Prof Samatar SL unity is a must, Xasan sh has no clue about S/land, aspirations are legit and real

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

UK parliament 1960

 

Mr Reginald Sorensen (Leyton)

 

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the independent State of Somaliland has now exchanged diplomatic representatives with this country; and how many Somalis in this country have now been classified as aliens.

Mr Reginald Sorensen (Leyton)

 

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the independent State of Somaliland has now exchanged diplomatic representatives with this country; and how many Somalis in this country have now been classified as aliens.

Commander Robert Allan (Paddington South)

 

The union between

Somaliland and Somalia

to form the Somali Republic was acclaimed on 1st July and Mr. T. E. Bromley presented his credentials as first British Ambassador to the Republic on that date. The Somali Republic have not yet appointed a diplomatic representative in London.

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1960-07-25a.1068.8

[Classified]

Gar_Maqaate single-handly destroyed qoladii British-Somaliland isku magacawday. Xaji Xunjuf wu isku dhexyaacay.

[Gar_maqaate]

Xaaji Xunjuf;971410 wrote:

Well the only difference is Kenya is recognized by the wider world and Somaliland is not but they have the same history which defines them as a state entity. where the Brits took part of their land and gave it to the italian colonialists the same they gave the hawd and reserve area to the Ethiopians. It doesn't make kenya less of an illegitimate entity, because of what the brits did. All African nations are the same in their history except for Liberia Ethiopia who were never colonized.And Somaliland after gaining Independence joined with another nation called Somalia. If there was never a state than how come there was an act of union, why was there the union law.

Xaaji, in all honest I am having an extremely hard time following your chain of thoughts and your over all argument. I know English is not our native tongue, so naturally I'm starting to seriously question whether you understand the true meanings of some of the loaded words that your are using interchangeably. Words such as STATE,NATION,PROTECTORATE and ENTITY. I think it would be a useful exercise if we defined some of these terms, in order to have an informed debate.

STATE

" As a noun, a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other states."

NATION

noun

"a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory:"

 

ENTITY

"entity n. a general term for any institution, company, corporation, partnership, government agency, university, or any other organization which is distinguished from individuals."

 

PROTECTORATE

"Protectorates were protected territories in which:

1.there was no properly organised internal government; and

2.Britain not only controlled external matters, such as the protectorate's defence and foreign relations but also established an internal" example of this type of protectorate somaliland,Zanzibar and Aden. This type of protectorate should not be confused with a protected state. Protected states were places in which:

1.there was a properly organised internal government; and

2. Britain controlled only the state's external affairs. Examples of this type of protected state Qatar and omen.("Somalilanders" usually mistaken British Somaliland protectorate for a protected state and hence the talk about treaties and defined borders)

 

 

Returning to our discussion,

The premise of my argument is that, firstly, the treaties signed by the British with some of the tribes in North Somalia never established protectorate with defined borders. Secondly the treaty was not legal document under international law or in the eyes of the British. We have conclusively proven this, thus far.

 

 

And let's move on to the second component of my argument. History show us, that there was never a state called somaliland, which preceded the Somali Republic. When the British left Northern Somalia on the 26 of June, it was the Somali flag that was raised in Hargeysa, ushering in the birth of the Republic. And on the 1st of July creation of Somalia was completed. Now I cannot understand how somaliland become a state in 1960, unless your argument is that a territory becomes a state by default, as soon as it is vacated by the foreign colonial power. As if states exist in a vacuum.

In conclusion my question for you folks is simple, how and when did somaliland become a state, (in the prosper since of the word)?

[Carafaat]

Gar_maqaate;971450 wrote:

PROTECTORATE

"Protectorates were protected territories in which:

1.there was no properly organised internal government; and

2.Britain not only controlled external matters, such as the protectorate's defence and foreign relations but also established an internal" example of this type of protectorate somaliland,Zanzibar and Aden. This type of protectorate should not be confused with a protected state. Protected states were places in which:

1.there was a properly organised internal government; and

2. Britain controlled only the state's external affairs. Examples of this type of protected state Qatar and omen.("Somalilanders" usually mistaken British Somaliland protectorate for a protected state and hence the talk about treaties and defined borders)

 

 

Returning to our discussion,

The premise of my argument is that, firstly, the treaties signed by the British with some of the tribes in North Somalia never established protectorate with defined borders. Secondly the treaty was not legal document under international law or in the eyes of the British. We have conclusively proven this, thus far.

 

 

Iminka waxa leedahay Somaliland wexe eheed dhul banaan ah. Oo wax nidaam ah kamee jirin, maamul, tacliin, ciidan, cafimaad, barlaman, etc haba yaratee mee leheen. Heshiiska la galeen Britishkuna been ayee eheed oo 80 sano wexe ku joogeen bug ayee eheed?

[Tallaabo]

Carafaat;971455 wrote:

Iminka waxa leedahay Somaliland wexe eheed dhul banaan ah. Oo wax nidaam ah kamee jirin, maamul, tacliin, ciidan, cafimaad, barlaman, etc haba yaratee mee leheen. Heshiiska la galeen Britishkuna been ayee eheed oo 80 sano wexe ku joogeen bug ayee eheed?

His logic;)

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Why are British Parliament debating Somaliland and calling it a state this is very strange on top of that why are they asking if Somaliland exchanged diplomatic representatives with Britain. The Brits were there signed a treaty with the Somaliland communities, these are colonial treaties the entity of Somaliland was well defined under colonial rule, The Anglo italian border the Anglo French border and so on. Your argument makes no sense at all. What Garmaqaate fails to understand after 1905 The British protectorate as an entity came directly under the colonial office If we have to follow Garmaqate logic and say the treaties were never legal. does that mean we were never colonized or protected. The Fact is Somaliland gained independence just like any other nation the Brits left it had its own judiciary system defined borders distinct history its own prime minister Parliament. And they made a union with a state called Somalia with their own leaders. Anigu ninkan ila hada maan fahmin ada ma wuxu ina leeyahay cidi ba idin ma isticmaarsan waxad ahaydeen dad xor ah, oo hadaan isticmaar jirin muxu ingriisku berbera ka qabanayey iyo hargeisa iyo xeeabaha oo dhan.

[Hobbesian_Brute]

fascinating debate, will have to do some research myself before contributing.

[Gar_maqaate]

Carafaat;971455 wrote:

Iminka waxa leedahay Somaliland wexe eheed dhul banaan ah. Oo wax nidaam ah kamee jirin, maamul, tacliin, ciidan, cafimaad, barlaman, etc haba yaratee mee leheen. Heshiiska la galeen Britishkuna been ayee eheed oo 80 sano wexe ku joogeen bug ayee eheed?

I presume this is an attempted sarcasm!

[Gar_maqaate]

Xaaji Xunjuf;971471 wrote:

Why are British Parliament debating Somaliland and calling it a state this is very strange on top of that why are they asking if Somaliland exchanged diplomatic representatives with Britain. The Brits were there signed a treaty with the Somaliland communities, these are colonial treaties the entity of Somaliland was well defined under colonial rule, The Anglo italian border the Anglo French border and so on. Your argument makes no sense at all. What Garmaqaate fails to understand after 1905 The British protectorate as an entity came directly under the colonial office If we have to follow Garmaqate logic and say the treaties were never legal. does that mean we were never colonized or protected. The Fact is Somaliland gained independence just like any other nation the Brits left it had its own judiciary system defined borders distinct history its own prime minister Parliament. And they made a union with a state called Somalia with their own leaders. Anigu ninkan ila hada maan fahmin ada ma wuxu ina leeyahay cidi ba idin ma isticmaarsan waxad ahaydeen dad xor ah, oo hadaan isticmaar jirin muxu ingriisku berbera ka qabanayey iyo hargeisa iyo xeeabaha oo dhan.

Xaaji, I really admire your dogged determination to defend your beliefs/cause even when your beliefs are unfounded and unhistoric. But try as you may, it is still painful to watch you grasping straws in thin air. Strangely enough, you and your buddy Caraafat are now asking me, whether or not i am questioning the fact that British Somaliland protectorate was a British colony. Lets just make this abundantly clear British Somaliland was a colonial subject of the Crown and it had an administration..... it was called the colonial office.

 

As for the "debate" in the UK parliament, I am surprised you brought that up again. First of all, there was no debate about somaliland. Mr Mr Reginald Sorensen of Leyton directed a question to a minister. Asking the minister if Britain had established a diplomatic relations with somaliland and the minister tells him that the territory does not exist anymore since it merged with Somalia to make the republic of Somalia. How could you use a source that complete undermines your own argument.?

The only reason why you brought up that source, is because the words "state" and "Union" were mention in relation to your Tinpot Republic. I think we have proven beyond doubt that somaliland was never a state. So lets deal with the word the Act of Union. I have seen you and your colleagues quoting articles from the act of union, as prove of a union between two independent states. Firstly, an Act of Union does not prove anything, lots of country have Acts of Union, countries such the United States America and the United Kingdom. Usually when a country's territory expands that country passes laws to incorporate the territory into its legal and political system. In 1960, Somalia had two territories with different colonial systems. One with English colonial laws and other with Italian colonial laws and in order to harmonise these contradictory laws and more importantly to create laws for independent Somali state, it had to adopt an Act of Union.

Secondly, I am perplexed by how the mere use of the words act of union in a document, can be interpreted as reference to prove statehood. Xaaji your parents have an act of union, my wife and I have an act of union, what does this prove?

[Gar_maqaate]

Tallaabo;971466 wrote:

His logic;)

Smileys and high fiving your buddies is not going to advance your cause. Either put up a meaningful rebuttal or shut up.

[Classified]

Carafaat;971455 wrote:

Iminka waxa leedahay Somaliland wexe eheed dhul banaan ah. Oo wax nidaam ah kamee jirin, maamul, tacliin, ciidan, cafimaad, barlaman, etc haba yaratee mee leheen. Heshiiska la galeen Britishkuna been ayee eheed oo 80 sano wexe ku joogeen bug ayee eheed?

Iminka adiguna ma waxa leedahay qaabilada Somaliyeed ee waqooyiga deega, sida DH (SSC), I (Hargeisa), G (Awdal), W (Makhir) iyo C (Zeylac), were once together under one government with parliament, military force, and administration BEFORE the arrival of the British Colonials?

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

You are missing point the reason the MP asked if Britain and Somaliland already established diplomatic relations was that Somaliland gained independence as an independent state , only a sovreing state forges relations with other nations, reason why he is asking But we know that when Somalia and Somaliland united under the Somali republic they started opening up embassies in the world. Why need an act of union why even hold a referendum for the union if it was a mere territory if it was not a state of it own. So are you saying Somalia expanded into Somaliland and there was never a union , Somalia a state , the people of Somaliland never knew before first of July. Certainly before 1896 Somalia was never heard of . Your argument is very contradicting and it doesn't go in par with the reality. Another fabrication Somaliland was never Somalia , Somaliland was never called Somalia the 2 states united under the name of the Somali republic. As it says in the union law. Unless you believe that was falsely created by Somaliland nationalists.

[Taleexi]

, Amiir Xaaji waa shaaciroole!

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Classified;971519 wrote:

Iminka adiguna ma waxa leedahay qaabilada Somaliyeed ee waqooyiga deega, sida DH (SSC), I (Hargeisa), G (Awdal), W (Makhir) iyo C (Zeylac), were once together under one government with parliament, military force, and administration BEFORE the arrival of the British Colonials?

They had their separate sultanates but they were all related lived in the same land for centuries. Actually emir sharmarke ruled much of awdal for 80 years he and his son before the colonialists arrived, and the zeila and other awdalites were under his jurisdiction, the fact these people of Somaliland were never ever part of Somalia.or part of a country called Somalia before 1960. Ethiopian nationalists have a better claim to Eritrea than Koonfurians have to Somaliland. Before colonialist came more than 70% of what is today Eritrea was under Ethiopian rule. Somaliland on the other hand was never part of Somalia, only for the short lived experiment and soon Somaliland independence will reach 30 years and it will out live the failed union, god willing. Even the Garaad clan had nothing to do with the rest of Somalia they were living close to Burco area and raided together their own kin while being allied to different other Somaliland subclans. There was no clanism back than , for example the Sanaag garaad clans and the SNM clans of Sanaag used to raid the Buhoodle clans. The only argument koonfurians have against Somaliland we should come under one country because we love it and because we speak the same language but nation hood and statehood cannot be based on a mere language. If that was the case the Koonfurians would want the Djiboutians to be part of their country. This is not the case if that was the case the Arab speaking nations would be one country , this also not the case nationhood, and so called ethno nationalism is not the same. The People of Somaliland share a distinct history tradition culture ancestry and blood line political culture, which goes back for centuries and centuries.

[Classified]

Xaaji Xunjuf;971523 wrote:

They had their separate sultanates but they were all related lived in the same land for centuries. Actually emir sharmarke ruled much of awdal for 80 years he and his son before the colonialists arrived, and the zeila and other awdalites were under his jurisdiction, the fact these people of Somaliland were never ever part of Somalia.or part of a country called Somalia before 1960. Ethiopian nationalists have a better claim to Eritrea than Koonfurians have to Somaliland. Before colonialist came more than 70% of what is today Eritrea was under Ethiopian rule. Somaliland on the other hand was never part of Somalia, only for the short lived experiment and soon Somaliland independence will reach 30 years and it will out live the failed union, god willing. Even the Garaad clan had nothing to do with the rest of Somalia they were living close to Burco area and raided together their own kin while being allied to different other Somaliland subclans. There was no clanism back than , for example the Sanaag garaad clans and the SNM clans of Sanaag used to raid the Buhoodle clans. The only argument koonfurians have against Somaliland we should come under one country because we love it and because we speak the same language but nation hood and statehood cannot be based on a mere language. If that was the case the Koonfurians would want the Djiboutians to be part of their country. This is not the case if that was the case the Arab speaking nations would be one country , this also not the case nationhood, and so called ethno nationalism is not the same. The People of Somaliland share a distinct history tradition culture ancestry and blood line political culture, which goes back for centuries and centuries.

Somalia NEVER existed prior to the Colonials. You're missing the damn point. Every Somali clan was his own Administration or controlled it's own territory. There was no "Puntland", no "Somali Republic", no "Somaliland", no "Jubbaland", no "Djibouti" before the arrival of the Colonials. Your attempt in regrouping and attaching some clans in the North to benefit your dream of what you call "Somaliland" is pathetic and played out.

 

The British Colonials came. Forcefully colonized separate Somali clans for quite some time. In 1960, the British stopped colonizing the Somali tribes that were inhabiting what is known as "British Somaliland Protectorate" or "North Western Somalia" or "Northern Somalia". After the British departure, the Somali tribes living in the former British Protectorate could've separately form their own NATION/STATE/COUNTRY. But, with Somalinimo, they all decided to join the rest of the Somali tribes in the Italian Somaliland Protectorate which was to get it's Independence within 4 days after the Independence of the Somali tribes living in the British Somaliland Protectorate.

 

Your logic, "Garaad clan live close to Burco and raided and bla bla bla" is childish. The Garaad clan is not related by blood to your clan. For Heaven's sake, you're the man that said Garaad Clan and the Garoowe clan are not related. LOL

 

Gar_Maqaate, don't waste your time in debating Xaji_Xunjuf. He purposely/intentionally ignores the facts.