Somaliland and the London Conference on Somalia
The upcoming London Conference on Somalia, and the UK’s
urging of the Somaliland Governmen t to attend, has
understandably generated a lot of debate and comment
within the Somaliland co mmunity, both within and outside
the country. One of the stated objectives of the conferen ce, according to Matt Baugh, Senior
Representative for Somalia, is to “…reinforce the
relative stabili ty in areas of Somalia, such as
Somaliland and Puntland and in the south…” This
stateme nt has, again understandably, aroused the ire of
the people of Somaliland since they recovere d their
so vereignty from the erstwhile Republic of Somalia in
1991, and have steadfastly maint ained their distance
from the anarchy, state collapse and war that have
engulfed Somalia ever since, despit e repeated attempts
(often involving violence, e.g. Al-Shabaab’s attacks in
Harg eisa and upon expatriates in Somaliland) to drag
them into this unending maelstrom.
Somaliland and its people expected more from their
former colonial protector, and it is either a r eflection
of the insensitivity of the current Foreign & Colonial
Office to the aspirations of the peo ple of Somaliland,
or simply of their lack of knowledge of the politics of
the Horn of Africa, that th ey refer to Somaliland as a
region of Somalia, as Puntland is. The interpretation
that m any hard line, anti-Somaliland politicians within
Somalia have given this British insensitivity or
ignorance, is that the British have coerced the
Somaliland Government to attend the conference as a
regional authority, just like Puntland, Galmudug etc.
Whatever the explanation for this impolitic language and
it is likely to be a combination of all three outlined
herein, the fact is th at the British Govern ment has put
the Silanyo administration in a very difficult spot
indeed. If they attend the confer ence, as they have
stated they will, then they will reap the wrath of th e
vast majority of their people; if they don’t, and they
may yet be forced to a volte face, then they will look
weak and will reap the wrath of Albion through
curtailment of aid and a downgra de of bilateral ties.
Leaving aside the issue of Somaliland’s attendance for
the moment, it is instructive to conside r what this
latest conference on Somalia is meant to achieve and the
likelihood of it achieving its stated objectives, which
have been set out as follows:
•
Security: sustainable funding for the African Union
Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), and support for Somali
security and justice sectors
•
Political Process: agreement to what should succeed the
transitional institutions in Mogadis hu in August 2012
and the establishment of a Joint Financial Management
Board
•
Local Stability: a coordinated international package
of support to Somalia’s regions
•
Counter-terrorism: renewed commitment to tackle
collectively the terrorist threat emanatin g from Somalia
•
Piracy: breaking the piracy business model
•
Humanitarian: renewed commitment to tackling Somalia’s
humanitarian crisis
•
International coordination: agreement on improved
international handling of Somalia issues
This is quite a challenge and it is clear that no single
conference can be expected to achieve the se gargantuan
goals, so we must question what the British Government
actually hopes to achie ve at this conference. According
to Chris Allen, UK Deputy Ambassador to Ethiopia, more
than 40 senior government officials and multilateral
organizations, including French President Nicolas Sar kozy, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, are expected to attend
the conference. Clearly, Prime Minister David Cameron
and Foreign Secreta ry William Hag ue have invested
considerable political capital and much personal
credibility in th is conference.
The fact is that there have been some 17 or 18
conferences (depending upon one’s criteria on w hat
constitutes a conference) held to effect reconciliation
and establish a credible, effective gov ernment for
Somalia since 1991, including the latest one earlier
this month in Garowe. All of the se conferences can be
said to have failed miserably since Somalia remains the
very definiti on of a failed state with no central state
authority in control of the country. Yet, the British
Governme nt has raised expectations internationally and
within East Africa by hosting this confe rence and
prevailing upon heads of state and government, the
foreign donor community and the current S omali
leadership, such as it is, to attend. On the face of it,
given the near debacle of abject failu re at the recent Garowe conference, which was only avoided by the UN
acceding to the opposing demands of the two camps into
which the participants divided regarding the basis upon
which a future government of Somalia would be formed,
the prospects for success seem rather dim.
So what do the British have up their sleeve, as it were,
that leads them to believe that this conf erence will
bear the sweet fruit of success where all the others
have failed? Firstly, they have b een dangling the
enticing carrot of increased international aid for
‘peaceful’ regions, whic h has resulted in a sudden
proliferation of regional states announced by aspirant
Diaspora wo uld-be ‘leaders’ seeking their fleeting
fifteen minutes of fame (or perhaps infamy might be a
more apt term) on the world stage, or in this case, the
London stage and a briefcase of money – courtesy of the
foreign donors. This opportunistic gold rush of regional
statehood has even infected the peaceful parts of the
erstwhile Somali Republic, i.e. Somaliland and Puntland,
with the recent moves to legitimise the dangerous,
Diaspora-driven, political mischief-making disgui sed as Awdal State and Khaatumo 2. Thus, while the direct
responsibility for the recent death s of security
personnel and civilians in Buhoodle in Somaliland can be
laid at the door of the na ked ambition and greed of the
Somali Diaspora carpetbaggers seeking a place at the
London conference, the British Government must accept
its indirect, if unintentional, culpability. To q uote a
much misus ed political axiom of our times, actions have
consequences.
Secondly, with the support of the US and UN Security
Council (UNSC), the British hope to revisit the
agreement reached at Garowe wherein all things were
promised to all parties. At Garowe, a further interim
period of four years was agreed, during which Somalia
would be ‘governed’ by a new interim government formed
on the basis of the 4.5 clan model upon which the
prese nt TFG was formed. Thereafter, in 2016, a permanent
government for Somalia will be formed b ased up on
regional representation and not the 4.5 clan structure.
The foreign donor commun ity had int ended that the Garowe
conference would form the permanent government that has
been push ed back four years, although any rational
observer with knowledge of Somali history and politics,
particularly during the period since the collapse of the Siyad Barre dictatorship, would have seen the chasm
between these intentions and the hard reality on the
ground. What, in effect, the for eign donors were
attempting to effect was to construct the edifice of a
permanent government upon quicksand, since the basis
upon which a new Somali state was to be formed had not
even been addressed.
The London Conference seeks to revisit the political
agreement on the formation of a permane nt government for
Somalia, because the issue was ducked at Garowe, and the
prospect of ano ther four years of anarchy and political
stasis under yet another interim government is
unpala table to the foreign donors. However, since the
core issues underlying the collapse of the Som ali sta te
have not been addressed and are not tabled to be
addressed at the conference, it is destined to fail.
These issues revolve around the rationale for the
existence of the state itself, i.e. what is the
underlying basis for political consent in Somalia? The
rationale for the creation of the erstwh ile Republic was
the irredentist dream of Greater Somalia, and this dream
has be en consigned to the dustbin of history for a whole
host of reasons, both internal and external, which are
beyond the scope of this paper to delve into. However,
despite the lingering passion of some Somalis for this
mirage of the past, and the false, in-name-only
adherence of some re gional powers seeking to advance
their own self interested, political calculations, this
discredi ted and empty irredentis m can no longer further
the political aspirations and hopes for a bett er future
of a new genera tion of Somalis.
Succeeding generations of young Somalis, which have been
robbed of any and all opportunity for betterment while
observing both their own misery and the changing world
around them are no longer inspired by dreams of Greater
Somalia. The call to their political loyalty is to their
sub-clan and the call to their faith is to a medieval
nihilism masquerading as Islam. They deman d a life and
the chance for betterment now and a faith that connects
them to humanity and human progre ss, not one that not
only denies it, but cuts them off from it in the name of
piety. The lucky few that can muster the necessary
payments, vote with their feet and join the millio ns of
illegal migrants that are preyed upon by human
traffickers each year, while the unlu cky are forced to
choose between death, beggary and fighting for one side
or the other in the int erminable war that has come to
define Somalia. This conference will, as did all of its
predecess ors, focus upon the symptoms of Somalia’s
malaise, i.e. the anarchy, lack of governance,
corru ption of the self-serving and self-appointed
leadership, the nihilist menace of Al-Shabaab and
maritime piracy, without ever addressing the root cause
of the disease.
Addressing the root cause of the disease requires asking
the question: In the absence of the ir redentist dream,
what is the basis for the existence of a Somali state,
and on what terms will th e people of Somalia,
particularly the young, accord to such a state their
political consent? This question cannot be sensibly or
productively debated and concluded in a couple days at a
swank conference hall in London by unelected and
unrepresentative Somali ‘politicians’ in the pay of t he
UN, senior representatives of the foreign donors
(however well intentioned), and senior me mbers of the
international aid nomenclature. These questions can only
be sensibly and productiv ely debated and concluded by
the people of Somalia through their genuine, indig enous
socio-poli tical and cultural leadership. Such a genuine,
grass-root, Somali-owned proce ss does not lend itself
readily to Western notions and perceptions of structured
political deba te and negotiation. Rather, it harks back
to traditional Somali culture of clan meetings, dispute
settlement and peac emaking under the galool tree that
has endured for hundreds of years. These meetings and
disc ussions are open to all, although respect and
deference is afforded to the elders, however to qu ote a
Somali adage pertaining to such meetings, participants
are ur ged to “daa’ ha raadininee, dunta raadiya”, or
seek and follow wisdom, not longevity.
To return to the issue of Somaliland’s attendance of the
London conference, it is accepted wisd om among most Somalilanders, that attendance should be rebuffed. This
is largely an emotion al, knee-jerk reaction to the
arrogance/ignorance of Britain in referring to the
country as a region of Somalia and then exerting strong
pressure for attendance upon the Silanyo regime, which
it has successfully inveigled into attending previous
meetings for Somalia to Silanyo’s domestic poli tical
cost. The overwhelming majority of Somaliland citizens,
and especially the yo ung who have much less attachment
to Britain and no fond memories of the relatively benign
colonial protector ate administration, would like their
government to cock a snoot at Albion’s perfidy and shun
atte ndance. However, this would be a mistake since an
emotional response to another’s slight (inten tional or
otherwise), while often satisfying, is rarely wise and
almost never in one’s long term se lf interest.
Instead, the Silanyo administration should attend the
conference with the aim of telling truth to power and
challenging the international community to honestly
address why the Somali state co llapsed in the aftermath
of the Siyad Barre dictatorship and in doing so return
ownership of the process of reconciliation and
establishment of a new, 21st century rationale for the
sta te to the people of Somalia. Somaliland has unique
experience of this type of genuine, grass-r oot,
democr atic peace making and reconciliation rooted in
local culture, traditions and religious faith. The Bor ama Conference of 1992, which laid the foundations
for the re-emergence of Som aliland as a pe aceful,
democratic and free republic lasted for over four
months, was rooted in local culture and history, ensured
that all sections and groups within society, including
those historically not acco rded a voice, were
represented and were heard. In addition, this conferen ce
called upon the sk ills, experience and knowledge of
those from the Diaspora as equal citize ns and not as
fortune or position-seeking carpetbaggers. The
representatives/participants at this conference included
clan elders and leaders, traditional Sultans,
intellectuals and poets, business people, professionals,
e.g. doctors and lawyers, politicians and civil society
leaders.
The conference had no formal agenda, but everyone knew
that the central topic of discussion w as the terms upon
which the people of this country were prepared to live
together in peace and fraternity in a post-dictatorship,
post-irredentist future. The first item that was agreed,
which set the tone and stage for the subsequent
reconciliation and agreement to form a repr esentat ive
government, was that all previous political and clan
disputes between the peoples and clans of Somaliland,
whether rooted in the defunct dictatorship or in the
subsequent libe ration war, were null and void, were
consigned to history and that it was ‘xaraam’, i.e. a
sin, to ever raise them again. The people of Somaliland
have a lot to offer in assisting the internat ional
community in developing a workable road map for genuine
reconciliation in Somalia, and they are prepared put
this experience, expertise and their good offices as an
honest broker between the warring parties on the table.
However, the international community has to come to the
realisation that the continued failu res of its efforts
towards re-establishing a viable Somali state over the
last two decades are neither accidental nor due to any
bad luck or lack of effort. Rather, they have been
doomed to failure be cause they have sought to paper over
the cracks of a political edifice that cannot be
resurrecte d because its very foundation has disappeared.
Somaliland’s willingness to play the role of peace
broker, impartial adjudicator and host of the
reconciliation process for its broth ers to the south is
genuine and heartfelt. Equally, its commitment to its
sovereignty and indep endence is uncond itional and also
genuine and is not subject to question or debate by
others. Somaliland won back its independence and freedom
at the barrel of a gun, after a long war, and with the
precious blo od and treasure of its people. Somaliland’s
freedom and recovery of its sovereignty was neither
negotiated at a conference table nor granted by fiat,
and it will not be surrendered on any term s.
International recognition may not come today, or this
year, and the powers represented at th e conference may
choose to ignore the will of the people of Somaliland
for as long as they wish, but this will neither deter
them from their chosen destiny nor dismay them from
their choice.
It does not often come to pass that a leader is
presented by history with a chance to repres ent the
wishes of his people and the justice of their cause to
the international community by issuing a challenge, so
honest, so heartfelt and so rooted in the basic humanity
shared by all peoples, that it marks a turning point in
international diplomacy and modern history. Such a
moment was presented to Emperor Haile Selassie at the
League of Nations in 1936 and the challenge he issu ed to
a world community dominated by European colonial powers
on behalf of the Ethiopian peop le suffering under a
brutal onslaught by fascist Italy, brought a destitute,
backward and impover ished African country into the
League as a charter member and changed the course of
history. In 1974, Yasser Arafat went to the UN and said
“today I come bearing an olive branch in one han d, and
the freedom fighter’s gun in the other. Do not let the
olive branch fall from my hand. I re peat, do not let the
olive branch fall from my hand”, and the world never saw
the struggle for P alestinian rights and the creation of
a Palestinian state through the same prism again.
President Silanyo has such an opportunity at the London
conference. He must challenge the wo rld to deny the self
evident will of the people of Somaliland and their
unique achievement of crea ting a democratic,
post-irredentist Somali state, imperfect as it may be,
adjacent to the longest-running failed state in modern
history. He must point out that the denial of
Somaliland’s rights a nd the continued consignment of the
people of Somalia to a never-ending nightmare of
anarchy, terrorism and war are two sides of the same
coin. The Somali people have the ingenuity and the will
to solve their seemingly intractable problems if
provided by the international community with the means.
The missing ingredient is the imagination and creativity
to step back and let the Som alis do it for themselves.
Somaliland’s message to the London conference is simple:
if the definiti on of madness is repeating the same
action again and again yet expecting a different result
eac h time, then we are your sanity pill; ignore us at
your peril.
The world may ignore Somaliland’s right to recover its
sovereignty, but we have the solution to our brothers’
troubles, and we stand ready with an open hand to offer
it, if you will let us. The prolonged misery of Somalia
and Somaliland’s continued prodigality are linked and
both the result of the lack of imagination and
creativity on the part of the international community,
wh ich has for too long consigned the ‘Somali issue’ to
the back burner. If the world is now serious about
fin ding a solution for the problems of the Somali people
of the Horn of Africa, then it sho uld open not only its
heart, but also its mind and its ears, because
Somaliland has been shouti ng the solut ion for years with
to deaf ears. Somaliland’s attendance of the London
Conference must challen ge the status quo not only with
respect to its own situation, but also with respect to
the situati on in Somalia. Somaliland, as the first
post-irredentist Somali nation-state, must deliver this
mes sage and deliver it emphatically. Who knows, forcing
the world to properly address the ‘Somali Issue’ may
just save the conference and save the credibility of
Albion.
|