territory are united in wishing to end the union with Southern Somalia and that there is such a people called “Somalilanders†who share common identity, allegiance and aspirations that clearly distinguish them from the rest of the Somali people in the Horn and in particular from those in Southern Somalia and who hence constitute a nation. To debunk these ludicrous fallacious claims, it is important to go back to the genesis of “Somalilandâ€.

 

Pre- colonization situation:

 

Before the advent of colonization, the Somali people in the Horn of Africa may have been aware of their personal Somali identity and that all Somalis, irrespective of their geographical locations, shared a common language, religion and culture. But such awareness did not translate into, or germinate, any meaningful political or national consciousness. Their vision did not go beyond the clan which was the epicentre of their world. As Mr. Abdalla Hirad has recently eloquently pointed out in his article in Wardheernews, the Somalis were in their “natural stateâ€. In other words, they were at the lowest rung in the socio-economic and political development ladder.

 

This state of affairs is characterised by the prevalence of autarky where all economic activities revolve around basic needs in order to meet the daily sustenance of the extended family units. More importantly, it was a state marked by the absence of national consciousness and national polity, where individuals could only relate themselves to their immediate sub-clan or overall clan identity, namely ****** , ****** , ***** , Digil and Mirifle -among others. Each clan and sub-clan had -and continues to have to the present day- its traditional grazing lands or territorial areas which they considered as their patrimony. Interaction among neighbouring sub-clans was limited to intermarriage which has certainly fostered good relations across the clan divide and served to dampen hostilities among warring neighbouring clans perennially in competition for scare resources such as water and grazing.

 

Quite clearly, none of the clans that lived in what was later to become British Somaliland had any notion that they were bound together by any specific bonds that distinguished them from other clans in the Horn. Hence, the notion of “Somaliland†or being a “Somalilander†as propagated by the secessionists and their foreign proxies has no roots in this period. It simply did not exist in the Somali lexicon in any sense one might wish to envisage it.

 

b) The advent and impact of colonisation

 

The European and Abyssinian partition of the Somali homeland into five parts had imposed arbitrary borders in which Somali clans found themselves, against their will, under the tutelage of the of colonial occupiers. Clans in any one particular colony shared no more common affinities among themselves, in terms of blood ties and cultural bonds, than they did with other clans in neighbouring colonies. Quite the opposite. As an example, the ****** clans now inhabiting the British Somaliland regions of Sool, Sanaag and Cayn had their fellow clan compatriots in neighbouring Italian Somaliland and Ethiopian Somaliland. The same was also true for the ********** and Issas clans in the Awdal region whose fellow clansmen were in French Somaliland and Ethiopian Somaliland. As will be argued later on, this involuntary fencing of heterogeneous clans in the British colony as in the other foreign occupied Somalilands, has never forged a special closer identity and national consciousness among their subjects throughout the whole period of the British rule. After all, it was the clear, divide and rule, policy of the British colonial administration to keep the Somalis permanently locked in the clan mentality and to discourage, as long as possible, the birth of Somali national consciousness. While everyone was legally supposed to be his/her Majesty’s subject, Somalis were identified in any official document not by their country but by their clan.

 

The foreign rule over the Somalis hardly touched the greater majority of the people. Only those Somalis who were in the few urban centres were within the reach of the colonial writ. For the rest, namely the pastoralists and rural communities who constituted close to 90 percent of the population at least in British Somaliland, the presence of the colonial power in their territory was something they had heard of but otherwise had rarely ever experienced it. .Few of them had ever set sight of a white person or that of an Abyssinian. As such, the Somali clans continued to lead their way of life- the state of nature - barely hampered by those artificial colonial borders which they freely crossed as a matter of course, without feeling they were leaving their home country and entering a foreign one. From their perspective, they were in their own country, no matter which side of the colonial border they happened to be at any particular time and regardless of whether the colonialists called it British Somaliland, or French Somaliland, or Italian Somaliland, or Ethiopian Somaliland.

 

As they saw it, to abide by any restrictions imposed upon them by these borders was tantamount to forgoing their inalienable rights to their patrimony. They were the real, true “Somalilanders,†in the descriptive sense of the word, for whom all these Somali lands occupied by colonialists were their country. Those secessionists who now appropriate the word “Somalilander†as their exclusive monopoly, applicable only to those people from former British Somaliland are disingenuous to say the least.

 

The colonisers had done little to develop their Somali colonies. The British will always be remembered for their total neglect of British Somaliland’s development. The promotion and maintenance of the clan identity and the discouragement of Somali identity and nationalism was a cardinal principle of the British colonial policy. Thus, the Somali people remained, until the last years of the colonial rule, in their state of nature, where one belonged to a clan that straddled colonial borders. No one was a citizen of British Somaliland but only a British subject, owing allegiance to the queen and not to one’s country of origin. The colony belonged to Britain as part of its empire and it is only at independence that it became ours. Those same perfidious colonial old hands, who had a hand in giving away Somali territories, Haud and Reserve Areas, to Ethiopia as late as in 1953 are once again scheming to dismember what is left of it .Could they be in collusion once again with Ethiopia?. After all, there is a creeping Ethiopian annexation of Hargeisa, not by force but because those secessionist Somali haters prefer it that way rather than being part of Somalia.

 

c) The struggle for independence

 

The end of the Second World War and the defeat of Italy had triggered in Italian Somaliland powerful pan-Somali nationalism and the quest for independence that was spearheaded by the Somali Youth League (SYL). Its message spread like bush fire throughout the Horn and in particular in British Somaliland. Subsequently, other nationalist parties sprung up in British Somaliland, like the Somali National League (SNL). The treacherous British decision to handover the Haud and Reserve areas to Ethiopia behind the backs of the Somali people has done more than anything else to propel pan-Somali nationalism everywhere in the Somali lands and more so in its colony. A common aspiration of all the independence political parties and the population everywhere was union between British and Italian Somalilands as a forerunner for the final union of all the five Somali lands. No one cherished this aspiration of Somali union and Greater Somalia more than today’s secessionist heretics based in Hargeisa.

 

d) The Union

 

The immediate union of British and Italian Somalilands right on the day of independence, without any reservations, is an indication of the overwhelming desire of the population in both countries for this union. The Southerners advised for a little prudence and patience but it was the Northerners, ironically today’s secessionists, who insisted on this rush and no negotiations .Despite the inevitable initial teething problems, the integration of the two countries went smoothly better than any one had anticipated possible for two countries that had two separate colonial administrations for nearly eighty years. Notwithstanding certain disillusionment with the inadequacies of successive governments, the union itself has never ever been questioned- at least not publicly until the day the Somali National Movement proclaimed in Burco the secession of the North from the South.

 

In his article in Wardheernews, Iqbal Jhazbhay sees pan -Somali unity through the blinkered eyes of the secessionists, and blames it for of all sorts of problems. This is what he has to say:

 

“The well-known pan-Somali "unity" nationalist vision to bring all the Somali territories together under one flag created mayhem in the Horn. Ethiopia found itself in 1977 at war with the expansionist "unity" project of Somali dictator Siad Barre. This "sacred unity" vision saw the decline of Somalia from then on.

 

What he is denouncing is Somalia’s support for the liberation of Ethiopian Somaliland, which he castigates it as “expansionistâ€. Yet, he portrays deplorable double talk when he turns to another territory that was also, until recently, under Ethiopian occupation, namely Eritrea. In contrast to his antipathy towards the Somali case, here he shows undisguised empathy and support. This is what he has to say:

 

*One's memory is jogged by the case of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Eritrean fighters doggedly fought Ethiopia for 30 years, from 1961 to 1991. Finally, the military option decided on the separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia. Sadly, the UN and the former OAU were silent glazed-eyed witnesses to this carnageâ€.

 

What he is basically saying is that freedom from foreign occupation is permissible for one people but not for another. Yet, there is no difference between the Somali and Eritrea cases in so far as they were both handed to the Ethiopian empire by outsiders against the wish of the people concerned. It was the Europeans who gave the Somali territory to Ethiopia, the last part, the Haud and Reserve Area, in 1953. And it was the United Nations that ceded Eritrea to Ethiopia after the defeat of Italy in the Second World War. As colonised peoples, they both had inalienable right to self determination as guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Declarations for Human Rights. Eritrea had succeeded to achieve its freedom through armed struggle. The Somalis for their part are bound to achieve their freedom one day through the armed struggle of the ****** National Liberation Front (ONLF). On that glorious day, I can see Iqbal, if he is still around, as one of the cheerleaders as I also see him as a turncoat when the secession is defeated.

 

In the 1977 war with Ethiopia over the occupied Somali territory, the international community, in particular the big powers, objected not so much to the liberation of the territory, but the fact that it was the Somali Army that was doing the job which it did magnificently. If it was not for the intervention of the Soviet Union and their allies on the side of Ethiopia, that would have been end of the story. Even the Soviet Union would have condoned the liberation of those areas they considered indisputably Somali-inhabited territory. What would have been expansionist, a la Israel, was to conquer the Ethiopian highlands.

 

Losing one battle against Ethiopia and its allies was not the reason for Somalia’s decline as Iqbal would have us believe. The Somali case is no different from those other countries who struggled to liberate their brethren from foreign yoke. Pakistan has lost three wars against India in its attempt to liberate Indian-administered Kashmir without any long-lasting damage to it. And, it has not given up but continues to pursue that goal to the present day. Contrary to the cynics, India-administered Kashmir will be free sooner or later. North Vietnam has fought decades to liberate South Vietnam and suffered in the process incalculable human and material losses but in the end won a priceless victory against a supper power. These countries would claim that, without question, the goal achieved outweighs any cost incurred. Why should the Somali case be any different?

 

What weakened Somalia, and ultimately brought about its demise was not the war of liberation but the combined onslaught of Siyad Barreh’s dictatorial rule ad the treacherous machinations of his internal enemies. The SSDF started its campaign against him well before the war with Ethiopia, and others, such as the SNM, USC, SPM, etc were to follow suit, all conniving hand in hand with Somalia’s arch enemy- Ethiopia. In order to topple the dictator and wring power from him, they had to destroy the very country they claimed to be saving. Little did they know that they were throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

e) The Secession

 

Secessionist revisionists are now rewriting history and coming up with all sorts of ludicrous reasons to justify the secession. A number of these claims or justifications are listed below.

 

The legality of the Union

One such bizarre and baseless claim is that the union has not after all been legally “consummated†after all these years!! If it was not consummated, why have they been a willing and ardent party all those years? Such a claim is laughable and counts for nothing when indeed the union has been adopted by all the national institutions and finally endorsed in a referendum on the constitution in which the overwhelming majority of the population voted for it, and when it was recognized by whole international community, from the United Nations to all the regional organizations of which Somalia is a member. Other petty technicalities against the union are adduced now and then but these do not merit consideration here.

 

ii) Secession supported by all the clans

 

A more palatable claim for the secession, but equally baseless, is that all the clans belonging to former British Somaliland are united in wishing to secede from the union and therefore should be given that right to self determination. This story has been relentlessly orchestrated abroad that it has received a measure of success. The fact of the matter is that this secession is masterminded and driven mainly by one clan masquerading as the people of “Somaliland†with a view to soliciting recognition. The ****** clans are part of the Puntland regional administration and hence are part of Somalia. The Issa clan in the Awdal region close to Djibouti are outside the secessionist orbit and look to Djibouti for inspiration and sustenance. The silent majority of the ********** clan are against the secession but are understandably obliged to keep a low profile for fear of SNM reprisals. Those atrocities committed by SNM are in Borama are still fresh in their memories and thus they have to live with the realities until there is an effective Somali government in the horizon. Even within the dominant clan shepherding the secession, there are many who are against it. All in all, the regions and areas against the secession constitute by far the greater part of former British Somaliland.

 

It should also be made clear that the right of self determination as claimed by the secessionists is applicable only to people under occupation or foreign rule but not to one clan or other who want to secede from a country of which they are legally part of it, and recognized as such by the international community. The only remote possible way for allowing secession is if it has the approval of the Federal Somali government and parliament and then endorsed by a majority of the voters in a referendum. If secession is approved in all these stages, it will only be applicable to any clans who want to secede and not to others who are against it. It would not be right and fair that the wishes of one clan X for secession should be imposed on another clan Y which oppose it.

 

iii) Colonial borders

 

Another claim by the secessionists and repeated by Iqbal Hazbhay is that the borders inherited at independence from the former colonial powers are inviolable as enshrined in the OAU/AU charter and, in this regard, Somaliland, having had borders at independence, has the right to claim its former colonial borders and, by implication, its forgone independence. This is being disingenuous. The relevant article of the OAU/AU charter on borders applies to countries that remained independent and are members of the organization. It does not apply to a country that gave up its borders on its accord when it acceded to a union with another country whose new borders were recognized by the OAU, United Nations and other relevant regional and international organizations. Neither the AU nor the United Nations nor any other organization recognizes defunct borders that have ceased to exist. This is a message that never seems to sink in the closed minds of the secessionists.

 

iv) Using failed African unions as precedent

 

Failed African unions that subsequently went their different ways as separate independent countries are often cited by the secessionists as a precedent which should also be applicable to “Somaliland’s†secession from Somalia. This is an argument that Iqbal Hazbhay dutifully reiterates in his article. This is what he has to say:

“Somaliland's fight for recognition is also not without historical precedent. In this respect, Afri­can policy makers have a short memory. Many African countries went into a union and subse­quently abandoned it. Egypt - Syria (1958-61), Mali - Senegal (1960), Senegal - Gambia (1982-89), are just some of the former derelict unions in Africa. Other lesser-known cases such as Rwanda - Burundi (1962), Cape Verde - Guinea-Bissau (1975), are lost in the milky haze of diplomatic amnesia ».

The above examples are either not factual or where they are not applicable to the secession of “Somalilandâ€. For the record, let us look at those examples separately.

 

Maliand Senegal never united as independent countries. In 1959, France, the colonial power created the union of Mali and Senegal to became the Mali Federation, which gained independence from France on June 1960. Senegal withdrew from the Mali Federation after a few months.

 

Burundi and Rwanda had never united. They were part of the German East Africa and in 1919 became Belgium colonies under the League of Nations mandate. It became a United Nations Trust territory in 1946. Burundi got its independence in 1961 and Rwanda in 1962.

 

Guinea-Bissaw-Cape Verde never united. Cape Verde became independent from Portugal in 1975, a year after Guinea-Bissau.. The two countries planned to unite, but the plan was ditched after a coup in Guinea-Bissau in 1980 strained relations.

 

Senegal-Gambia had formed a short-lived federation between 1982 and 1989.

What Iqbal Hazbhay did not mention in his article is that the union and subsequent separation of the two countries was the result of agreements between the governments of two independent countries. This is hardly the case between Somalia and a secession undertaken by one clan.

 

Egypt-Syria union and separation is somewhat similar to that of Senegal and Gambia. Here too the union and separation between two countries came about as a result of agreements between the respective governments. That they had to separate was not all that surprising given the gulf that divides them in terms of geography and history as separate countries for thousands of years. Again hardly a relevant case to that of Somalia and the secessionists.

v) African Union Mission Report

Iqbal Hazbhay castigates African leaders for their stand on the borders of member countries of their African Union (AU. this is what he has to say:

 

“These uninformed perspectives [on borders] are held arguably due to sheer ignorance, stupefied indifference, or a lethal combination of bothâ€.

 

Apart from his gratuitous slur on African leaders, suffice it to say that they know better than him about African history, and the interest and stability of the continent. If any one is suffering from “ignorance, stupefied indifference or a lethal combination of bothâ€, he should look no further than himself.

 

After pouring insults on African leaders, Iqbal turns around to lavish praise for once on the AU Secretariat only because a report by on the secessionist enclave by an AU mission is deemed favourable. The AU mission to the territory, whose report has not been officially published, has apparently declared, according to Iqbal, that the “union between Somaliland and Somalia was never ratified and also malfunctioned when it went into action from 1960 to 1990, makes Somaliland's search for recognition historically unique and self-justified in African political history."

 

This is a mission that in one breath claims the union was never “ratifiedâ€, and then goes on to say that it “malfunctionedâ€. This flip-flop inconsistency runs through the mission’s report.. Suffice to add that the AU mission visited only the secessionist heartland and was the quest of the administration based in Hargeisa. It was lavishly entertained and misinformed. Worst, it never went to the regions and areas that oppose the secession. This was a mission so much in hock to the secessionists that impartiality and objectivity have been sacrificed on the alter of African hedonism. In a word, this report is not worth the paper it is written on, and that is the reason why the Chairperson of the AU had apparently decided to put it under wraps-out of sight and out of mind. Iqbal Halzhay and Matt Bryden have been trumpeting this disgraceful report for lack of any thing else to support the secession. The decent, honourable thing for them to do is to close their secessionist shop and stick to their official jobs for which they are paid.

 

vi) The peace in the North versus the chaos in the South

 

Iqbal Hazbhay has dwelt on the chaos and violence engulfing the South of Somalia in contrast to the peace and stability flourishing in the North. In tune with the separatists, he would like the world to recompense the secessionists by recognizing “Somalilandâ€. In painting the violence in the South, this is what he says:

 

“The country continues to spiral further into a decades-old state of anarchy. It would be worth looking at when the Horn of Africa makes news. Reporting on last month's abduction of a group of Yemeni fishermen by Somali pirates, CNN.com reported: 'Somalia's coastal waters have become among the worlds most dangerous in the 14 years the country has lacked a central government

Iqbal is making a mountain out of a molehill. Somalia might be chaotic as one would expect from a country that had no government for many years. But the South is far from being engulfed by violence. The people continue to lead their life in relative peace almost everywhere. For all the problems with the warlords and their militia, ordinary people are safer in Mogadishu than South Africans are in Johannesburg where murder, rape, house-breaking and car theft at gun point are the order of the day and its crime record is the highest in the world. That does not disqualify South Africa in any way from being a respectable member of the international community. And Somalia will overcome its warlords sooner or later. Only the secessionists and their cohorts pray that it will be saddled with these monsters for ever.

 

vii) Atrocities committed in the North

 

Another justification for the secession is the atrocities committed against the ***** clan by the dictatorial regime of Siyad Barre. No honest and objective Somali would dispute this, or the fact that similar atrocities, perhaps on the lesser scale, had been inflicted on other clans. African history is full of tragedies of this sort. The Tutsi genocides in Rwanda and Burundi and the crimes committed by other dictators, such as Idi Amin and Bukassa against some regions and clans in their respective countries, immediately come to mind. Notwithstanding these atrocities, no where in Africa has the secession of a clan or region been accepted as a solution. On the contrary, it merely opens’ the Pandora box for further tragedies and instability, a nightmare that Iqbal can afford to scoff at from the safety of his academic world. Secessions spearheaded by one dominant clan are no guarantee against future civil strife and genocides in which the stronger clan turns on the weaker ones. It happened among the ***** clans in “Somaliland†in the early 1990s and no one can emphatically say that it won’t happen again. Only democracy, better governance, elected leaders and regional autonomies are the best insurance. This is what the federal system of government for Somalia is all about which ensures that no one dominant clan can impose its will on the rest of Somalia ever again.

 

viii) Return to the good old days

 

There are two distinct strands in the support for the secession among the dominant clan in the North: there are those who were earlier pro-union but subsequently turned against it following the atrocities against them. But there another group, the clan ideologues, some will call clan supremacists, who had been hankering, well before any atrocities had been committed against them, for a return to the pre-union good old days in which their clan’s position was paramount. For them, anything less than this is not good enough, and not the kind of clan equilibrium under the current Somali federal system of government. It is the latter group who are in the driving seat of the secession and who grotesquely whip up anti-Somalia hysteria and present those atrocities as their own Holocaust. The holocaust claim is deliberately chosen given its emotional appeal to the Jews in the USA, Israelis, and Europe with whom many of the clan ideologues are cultivating close relations as a counterweight to the Arab League’s support for the unity and territorial integrity of Somalia.

 

Winning foreign hearts and minds

Winning hearts and minds among the international community, whether important personalities or civil society organizations, is indispensable for promoting ones cause. This is something that the secessionists have come to appreciate better than the unionists. One can decry and condemn their actions, but at the end of the day one has to give the devil his due. Whereas the so-called intellectuals and elite from the South- the land that used to be the cradle of Somali nationalism, the land of Abdullahi Isse and the SYL-are inactive as if they are in collective hibernation, one can only grudgingly admire the relentless, well-orchestrated and well-coordinated efforts of the separatists. They have managed to reach out to countless corners of the world and convey their message. Today, the name “Somaliland†has registered with many people who come to form a positive image of it, not because of the work of embassies and ambassadors but through the hard work of these untiring secessionists.

 

It is to no thanks to the Somali Transitional Federal Government that the international community continues to fully support Somalia’s unity and territorial integrity. They do this for altruistic reasons but rather it is in their own interest to do so since the break-up of Somalia could have serious negative repercussions for the stability of the wider African continent. Foreign governments’ interests however are not permanent but can change and one can not take for granted that things will always be the way we want them to be. It would be the height of folly and irresponsibility if he TFG continues to neglect this area which is critical for our future. The secessionists are already lobbying the AU and some member countries to be allowed to attend the forthcoming AU meeting in Nigeria. It behoves the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of Parliament and the Foreign Minister of Somalia to spend less time engrossed in lining their own pockets and give more attention to national interest.

 

While the rest of the Somalis, including their government, have yet to put their act together, the separatists are way ahead in the propaganda race. Iqbal Hazbhay and Matt Bryden are both recent converts to the secessionist cause. Both are said to have Somali spouses from the North. One recalls the famous says by the Duke of Wellington that the battle for Waterloo was won

in the playing fields of Eton. The secessionists have certainly won the propaganda race so far in all sorts of ways and places.

 

 

Mohsin Mahad

UK

Email: mohsinmahad@yahoo.co.uk

 

 

More Dialogue, go to Wardheernews.com