Occupy Somalia

[ElPunto]

Lawrence Solomon: Occupy Somalia

 

Lawrence Solomon May 18, 2012 – 9:47 PM ET | Last Updated: May 19, 2012 1:21 AM ET

 

 

Best hope for peace is for UN to break up the country

 

The EU Naval Force made headlines this week by blasting a pirate base on Somali shores and pirate ships out of Somali waters. The well-publicized and logical rationale for the navy’s aggressive new stance: Somali piracy costs the world economy an estimated US$7-billion a year.

 

An unpublicized and equally logical reason for this action: On Somali land and under the waters now frequented by Somali pirates lies oil wealth that could rival Kuwait’s.

 

Many oil companies are manoeuvring for a part of this potential oil bonanza — they include firms from China, Australia, the U.S. and Canada, which are already engaged in drilling — but the inside track may be held by British Petroleum and the UK, which has a long history of resource extraction in both Africa and the Middle East. In recent months, British foreign secretary William Hague visited Mogadishu, the Somali capital, for talks on “the beginnings of an opportunity” to rebuild the country and British Prime Minster David Cameron hosted an international summit on Somalia attended by 55 delegations, including a U.S. contingent led by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

 

“There’s room for everybody when this country gets back on its feet and is ready for investment,” said Somali Prime Minister Abdiweli Mohamed Ali after the conference, in offering a share of oil and other natural resources in return for help with reconstruction. “What we need is capital from countries like the UK to invest. If the private sector can come in and do the work, then we welcome them.”

 

But just who are the “we” Prime Minister Ali refers to? He heads the civil-war-wracked country’s transitional government which was installed in Somalia a decade ago by Western powers, which proved so unpopular that it soon needed an invasion by U.S. backed Ethiopian troops to remain in power, which relies for its continuance on U.S. drone strikes on the militants’ stronghold in the south of the country, and whose mandate expires in August of this year.

 

Not that the transitional government isn’t an improvement over the anarchy that reigned in the decades prior to its installation — Somalia, best known to many for Black Hawk Down, is the poster child of the failed state. Soon after it attained the status of a state in 1960 after a period of British and Italian rule, this anarchic country of warlords, of four major clans and several smaller ones, fell victim to a military strongman who imposed a Marxist government that ruined the economy.

 

Somalia is today a hotbed of piracy and al-Qaeda-linked terrorists; a country that over the last two decades has endured near-continual war causing hundreds of thousands to die from violence and starvation, and a million to flee to other lands; a country of the impoverished, almost half of whom live on less than $1 a day. In the absence of good governance, any attempt to divide Somalia’s wealth among BP, Shell, and the other large and small players that are jockeying for position is likely to spell doom, particularly now that the stakes have been raised.

 

Rather than maintaining the pretence that Somalia rates status as a sovereign country — it is in fact comprised of several autonomous regions — the Somali people would be best served by reverting to the only system in the region’s recent history that saw relative peace and prosperity — when order was imposed by colonial powers acting under the authority of the United Nations. The post-Second World War protectorate of British Somaliland and the trust territory of Italian Somaliland fared relatively well until in 1960 these areas merged to become a greater Somali Republic. Had these Western powers continued to rule and to develop the Somali territories, untold suffering would have been averted and Somalis would have been better prepared for ultimate self-rule, as occurred especially with former British colonies that enjoyed longer colonial rule, such as India, Malaysia and Hong Kong.

 

Today’s status quo — a U.S.-imposed government sustained by foreign troops bolstered by commando EU raids on pirates — is no way to run a country. Neither is it an option for the West to wash its hands of the anarchy. Into the vacuum that its departure would create could come Russia or China, countries with a poor history of governance. Better for the UN to step into this breach — this is one of the purposes for which it was formed — and when it next becomes time to relinquish rule in the Somali territories, their peoples through referendums should have viable options to live apart, in small states based on their autonomous regions, and not just in a greater Somalia that history shows has not been all that great.

 

 

Financial Post

 

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe.

 

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/18/lawrence-solomon-occupy-somalia/

[ElPunto]

I urge folks to comment on his page!

[burahadeer]

Lawrence Solomon: Occupy Somalia

 

Lawrence Solomon May 18, 2012 – 9:47 PM ET | in small states based on their autonomous/independent regions, and not just in a greater Somalia that history shows has not been all that great.

 

 

 

 

What is wrong with this if it brings peace, prosperity and in no way limits the movement of people.Instead of spewing nationalist stuff which very often is code word for special interests,i.e some who don't want otha region be independent purely for clannish reasons.

[Haatu]

^ And some who want to be independent purely for clannish reasons. The argument can go both ways.

[Mario B]

^^

[Mario B]

Can someone tell this neo-con fool that the UN is already in Somalia in the form of AU.

[xiinfaniin]

Neo-con fool is what he is---you nailed it.

[ElPunto]

Lawrence Solomon May 18, 2012 – 9:47 PM ET | in small states based on their autonomous/independent regions, and not just in a greater Somalia that history shows has not been all that great.

 

 

What is wrong with this if it brings peace, prosperity and in no way limits the movement of people.Instead of spewing nationalist stuff which very often is code word for special interests,i.e some who don't want otha region be independent purely for clannish reasons.

1- There is a big difference between autonomy and independant.

 

2- Greater Somalia was about the Og*den and NFD territories and was not the union that happened in 1960 - so the claim that greater Somalia was not great doesn't even apply.

 

3- He is arrogant and condescending. Whatever forms of government Somalis choose will be upto them - and suggestions by outsiders who have an axe to grind are not accepted.

 

4- This is not about nationalism and no one is spewing natiionalist stuff. The reality is that most parts of the world realize that there is strength in economic and military groupings ie EU, NATO - and here some of us are thinking small indeed.

[MoonLight1]

Had these Western powers continued to rule and to develop the Somali territories, untold suffering would have been averted and Somalis would have been better prepared for ultimate self-rule, as occurred especially with former British colonies that enjoyed longer colonial rule, such as India, Malaysia and Hong Kong.

I agree with him this part, we were not ready to run a country in 1960, we did not have enough civil servants, enough infrastructure, and above all, we did not mature as a nation, and i am afraid still we are not. The nomad lifestyle was imposed into the system and people felt safe & secure with their clans making the new found governments irrelevant.

 

Somalis are sleep walking into their greatest danger. We are ignoring all the warning signs of at least a trusteeship if this mayhem continues, or for worst dividing the nation into separate entities.

Parts of the country is already under neighboring countries, our airspace are already controlled by Addis and Nairobi and soon you'll see a mandate giving them the full control of our seas. What's left for you as a nation? NOTHING.

[burahadeer]

Haatu;831963 wrote:

^ And some who want to be independent purely for clannish reasons. The argument can go both ways.

 

because we all clannish and that excuse them.At the end of day if we can't live together better be apart.You have any solution so far in 21 years except for argument's sake??

[burahadeer]

ElPunto;831969 wrote:

1- There is a big difference between autonomy and independant.

 

4- This is not about nationalism and no one is spewing natiionalist stuff. The reality is that most parts of the world realize that there is strength in economic and military groupings ie EU, NATO - and here some of us are thinking small indeed.

 

 

True bigger better when everything rosy but how you go about If things didn't work out & don't seem to work ?

and don't you think we can still have groupings not only among somalis but the whole east africa.

[MoonLight1]

burahadeer;831977 wrote:

At the end of day if we can't live together better be apart.You have any solution so far in 21 years except for argument's sake??

then let khatumo go, let maakhir go, and let awdal state go. you wouldn't would you.

 

so remember, if somalia is divisible then you are divisible.

[burahadeer]

MoonLight1;831993 wrote:

then let khatumo go, let maakhir go, and let awdal state go. you wouldn't would you.

 

so remember, if somalia is divisible then you are divisible.

who wants can go and let puntland,beledweyne,azania,baidaba etc go.So no need talking about coercing people into fictitious greater somalia.

[Mario B]

MoonLight1;831993 wrote:

then let khatumo go, let maakhir go, and let awdal state go. you wouldn't would you.

 

so remember, if somalia is divisible then you are divisible.

^^ That's too much logic for our triangle brethrens, wait till he pulls out the "what about the colonial border" line.

[burahadeer]

^ waad degdegtay, Already responded this in your tune