Hearing of the death of Dr. Abdishakur Sh. Ali Jowhar struck me as a thunderbolt out of the blue. At no time can one be prepared for death but at times like this it is simply unbearable. The following eulogy poem is therefore a tribute to my friend, eminent scholar, unique thinker and philosopher, medical doctor and above all my irreplaceable intellectual soul mate and hero who was snatched by an untimely death in a tragic and unforgivable car accident on one of Somaliland’s deathtrap roads, between Dilla and Borama, on 13th May 2012.

Dr. Jowhar was a man blessed with the gift of gab and it was our mutual love for words and ideas that brought us together. It is therefore imperative that I remember him in the way he knew and respected me best, as a poet. In time, I will write an obituary about him to share his life as I knew him with his fans and the general public but now let me try to touch on his character, his intellectuality, his passion, his bravery, his kindness, his wisdom, his patriotism, his rebellious thought and his modesty as well as his humor, his sarcasm and his flare with language in the following poem: Geesi Loo Hanweynaa ( A Greatly Sought After Hero).

Geeriyeey  gableeyaay

Gudcur iyo habaareey

***

Iyadoon laguu gogol

Oon gu’ba laguu tirin

Waxad soo guclaysood

Kolba guri mug weynaa

Goloftood ku heestaba

Miyaad goor xun socodeey

Maantana gab soo tidhi

***

Ood gabi hadhweyniyo

Geed lagu nagaa iyo

Gumbur lagu dahsoonaa

Geesi loo hanweynaa

Gab intaad ku soo tidhi

Gaar nooga qaaddoo

Goonyaha dhulkaygiyo

Gayigii u ooyoo

Shakuur lagu gunaanaday…

***

Maxaan gabay idhaahdaa Miyuu ii guntamayaa Godka uu baneeeyiyo Gabalaaxsigiisii Gololuhuu fadhiyi jirey Gereerka erayadu Qiimihiisi gaarkii Miyuu gudi karaayaa…

*** Qalinkaygu gaydhada Miyuu guulihiisii

Goohiyo dayaankii

Geesaaska sheekada Siduu yahay gammaan faras Qoraalkuu galbini jirey Gibladiyo ciyaartiyo

Gurxanka iyo loolkiyo

Wilwilaha ku goyn jirey

Weedhuu gorfeeyaba

Guuxuu ka tegi jiray

Goolkuu ku dhalin jirey Miyuu gaadhi karayaa…

*** Geesi baan abiidkii

Geeridu ka raagine

Goortii la joogaba Guubaabadiisii Gurmad caymadkiisii Gaadh ilaaladiisii Guryo oodistiisii Gacal ururintiisii

Miyaa galalawgiisii Durba loo go’doomoo Gar allee la tebayaa               *** Goobtuu dhex joogsado Gole oogistisii Hadal godolintiisii Gar wanaajintiisii Talo loo gudboonyahay Gorfo buuxintiisii Garaad xoorintisii Miyaa garashadiisii Durba loo go’doomoo Gar Allee la tebayaa

***

Jowharow waxaad guddo

Gogoshaad ahaydiyo

Beel gardaadintaadii

Dareen garashadaadii

Cilmigaagii gaankii

Waa loo goblamayoo

Goobtaad banaysaa

Jiilaal ka soo galay

***

Geeridu xaq weeyee

Somaliland gaar

Iyo guriga Soomaal

Gaban yar iyo waayeel Geed kastoo la joogaba Gacmahaa la hoorshoo Gurayo hoyashadaadii Guus iyo quraan iyo Ducaa lagugu geebaray

***

Guudkeeda dunidani Intaad joogtay gacallow Waajibkaagii gudatee

Guryaheeda aakhiro Galihii firdowsaad Gama’ oo ku waar nabad.

Bashir Goth

By reading his countless harangues,you can easily sense the man has deep rooted hatred and disdain for Somaliland.Sure the diminishing Siyad Barre officers are the harshest and most relentlessamong the Republic of Somaliland enemies, and may be good reason because theywere decisively defeated by the SNM. He is a member of the rapidly vanishingcoterie but still a loud and nonsensical group.

The harshest Somaliland criticsare the few remnants of Siad Barre fascist regime, a regime decisively defeatedby the preeminent (Somaliland National Movement, SNM), despite their heavymilitary gadgetry. Mr. Osman you must know you know, Somaliland has a huge dozeof intellectuals and countless capable writers, that would nip your baseless,and clan motivated harangues. You’re countless, baseless remarks would provoke achain of fact check rebuttals. Remnants of the doomed Siyad Barre tribaldictatorship, or other clannish groups who are anti-Somaliland, based on tribaland clannish reasons, but not on merit, substance and concrete facts andfigures. These people often invoke a 20 years ago false premise, but today,after 21 years of Somaliland’s existence as the second Republic, the country isenjoying its hard won independence, and sovereignty. Today in Somaliland the peoplethe people between the ages of 15-35 from all the regions of Somaliland neverknow anything else but the Republic of Somaliland. These facts will fly on theface of Mr. O. Hassan’s one theme harangues and baseless lies without iota oftruth. Unfortunately despite all that he keeps on writing the same thing overand over again. Being an arm chair “Fadhikudirir cyber warrior, he must be ashamedof his one-sided, recycled, and monotonous and baseless campaigns againstSomaliland. Some Somaliland detractors and O. Hassan criticisms are the same,baseless and based on centered on one single tired theme and I quote“Somaliland is based on a single clan, and everyone else is against it.” What abaseless lie, what a cheap shot. I think many before you have tried that cheap shotsand it never worked, therefore, it is better for you to change your style andwrite some criticism based on facts and figures against Somaliland. The peoplewho follow this tired line are predominately Siyad Barre remnants, who moreoften than not throw around tired, recycled, monotonous, cheap propaganda, didnot work.  Moreover, the regions you andothers often toss around such as Sool, Eastern Sanag, and the so-calledfictional Cayn are multi-clan and diverse regions that do not belong to oneclan. I am also warning Mr. Oman to steer clear of my Somaliland home region “Awdal”,a region, and use it in his hate articles. He probably may never had stepped hisfeet on its soil, or worse than that, never met somebody who came from there,or not know anybody who is originally extracted from there. As I noticed hejust recently started mentioning “Awdal” might be falsely encouraged when he sawfew Diaspora (Qorba Meer) Rayalle supporters, still bitter about the loss oftheir boss,  tossing around a so-called“Awdal state” called fictional land they neither belongs to them, nor they arenot in a position to speak on its behalf.

Mr. Osman, letme tell you in a very strong terms “Awdal” is part and parcel of the Republicof Somaliland, and has thousands of intellectuals that can speak for it andSomaliland as well. You better stop mentioning Awdal again. You need not even tomention this that name again. Any time you mention “Awdal” and toss around andadd in your baseless lies, get ready for harsh factual rebuttals from someonefrom “Awdal” or Somaliand for that matter. Let me add, you know very littleabout “Awdal”, and especially the modern one and its people, you probably neverput your feet on “Awdal soil.”  “Awdal”is part, and parcel of Somaliland, the sizable intellectuals from “Awdal” arepeople who are full contributors and participants in the developmental programsgoing on in Somaliland. They take a lion’s share in the development ofuniversities, building of roads, hospitals, and other developmental projects.They are also well represented in both the public and business sectors, Arethere some grievances? Yes, there are always grievances everywhere in theworld. Are they true? you bet some are . They also hate to be used by outsiderslike you who have an axe to grind, and has no connection to the region and itpeople, and probably never step on its soil. Your calculations and the s-calledclans you talked about is an outdated propaganda ploy, and that does not existon the ground today. “You also need toask yourself one question, why Somaliland succeeded and Somalia keeps onfailing over and over again?”

Somaliland Achievements: Somaliland achievements since its re-liberationsand the foundation of the second Somaliland Republic are countless andextensive, but I will briefly touch few of them here. The country has takensignificant and concrete strides towards steady progress in all fields such aseducation, health care, infra structure, the building of democracy institutions.The young country was ruled by four presidents, and all of them were electedthrough the ballot box. Unlike its neighboring dictatorships, Somaliland has awell-established democratic political system, where the different partiescompete for political posts. The country has two bicameral houses, the upperhouse, that may be a bit similar “to the U.S. Senate” is populated bytraditional elders, and the lower house, that resembles the U.S. House of Representativeis populated by elected officials.

Advice to Mr. Osman: Your pieces are articulate instyle, but they but in substance, they are deeply flawed, rumpling, lack deptha good theme, devoid of facts and figures, and mostly based on recycled, andmonotonous cheap and baseless propaganda often tossed around by Somalilanddetractors. Your hate may be based because you have the feeling that Somalilandhas toppled your beloved Siyad Barre dictatorship.

Mr. Osman the former Somalia has collapsed in 1991,but that was not the beginning of the collapse. It started in 1960. As soon asthe people of Somaliland threw away their hard won independence and went toMogadishu and the first so –called Somali Republic started and the people formerItalian Somaliland took all the high political positions, such as thepresident, prime minister, Chief of police, chief of the military. Somalilandwas immediately appeared to be a state occupied without a war and militarydefeat.  Again Somali was divided since1960, and the division has already done, and is already a done deal, permanent,and irrevocable. Moreover, it did not happened by accident, this is what themajority of Somaliland including your artificial, false ostentations, fantasy, and your mythical regions havedecided. The way you put forth Somaliland is wrong. First of Sool, Sanag andthe District of Buuhoodle is not a monolithic nor belonged any one clan. Yourline of argument is false and baseless, come up with a new one. You have tossingaround this false line for 20 years.

I beg to differ with you; there is nothing with asemblance of government that emerges in the former Somalia since the vanquishingof the Siyad Barre dictatorship. The several foreign made figment are thecreation of the Horn of Africa dictators, who themselves have serious internalproblems. Those figment tossed as government was the brain child of the abovetyrants. That is why none of them ever worked, and will never work.  Despite their efforts, and their cries to collectmoney for these figments around the world. The bottom line is they will neverwork, because they are not representative, unreal, foreign, and led by realpeople trusted by the people.

Your latest piece look like letter desperation, letterof resignation of despair, a obituary of your newly love of the former Somalia,a defective state structurally flawed you were a part of its demise. FormerSomalia is not in the process of division, it is already split into formerBritish Somaliland the modern Somaliland Republic and the former ItalianSomaliland. That will never be any never is any re-unification.

Somaliland Republic‘s independence, and the urge tostand separate, sovereign, independent, with its own army, air force and navyis existential and sacred. Had Somaliland’s 1960’s mediocre politicians has atleast negotiate in their blunder a national Guard or local territorial forces,they would have warded off Siyad army unleashed heavy and lethal weapons onunarmed, and defenseless Somaliland. That will never happen again. “We aresinging the melody along the lines never again.”

“We will do everything in our ability to keep anddefend our independence and sovereignty. That is our survival, and isexistential and is sacred. “

The difference between Croatia and Bosnia during the190s ethnic wars was Croatia had a local territorial army while Bosnia hasn’t. Thatis why we all know what had happened to Bosnia. They became the mercy of theSerbian forces who immediately laid siege to Sarajevo, a predominately BosnianMuslim city.  Had it not the (SomalilandNational Movement, SNM), when Siyad Barre occupation army was relentlessbombarding Somaliland’s  populationcenters  full-fledged holocaust along thelines of Rwanda would have perpetrated in Somaliland. The SNM became theterritorial forces that saved Somaliland from Siyad Barre’s occupation army.

Suleiman Egeh: Freelance writer and senior scienceinstructor

In any event, some of the following titles, which have all predicted the demise of Somaliland, were written by none other than yourself, Mohamed F Yabarag , Osman Hassan, and others. Yet Somaliland has made progress in every leap. Just revisit your previous “papers”:

“The Declaration Of Awdal State Rattled “Somaliland” Establishment”

“The last nail to the secessionists’ coffin”

“Death Knell for Secessionists in “Somaliland” “

“Countdown to Somaliland’s collapse”

“Somaliland on the Brink of Imminent Collapse”

“18 May: A sad day in the History of Somalia”

What a shame! Wishing the downfall of a Somali society—while “advocating” for Somali unity is a classic example of clannish rants disguised as a campaign for Somali unity.

Indeed, the likes of Mr. Yabarag and Mr. Osman, the so-called pro-unity groups, have paradoxically butchered unity to death. That is, they shed more crocodile tears for Somali unity than thunderclouds could spill rains, yet they inadvertently jam daggers into its heart, repeatedly. Congratulations gentlemen!

Why anyone, from Somaliland, in his/her right mind would share a country with you folks? The only question that creeps into my mind is: how did we manage to share a country (former Somalia) with people like Mr. Yabarag and Mr. Osman for thirty years? Were we in deep coma for these three decades?

In recent years, remember at the height of the former SSC rebels’ violent campaign against Somaliland security forces, Mr. Hassan wrote an article entitled, “Countdown to Somaliland’s collapse”. Little Mr. Hassan knew that the countdown was ticking for the obliteration of his violent SSC militants, not for Somaliland’s collapse. Just few months later, the SSC disappeared faster than ice cubes vanish in a hot desert.

Similarly, I recall as soon as a Diaspora group from Awdal region, in Somaliland, announced the so-called Awdal State administration at a glamorous house party in Canada, Mr. Yabarag ecstatically performing spectacular back fillips to express the overwhelming joy of his long-awaited dream: the fall of Somaliland into feuding clans. Mr. Yabarag wrote an emotionally and strategically miscalculated piece entitled, “The Declaration Of Awdal State Rattled “Somaliland” Establishment”. I reminded him that he celebrated prematurely.

Evidently, as I have predicted, so far the “Awdal State” Diaspora group remains convinced that controlling Somaliland with a remote control from the heart of Canada is far more logical than venturing into Awdal region to face the reality on the ground.

As for the February 2012 Somali conferences in London, over fifty countries for the first time realized that Somaliland  was  no longer a region that exists hypothetically; but it was (is) a legitimate country, with its problems, like any other nation in Africa. Therefore, the world, unambiguously, echoed that Somaliland and Somalia must sit down to agree or disagree on the issue of Somali unity.

No one has ever mentioned any of the fly-by-night “administrations” namely SSC/Khatumo, Makhir, and Awdal State, attempted to parachute into Somaliland by selfish, power-hungry Diaspora groups.

Truth is: the international community cares less whether or not some clans in Somaliland disagree with its quest for independence. The only thing the world wants to know is: what the majority in Somaliland want? It doesn’t matter which clan they hail from or region they inhabit. Nor does it matter which clans signed an agreement with the British colonizers. Do you think every African clan signed an agreement with the colonizers? Of course not!

So, putting aside the usual fadhi kudirir (Somali political debates at the coffee shops) the indisputable truth is: Somaliland’s independence is unavoidable—just as death and taxes are inescapable.

Thank you,

Dalmar Kaahin

dalmar_k@yahoo.com

Mareegtada Harowo.com waxay caan  ku ahaan jirtay kuna suntaneyd iney magacyo bug ah iyo e-maylo macmal ah wax ku soo qoraan. Maantana waxay u badheedheen iney magac iyo e-mayl qof leeyahay xuquuqdiisa ku soo shaabadeeyaan wax uunan ka warheynin, shaqana ku laheyn.  Sidaa awgeed, waxan halkan mar labaad  si adag ugu cadeynayaa inaanan masuuliyada labadaa qoraal aanan laheyn ee u iska leeyahay Axmed Sheekh Faarax.

Wey jirtay in qoraalo badan oon qoray ay horey u soo daabacday mareegtada Harowo.com, kuwaas oo ahaa aragti dhab ah oon ka qabay hadana ka qabo arrinta reer Ugaasdoon. Qoraaladayduna waxay ahaayeen fikir rasmi ah oon aheyn fadhi ku dirir. Harowo.com waxay soo bandhigi jirtay fikirkeygaas ooy ila wadaageen bulsho fara badan si looga doodo loona fahmo afkaarta kala duwan ee bulshada reer Awdal.  Qoraaladayduna waxay ahaayeen kuwa aflagaado qaawani ka reeban tahay oo waafaqsan anshaxa saxaafada suuban.

Waxa maanta igu noqotay wax lala yaabo in tafaqyatirihii soo daabici jiray qoraaladaydu u hadda ku sheego iney ahaayeen kuwa loogu talagallay iney bulshada kala qaybiyaan. Su’aasha jawaabta u baahinina waxay tahay muxu tafatirihu horey ugu soo daabici jiray qoraaladaasi u xanafta ku sheegaayo ee u weliba dhaleeceynaayo?

Horey waxa u dhacday in qoraalada aan anigu iska leeyahay xuquuqdooda lagu sheego iney leeyihiin niman kale ooy ka mid yihiin oday reer Canada ah, Cabdiwaaxid Sheekh iyo Prof. Axmed Warsame. Waxaan dhawr jeer cadeeyey in aynan nimankaasi shuqul ku laheyn qoraaladaasi. Maantana waxa dhacday in oday kale lagu shaabadeeyo maqaaladaha aan xuquuqdooda leeyahay hawshuna iga gashay. Arrintaas oo ah been cad oon raad laheyn.

Dhamaan dadka lagu shaabadeeyey qoraaladaydu waxay ka soo wada jeedeen dhadhaar kaliya  ujeedada ka dambeysaayina tahay in colaad mala awaal ah dad loogu abuuro. Nimankaasi horey loo sheegi jiray iyo kan maanta lagu soo kordhiyey ee ah Maxamuud Cabdilaahi , markii aan xanwareystay waxay yihiin dad bulshada magac ku leh, firfircoon oo waliba leh karti ay wax ku qoraan. Waxaana la rabaa in libaaxyadaasi iska horda la xadanteeyo si ay fadhi ku tirirka hudhuu hadhaada ah uga qayb qaataan oo la helo wax mareegtooyinka calankoodii dhacay lagu mashaysiiyo.

Arrintani waxay I xasuusisay sheeko gaaban oo bari hore dhacday. Waxaa deegaan wadaag ahaa laba qabiil sida Qodhac iyo Qansax. Qudhac ayaa iyaga oo shir u fadhiya nin ka mid ihi weydiiyey oday waayeel ah oo garaad badan su’aal,  ” Xaajiyow maxaa lagu gartaa halyeyada reer Qudhac?” .  Xaajigu wuxu ahaa nin garaad badan wuxuna ugu jawaabay ,” Halyeygaagu waa ninka reer Qansax caayo amma wax ka sheego”. Murtida sheekadani waxay tahay halyeyda reeraha waxa aflagaadeyn Harow.com  iyo xulufadeeda.

Annigu muddo dheer wax kuma soo qorin mareegtooyinka sababta oo ah wax kasta kama hadlo, la iimana dooro waxaan ka dadlaayo ee anniga ayaa fikirkayga dhiibta marka iyo goobta ay ku haboonaato. Waxase dhacday in xiriir badan oo dhinaca e-maylka ah ay reer Haorow.com igula soo xiriiri jireen iyaga oo I weydiin jiray waxaan la aamusanahay, iguna dhiiri gelin jiray inaan fadhi ku dirirka ka qayb qaato, taasi ooy iigu taag waayeen. Waxayna taasi dhalisay iney maqaaladahaygii hore dib u soo galiyaan mareegtada iyaga oo mar marsiiyo ka dhiganaaya cid kale ayaa qori jirtay.

Waxa la yaab leh dadka fikirkaygii ka jawaabi waayey maalintii  ay habooneyd amma firkaygii u tag waayey iney aamusiyaan, waxay ugu daaleen iney maqaaladahayga maalinba cid ku sheegaan. Sida ku cad labada maqaaladood ee kor ku xusana, tafaqyatiraha Harow.com  ayaa noqoday kan magacayga iyo e-maylkayga been abuura si qaldana u isticmaala.

Haddii dad la raadin, waxa la raadin lahaa kuwa ku talax tagay aflagaadada iyo isir cayga ee u ka mid yahay kan ku hawl gala magaca A/Kariim Faarax iyo e-maylka xirsi2@live.com ee Cumar Cabdi Lugweyne isir caayey oo Axmed Sheekh Faarax kas iyo maan u garanaayo, anniguna aan dhawaan sheegi doono iyo ninka kale ee lagu wareysto magaciisa saxda ah, degana Edminton, marka kalena ku hawl galla, laguna wareysto magaca bugta ah ee Col. Faarax Ruuge ee isku sheega inuu Awdal joogo.

Harowo.com waxay mareegtadeeda ka siibta calamadii Awdal State iyo Soomaaliland ee ka baban jiray, waxayna u muuqataa iney qaadaynayso taladaydii aheyd iney sudho calanka Kilinka Shanaad ee tafaqyatirihu ka soo jeedo si uu ugu hawl galo u adeegida bulshada reer harowo ee u ku abtirsado. Anniguna waxaan leenahay  Eebe ha tuso tubta toosan.

Shalay Axmed wuxu aflagaadaynaayey odayadiisii iyo siyaasiyiintiisii ay ka midka ahaayeen Xildhibaan Maxamed Barkhad Miigane iyo Prof. Ibraahim Muxumad Aye isaga oo ku haysta fikirka ay ka fikir duwan yihiin. Waxana wax lala yaaba ah Axmed Sheekh Faarax oon meelna u dhaafan Waashinton DC sodonkii sanno ee u dambeeyey inuu ayaandaradiisa ku hadaaqaayo inuu hudhuu hadhaa ugu taliyo reer oday dhaqmeedyo, wax garad, sheekh iyo shariifba ku jiro.

Daraadna Axmed wuxu aflagaadeynaayey sodoh reerka u dhaxday oo degan Saylic xoogsatana ah. Odaygu tollow ma laha cidba ma dhaafo!

Gabagabadii, ninkani Maxamuud Cabdilaahi Iimaan ee Harowo.com aflagaadeyneyso iyo qoraaalkayga midna looma jeedo ee waxa loo socdaayi waa ururka ARDAA ee danahiisa loo ordaayo, ururkaasi ooy horey mareegtadu xasaasiyad ka qabtay, hadana ku noqday falaadh aan gilgilasho kaga go’ayn bulshaduna ku dhaadato.

Eebow na karsii taageerada dhamaan ururada samafalka ah oo ha naga soo horjeedin, xasaasadna ha naga qaadsiin sida Axmed Sheekh Faarax. Ka naxow nafta waa!

Qore: Yuusuf Warsame

Always at loss of ways of doing any tangible harm to Somaliland, the wailing is pretty much the only thing they can do. However, as time went by and Somaliland went from strength to strength, the Wailers were driven to being nothing less than hilariously hysterical. Hardly a day goes by without one or another of the Wailers taking to the pages of the websites with a piece of nearly blind anti-Somaliland and tribal hatred masquerading as intellectual dispensations on, or chronicles of, events taking place in Somaliland.

The Clannish Wailers are too numerous to list them here all. But expect on almost daily basis a one Osman Hassan, a one Ali A. Fatah, a one M. F. Yabarag, a one Ali H. Abdulla, a one Aman H. D. Obsiye, a one Sadia A. Aden, a one Mohamed Awale, a one Mahado Sh. Dahir, a one Ahmed H. Abdi, a one Safi Abdi, a one Faisal Roble or someone posing as the spokesperson for some dubious organizations with names like NSPU and SSC appearing in the byline of some venom—though promoted as a serious op-ed—in major Somali Websites. An obvious fact is that, though all these gentlemen and ladies might swear and plead denial, they are all members of the Wailers‟ Club. Another fact, however, is less susceptible to straight-faced denials. Reading an article written by one of them is as good as having read an article by any other. The subject matter, line of argument, premise, style, substance, theme, tone etc. of one scribe are strikingly similar to those of any other.

It would be hard to escape the perceptive reader that the Wailers are on a concerted and well-coordinated mission of spurting defamation, disinformation, envy and deep-rooted enmity all targeted at Somaliland in general and at one of its tribes in particular. Inconsequential Contradictions The Wailers‟ arguments against Somaliland have all the while been presented along clannish lines. They have acquired and perfected a self-defeating habit of labeling Somaliland with all sorts of tribal tribulations. They are fond of asserting, with unabated zest, that one-tribal chauvinism is the very foundation of Somaliland‟s existence. Somaliland, they would have us believe, is “a one-tribe secessionist entity”. That tribe is the source and perpetrators of all the troubles that are bedeviling Somalis everywhere. That tribe hates all other Somali tribes wherever they live in. That tribe is a Somalisdiid, i.e. rejectionists of Somali nationhood. All other tribes in Somaliland are under the yoke of armed subjugation and oppression at the hands of that damnable tribe.

The Wailers‟ litany of tirades is endless. Calling a Spade a Spade Feb. 2012 With the same persistent doggedness, strangely enough, the Wailers are not beneath employing clannish antidotes in frustrating Somaliland‟s alleged tribal underpinnings. Some incite various clans of Somaliland‟s Sool, Eastern Sanag and what-they-so-call Ayn regions to reject and rebel against the country‟s resurrected independence solely on clannish grounds. They claim that these clans and any territory in which they may reside should be part of Puntland on the strength of their tribal affiliation with the denizens of Majertenia. Never mind that if there ever were a truly, purely and chauvinistically clannish Somali enclave, it is Puntland. Others of the Wailers egg certain tribes of Somaliland—or themselves have been active in efforts—to establish their own purely clannish nay, sub-clannish mini-states within Somaliland proper. When the Wailers, in an occasionally feeble and unconvincing effort, make attempts to present themselves as pan-nationalist Somali patriots, it is the numerically growing and utterly comical TNGs (Transitional National Governments) later renamed the TFGs (Transitional Federal Governments) that they promote as the legitimate governments that should lord over all Somalis.ii Never mind that the TNGs/TFGs were and still are being instituted on basis of the notoriously shameful 4.5 tribal power-sharing mechanism.iii No need to mention that the TNGs/TFGs were and still are always being constituted on foreign soils and by foreigners. No big deal that the TNGs/TFGs have from their advent and up to now been on foreigners‟ lifeline. No matter that the TNGs/TFGs are always imposed on the Somalis. And of no consequence is Somalis‟ opinion on the TNGs/TFGs‟ legitimacy or on whether the TNGs/TFGs enjoyed the consent of the supposedly governed i.e. the Somalis. If there are glaringly unmistakable contradictions in subscribing to these blatantly inconsistent views, the Wailers are strangely oblivious to them. Or perhaps, after all, they are not. I suspect that they consciously and intentionally choose to ignore these illogicalities.

They are on a single-minded vendetta mission and in accomplishing this all important task, the Wailers would not, with all due respect, allow contradictions, incompatibilities, inconsistencies, incongruities, distortions, discrepancies and weirdness to be on the way. One way or another, the end result is only a source of ridicule that is amusing as much as it is amazing. Crossing Fine Lines Moreover, the Wailers have abandoned any resemblance of decency and objectivity in presenting their harangues against Somaliland and the “secessionist tribe”—though decency and objectivity were in short supply with them to start with. There was never any doubt on which “tribe” they had in mind. But, throwing all decorum and civility to the wind, they not only openly name Isaac as the culprit tribe, but also the crimes the Isaac is guilty of are growing by leaps and bounds. No sin, no offense, no atrocity, is far-fetched or ridiculous enough for the Wailers to accuse the Isaac to have committed and still perpetuating. Somaliland is home to my many tribes. All tribes in the country must have equal rights as well as equal duties and responsibilities. I want my Somaliland to be a country of laws and institutions instead of a country of personalities or of one tribe or another. It is the only way Somaliland can be a truly viable country. Like every patriot, I consider it an integral responsibility on my part to promote popular justice, equality and inclusiveness in my country. If my country goes wrong in any way, I would rather be the first person to point it out and strenuously strive to rectify such wrong. By the same token and with equally zealous determination, I would be in the forefront in resisting and making every effort to defeat any attempt of maligning—or of physically visiting harm on—my country. We Somalis are a tribal people whether we like it or not. It would be a blissful day when a Somali would not, under any circumstance, identify him/herself—and is dealt with by fellow Somalis not—on basis of the tribe he/she belongs to, but on the content of his/her character and ability. Until such a time comes, it would suffice if, for one, tribal affiliation would be only a means of knowing who others are i.e. a means of knowing others more intimately, but not a means of harboring ill-will or malice towards them. This is, in the least, what our Religion, Islam, preaches to its faithful. In other words, tribal membership is acceptable, but tribalism, that is inter-tribal hatred or conflict, is ruinous and therefore should be avoided as much as possible. In the Somali nomadic traditions, it is normal, natural and understandable for tribes to have rivalries of some sort or another. In extreme cases, such rivalries can lead to intertribal skirmishes over water sources and pastures or to raids to dispossess camels from a rival tribe. However, there used to be civilized, through unwritten, rules of engagement that governed tribal contentions. Blind hatred or prolonged attrition or suchlike between tribes was never part of these rules because such behavior was deemed distinctly un-Somali. I am afraid the Wailers in their dogmatic Isaac-bashing diatribes have crossed the fine and solemn lines of the said rules of engagement. Neither I nor, to the best of my knowledge, any other Somalilander have until now made any attempt to rebut the Wailers along the lines of the same blunt tribal context that they are so fond of presenting their arguments. By instinct, using tribal names publicly in debate has always been repulsive to me. Perhaps other Somalilanders, who are equally offended by the Wailers‟ rants, harbor the same abhorrence towards tribe name-calling. Perhaps, this self-imposed restraint has robbed the Isaac of legitimate defense. And perhaps, this docility has encouraged the Wailers to persist in—and intensify—their invectives against the Isaac. Thus, characteristically, I will attempt hereunder to set the record straight. Untypically this time, however, I intend to mention the names of tribes where I find it pertinent to do so. No offense or malice is meant. If offense is taken, all I can say is sorry. It is only the necessity of calling a spade a spade, which the Wailers made incumbent on me that have forced my hand. Myths and Facts Let me start by pointing out to some of the myths that the Wailers routinely present as facts and then state the real facts: A Wailers-Propagated Myth: The Isaac is a Somalidiid, i.e. rejectionists of Somali nationhood The Fact: Wrong. The Isaac has always been at the forefront in the quest for a Somali nation that encompassed all the territories inhabited by the Somalis, the concept known as Pan-Somalism. In June 26, 1960, Somaliland became independent from Britain. Five days later, Somaliland, under a leadership whose top members were Isaacs, sacrificed that independence and without conditions or reservations delivered it to Mogadishu on a silver platter. This was the act that created the Union of the erstwhile Somali Republic. Granted, the other tribes of Somaliland espoused similar Pan-Somalism aspirations. However, no one can deny that without the wholehearted wish, consent and enthusiastic efforts of the Isaac, the union with the South could not have taken place. Today the concept of Pan-Somalism, which seemed so achievable in 1960 and in subsequent years, is alive only in the daydreams of the delusional of mind. The first blow to that idea was served by Djiboutiiv when, on gaining independence from France in 1977, it opted for stand-alone nationhood rather than merge with the erstwhile Somali Republic. It is unlikely that Djibouti will change its status now or in the future if it did not in 1977, when the Pan-Somalism fervency still had some steam left. But the three most fatal setbacks to the concept resulted from inexcusable treasons on Siad Barre Regime‟s part. The first was that regime‟s pact with Kenya in early 1977. In late 1976-early 1977, Siad Barre had been putting the finishing touches on the war and battle plans of his intended invasion of Ethiopia on the pretext of wresting the Somali inhabited territories from that country. In his scheme of things, he saw one issue as a major hurdle or as a potential complication. Thus he determined to neutralize it. In the prelude to his imminent war on Ethiopia, the Siad Barre regime concluded an agreement with the government of Kenya in which the Somali Republic for the first time in its history officially relinquished its claims on a missing Somali inhabited region i.e. the Northern Frontier District (NFD) of Kenya. Kenya and Ethiopia had, years earlier concluded a treaty which obligated both countries to come to the aid of each other should Somalia attacked either of them. By mid-1970s, however, Kenya, traditionally the staunchest Western ally in East Africa was becoming increasingly leery about Ethiopia‟s newly found passion with communism.

For his part, Siad Barre in about that same time was also changing his ideological colors to hues more amenable to the West especially when he realized that his hitherto patron, the Soviet Union, had placed its sponsorship preferences on the bigger and more populous Ethiopia rather than on Somalia. Now, he thought, Kenya would be willing to see Somalia as a kindred nation, ideologically, that is—replacing Ethiopia, which had gone haywire. With his decision to invade Ethiopia in the bag, Siad‟s purpose for concluding this lopsided agreement with Kenya was to neutralize the said Ethiopia-Kenyan common defense pact and forestall potential Kenyan support for Ethiopia when his army actually crossed into Ethiopia. As history would have it and like his decision to invade Ethiopia in the first place, Siad‟s typically amateurish Kenyan strategy turned out to be yet another of his characteristically colossal miscalculations. Kenya, while keeping all the benefits it had derived from the agreement with Somalia, promptly and in no uncertain terms condemned the Somali invasion of Ethiopia and, contrary to Siad‟s silly expectations, rendered Ethiopia both moral and material assistance. Siad Barre committed the second of his great betrayals in 1988. His regime had been battling the Somali National Movement (the SNM) insurgency in Somalia‟s northern regions for nearly a decade. Lately, the despot‟s forces had been getting the sharper end of that conflict. To complicate matters further, other anti-regime rebellions had been coming into steam in other regions of the country. By this time, the regime had felt so threatened that its only concern became its own preservation. Aware of the utter failure of its hitherto applied countermeasures, it realized that as long as SNM insurgents were enjoying sanctuaries in Ethiopia, it was impossible to defeat or contain them. Throwing to the wind all pretenses of national interests and principles in an effort to entice that country to evict the SNM their behind-the-border bases, the regime made Ethiopia an offer it could not refuse. Somalia would forfeit all territorial claims on Ethiopia and would officially recognize the inviolability of the hitherto disputed borders between the two countries. As a sweetener, Somalia would also expel all anti-Ethiopian rebels that had been operating from within its country and would deny them any further sanctuaries or assistance. In return, Ethiopia should oust the SNM and all other opponents, whether armed or unarmed, of the Somali regime from its territories and cease all assistance, in any form or shape, which it had been conferring to them. The regime already had under their belt a rewardingly (for the regime) operative and reciprocal no-opponent-in-either-country pact with Djibouti. (Under that pact, Djibouti had been regularly handing over to the Somali regime scores of suspected SNM supporters at the border—in international human rights laws be damned; simply thereafter, the procedure was nearly always summary executions of the deportees within a few hundred meters away from the border crossing.) Now, if cemented and rounded with this far more comprehensive and foolproof treaty with Ethiopia, Siad Barre confidently calculated, it would mean the inescapably certain annihilation of not only the stubborn SNM insurgency in particular, but also the final solution of what he had perceived as the Northerners‟ inherent irritations and threats to his regime in general. Such an agreement with Ethiopia, went on Siad Barre‟s reasoning, would flush out the SNM combat troops out of their Ethiopian hideouts and into the open. With their superior firepower and resources—in fact the resources of an entire country arrayed against an essentially ragtag, though motivated, rebels—all that the regime‟s army had to do was finishing off defenseless sitting ducks. The regime only had to pull the noose, which it had ingeniously custom made for SNM‟s exposed neck. All that remained for Siad Barre was to sign the dotted line with his Ethiopian counterpart, Mengistu Haile Mariam and how eager was the Somali dictator to do exactly that without wasting another moment or allowing trivial matters like national interests, principles, honor or simple human decency or suchlike to be on the way. Calling a Spade a Spade Feb. 2012 The Ethiopians could not believe their stroke of luck. To them, Siad Barre‟s proposal amounted to all their wishes and dreams served to them on a silver platter. They had everything to gain and nothing to lose by agreeing to the Somali dictator‟s offer without delay. Why would they care if the deal would essentially mean the near certain slaughter of the Somali rebels both governments had been hosting—i.e. the SNM in Ethiopia and the anti-Ethiopian WSLF Somali rebels in Somalia? The slaughtering would befall on Somalis alone and no harm would come to a single Ethiopian. And would such a treaty not be the merciful end, at long last, of the sharp and painful Somali thorn that had been pricking their sides for so long. Of course, Ethiopia readily accepted the offer. Subsequently, much to both dictators‟ unimaginable jubilation and somewhat relief a formal treaty was duly signed and sealed by Siad Barre and Mengistu Haile Mariam in Djibouti in June 1988. Furthermore, both countries started immediately to implement the terms of the agreement in both spirit and letter. Now, so confident the was Siad Barre of the validity and ingeniousness of his final solution, that he felt no need to offer amnesty to the SNM and other opponents or consider other ways to promote reconciliation with them. To him, the safest SNM insurgent or, for that matter, any opponent was simply a dead one. It was on account of this agreement‟s enforcement that the SNM was forced to abandon its bases in Ethiopia. For them, surrender to the regime was not an option as a matter of principle as well as for practical reason, the absence or availability of amnesty notwithstanding. Nor did the SNM, to the regime‟s dismay, become sitting ducks as it had expected. In fact, if nothing else, the freedom fighters‟ expulsion from their sanctuaries in Ethiopia rather hastened the demise of Siad Barre‟s regime. In less than two and half years, he was no more. Sadly, the same, i.e. „no more‟, could also be said of the fate of the Pan-Somali Concept as a direct consequence of the dictator‟s futile and dishonorable endeavors at self-preservation. Siad Barre is certainly no more, but the formal documents, which he had put his signature and seal in his official capacity as the Head of State of Somalia are very much in existence in the National Archives of Kenya and Ethiopia respectively. They are bi-national treaties that are binding on their signatory countries. Thus the possibility of the Ethiopian-ruled Haud and Reserved Area and Ogaden as well as Kenyan-administered NFD seceding from these countries to join hands with another Somali entity is as remote as ever, if not—as Siad Barre had so selfishly relegated it to—entirely no more. The third of Siad Barre‟s demolition process of the pillars of the Pan-Somali Concept involved the unmatched and multidimensional persecution, which his regime had subjected to the people and regions of the North of the erstwhile Somali Republic. True, the Northerners had been somewhat convinced—before the advent of his regime—that they were not getting a fair deal in the Union they had entered with the South earlier. But it was during his tenure as the ruler of that country that the scope and severity of the prosecutions reached the stage that left most Northerners with no credible option but to end their association with the Union. This perversely unnecessary oppression could arguably qualify as the straw that broke the camel‟s back—the camel being the Pan-Somali Concept. Thus, Siad Barre succeeded not only in premeditatedly and intentionally giving away two of the missing Somali territories but also he inadvertently managed to push one territory that had been already a member of the Union to secession. (Nay, actually not so inadvertently; he had been counting on his efforts to eliminate anyone in the North who might have been contemplating secession or even mere opposition to his regime.) To all intents and purposes, Siad Barre was the person who demolished the Pan-Somali Concept—and perhaps irreversibly so Whoever the blame resides with, the fact of the matter is that today the five Somali territories that had been at the heart of the Pan-Somali Concept, are effectively either separate entities in their own right or sub-entities that are part of other countries. It is not the Isaac that has brought this laudable Somali ambition to an ignominious improbability. If the Isaac had been so instrumental in initiating and undertaking so selflessly the first concrete steps in achieving that goal; if the Isaac had done more than its fair share in subsequent endeavors to advance it and if the Isaac is arguably the tribe that had sacrificed and suffered most in pursuit—or on account of the mismanagement—of this policy, how could the Isaac be guilty of being a Somalidiid? The real Somalidiids are those who betrayed the ideals and hopes of a Pan-Somalism that could have been established on foundations of brotherhood, inclusiveness, justice, democracy and the rule of law. They did so by miserably mismanaging the first pilot project of this grand strategy—a pilot project that could have served as an initial showcase; as a practical demonstration; as an exemplary precursor and as an indicative illustration of the beauty of The Promised Land and the great benefits that could have been had therein. They did so by turning that first pilot project not into a magnet that could have affectionately attracted the Somalis outside it and made them eagerly aspire to joining it, but instead into a gutter the missing Somalis would rather shun. They did so by the ineptness and counter-productiveness of the policies and actions, with which they chose to advance the Pan-Somali Cause—policies and actions, which only achieved outcomes to the contrary. Most damagingly of all, they did so by victimizing the Isaac in particular and many other Somalis in general, the very people whose Pan-Somali credentials were indisputable and without blemish. If other Somalis, say those in Djibouti, in Ethiopia and in Kenya, who were naturally keen observers of that pilot project—on account of themselves being part of the Pan-Somali Cause—got cold feet; if doubt and second thoughts went through their heads; if wait-and-see stands were adapted; if contingency plans and other options were entertained and, if at the end of the day, a course totally in contravention with the Pan-Somali Cause was chosen by, say again the Djiboutians, by the Somalis of Ethiopia, by the Somalis of Kenya and ultimately by Pan-Somali Cause stalwarts-turned-victims Somalilanders, then who, pray please tell me, is to blame? Is it the Isaac, as the Wailers would have us believe? I beg to differ. Besides, I propose to suggest another tribe as arguably the more deserving culprit. It is the Darod. I say this on the grounds that the Darod was at the helm of Somalia‟s affairs and the primary drivers of its destiny from 1960 to 1991. And it is during this period that Pan-Somalism died its rather painful death. Furthermore, I say this because, if for nothing else, the Late US President Harry Truman‟s epic quote is so relevant here. He famously said that “The buck stops here [with me].” The Saying means that whoever is at top of an administration bears the ultimate responsibility, praise or blame for the events and the final outcomes thereof that take place at his/her watch. Who am I to argue with that truism? And, may I venture, who would the Wailers be to challenge it? At any rate, if Pan-Somalism could be resurrected, would the Isaac be in the way? I believe that most Isaacs would have no problem with such a proposition itself. But nearly all Isaacs and most other Somalilanders would be very cautious with the means and processes that might be employed towards achieving it. While no Somali worth his/her salt can argue with the desirability of the aspiration, the means to that end could, as in the last time, go miserably wrong. If that happens, not only will, again, the objective be scuttled, but, also again, more harm than good might be caused to all Somalis and perhaps, yet again, some sectors of the Somali populace might suffer unreasonably more than others, just as was the misfortune of the Somalilanders during the last attempt. Lest history will repeat itself, any meaningful revival of the idea must be well thought of, well planned and well executed. It must be driven not by unreasonable emotions but, in all its stages, by level-headed objectivity, pragmatism and, as and when necessary, flexibility. Though making some sacrifices along the way would be inevitable, they must be evenly and proportionally shared as much as possible. After all, any potential sacrifices must never be allowed to outweigh the possible benefits that could be derived from an eventual achievement of the goal. In my opinion, the starting point of the process must be the realization, acknowledgement and acceptance by all Somalis of their statuses quo today as is and where is. Today the five Somali parts that are at the heart of the idea are essentially separate political entities. Two of them are still parts of the neighboring countries. The other three, Somaliland, Somalia and Djibouti are independent and self-governing countries (though Somalia presently has some problems with self-governing; lets us all pray that they will be able to sort out these problems as soon as possible). The fiction that the union, which was known as the Somali Republic, still exists is a fallacy that resides with those entertaining delusional thoughts. The next step is for all of us to promote and strive establishing all the elements of good governance i.e. peace, security, respect for human rights, democracy, inclusiveness, justice, rule of law and transparency in all of our countries. This should be done while we are still staying in our separate, though fraternal, statuses. Then should come open borders between our countries. For the three of us that are self-governing, that should prove to be straightforward. Including the other two might turn out to be a bit trickier. At any rate, the three sovereign states should not hesitate opening up their borders to each other as soon as good governance in our respective countries has gained solid roots. The benefits of open borders are endless. Open borders policy is a practical stopgap that could culminate into a full merger between states. While some form of political sovereignty would be retained, an open borders policy will mean nearly full economic and social integration in the countries that embrace it. It will facilitate free and unfettered movement of people and goods, unhindered commercial and investment opportunities, easier access to inter-state educational and health facilities and other advantages that are beneficial to all. Just about the only thing that citizens of one country cannot do in another is the right to vote in elections. If this stage of political, social and economic development is reached—and with time proven to be viable—in all the Somali entities or at least in the three presently self-governing ones, then forming a political union of them as a single State is a feat that would be clearly visible on the horizon. If, on the other hand, a thorough achievement of the concept is prevented by fate or circumstances, then Somalis will still have gained nearly 95% of the benefits they could ever aspire to find in a single Pan-Somali State. After all, is not the whole purpose of Pan-Somalism to attain the best possible and dignified standard of living and freedom that could uniformly be enjoyed by all Somalis or at least by most of them? To be hanged up on the remaining 5% would be a vanity that could only be attributable to insanity. In any case, let everyone be reassured that most Isaacs would be willing to discuss and explore with fellow Somalis any feasible and achievable plan aimed at resurrecting the search for a Pan-Somalism that would be true to the ideals of the concept and the best ways and means of achieving this worthy aspiration. A Wailers-Propagated Myth: The Isaacs are Secessionists. The Fact: Partly Right. I am not afraid to give credit where it is due. The Isaacs are the most secessionists of all the tribes that call Somaliland home. But let‟s all be clear about what the word Secession means: Merriam Webster says it is a “formal withdrawal from an organization”. In the Somali context, and certainly in what the Wailers‟ allegation alludes to, the “organization” is the Union that used to be the Somali Republic. Somaliland‟s reclamation of its independence in 1991 was secession primarily led by the Isaac. As I conceded at the outset, the Wailers are partly right. But only partly. First, other tribes in Somaliland were willingly part and parcel of the decision to reclaim the independence that Somaliland had foolishly squandered in 1960. Nonetheless, since they are apt at rewriting history, do not expect the Wailers to accept or advertise this irrefutable fact. Second, secession should not be confused with dismemberment. Somaliland‟s reclamation of its independence was not an act of dismemberment of a unitary country of longstanding i.e. a country that had been one single entity from its beginning until the day it was dismembered. Somalia had not been a united State before 1960. It had been a separate country; a distinct political entity. It was known as United Nation Trusteeship of Somalia. Then a willful merger by two separate entities, namely former British Somaliland Protectorate and former UN Trusteeship of Somalia, took place in July 1, 1960. That merger gave birth to an entirely new organization; an entirely new entity that became the Somali Republic. Note the word “withdrawal” in the Webster‟s definition. One can withdraw from what one joined with in the first place—it does not matter whichever manner the initial joining and the eventual withdrawing took place. By seceding from the entity of the Somali Republic, Somaliland just withdrew from that “organization or entity” as willingly as it had joined it earlier. In doing so, Somaliland did not dismember Somalia. Somalia, for the information of all and sundry, still exists in the defined borders that it had before it made a union with Somaliland in 1960. Not a single square inch of Somalia‟s territory at this juncture is either occupied or claimed by the Republic of Somaliland. This was like a divorce. Two partners parted ways, with each partner intact in one piece. Third, even if we for a minute considered secession a cardinal crime, should not we look for a motive? Never in the Wailers‟ harangues against the Isaac is an effort made to examine, to mention, to understand, to acknowledge, to regret, to decry, to express sympathy or an attempt made to help heal the unspeakable events that drove the Isaac to secession. To them, the Isaacs are simply and by their unique nature secessionists, period! But this is the tribe, which singularly in the annals of Somali history was subjected to mass genocide, ethnic cleaning and disenfranchisements of all sorts. The Wailers, sometimes in a pathetic attempt to deflect blame, point a feeble finger at the Siad Barre‟s regime. All the same, that regime had been a Darodist establishment. Its leaderships, commands, strategies, objectives, policies and decision-making processes had enjoyed Darod‟s overwhelming moral and practical consent and participation. It is of high note that not a single Darod elder, traditional leader, intellectual or statesman, at the time or later, ever felt the need, the desire, the decency, the courage or the wisdom of audaciously acknowledging and categorically condemning that regime‟s un-Somali exploits. Instead all one hears is Isaac this and Isaac that and neither this nor that is charitable. If the Wailers‟ purpose, in their smear campaigns against the Isaac, is to egg them to entertain second thoughts with regards to secession, they not only counterproductively succeed in further solidifying Isaac‟s secessionist sentiments, but also they unnecessarily create avoidable further resentment by the Isaac towards the Wailers‟ tribe. Adding insults to injury is plain sadism. A Wailers-Propagated Myth: The reclamation of Somaliland‟s independence or rather in the Wailers‟ parley “The secession of Somaliland” in May 18, 1991 was entirely an Isaac act. All other tribes of Somaliland were and still are kept in line by the Isaac at the point of the gun. The Fact: Wrong. Though the Wailers have turned rewriting Somaliland‟s history in general and the chronicle of this event in particular into an art of sorts, the fact of the matter is that all tribes of Somaliland were represented in the Burao Conference where the resolution to withdraw from Union of the Somali Republic was adopted. All tribes were represented by their traditional leaders, elders, clerics, intellectuals and statesmen—just about all the available personalities who, at that immensely critical time, could claim possessing both moral and tangible authority and credibility with their respective kinsmen. This was equally true with regards to all other subsequent conferences where the foundations and pillars of Resurrected Somaliland were set and built. To say, as the Wailers claim, that non-Isaac tribes were railroaded into endorsing that momentous resolution against their free will by the Isaac is a disingenuously treacherous insult to all the tribes concerned without exception. Worse still, such an insult would especially qualify as an undeserved indictment of the none-Isaac tribes—the very ones whom the Wailers pose to be ostensibly representing and defending. In Somaliland, no tribe—in past or at present—is ever known to be afraid of the Isaac as to say “Yes” in word what they do mean “No” in heart and mind. Similarly, the Isaac—in past or at present—is never known to demand, or if insincerely offered fall foolishly for, such hypocrisy coming from another tribe. If, indeed, hypocrisy were committed, inadvertently or otherwise, in this matter by any tribe then that sin rightfully resides with that tribe alone. The Wailers would have done us all some good if they identified such tribe, provided indeed it exists. A Wailers-Propagated Myth: The Isaac was and still is the bane of the Somalis. All troubles that have been haunting the Somalis all along originated with, and are perpetuated by, the Isaac. They are a maddeningly chauvinistic lot. The Fact: Wrong. The Wailer-in-Chief, Mr. Osman Hassan writes in one of his all too numerous Isaac bashing, “True to their distinguishing nickname [Iidoor], the one-clan secessionists in their enclave in north-west Somalia, otherwise calling themselves „Somaliland‟, have always excelled in salesmanship and self-promotion. The business of salesmanship, as we all know, is often based on the delicate balancing of truth, exaggerated claims, showmanship, persuasion, misinformation and sometimes downright lies meant to be guile the impressionable and uniformed.” “What is striking about the prevailing governance in the enclave” Continues Mr. Hassan “is the gaping gulf between the intolerable indictable realities on the ground and the false positive image portrayed abroad. In the secessionist’s heartland, detentions without trial, prohibition of political parties other than those belonging to the ruling clan, abuse of minorities, trading in the abduction of Ogadeni refugees or residents and handing them over to Ethiopia contrary to international law, are all common daily occurrences. While the occupied SSC and Awdal regions share all these abuses in good measure, they are also subjected, in addition, to frequent collective punishment, atrocities, closures and curfews.” This is one of the mildest of the Wailers‟ incessant attacks on the Isaac. However, we are all fortunate to be alive in the twenty-first century. In this era of the open Information Highway, almost nothing can be concealed from public knowledge. These days, the kind of atrocities, which the Wailers claim the Isaac commits daily against their fellow Somaliland tribes, could not go unnoticed, condoned, un-condemned, or unchallenged by the universal powers that be. The Human Rights groups, both from within and without, would have raised alarm bells and their screams would have been too deafening to ignore. If the Isaac were guilty of a fraction of these allegations, they would have distinguished themselves as nothing but unspeakable savages. The ICJ or the ICC Tribunals in The Hague would have been the right place for their leaders. The reason why Isaac‟s savagery against Somaliland‟s none-Isaac tribes exists only as the Wailers‟ vocation is because reality differs. The Isaac has never perpetrated any appalling atrocity, oppression, dispossession or disenfranchisement against any other Somali tribe anywhere and at any time in history. True, the Isaac is not entirely clean of the Somali nomadic tradition of intertribal forays over water sources, pastures and camel dispossession raids. However, plainly this is not what the Wailers mean by their allegations. If Isaac‟s crucial participation in the reclamation of Somaliland‟s independence on May 18,1991 and their immoveable determination to defend that independence forever more are capital sins, it only the disillusioned or the thick of mind who would expect an apology or remorse from the vast majority of the Isaac for committing that particular offense. And all that the Wailers‟ smear campaign will achieve is further solidification—if indeed any more solidification is needed—of that unshakable conviction to stay free within our own known borders and to let others to their affairs. In short, we are determined to live our natural lives in freedom and dignity. By the same token, we are determined to let others live their natural lives in whichever way they choose. Now if I may stay some more with the debate of which tribe have been the bane of the Somalis as well as have been the most chauvinistic, I have a tale to tell: The Club of Vandals Somalis, unfortunately, seem to be prone to disasters, both manmade and natural. However, in their rather unenviable history, three catastrophes that befell on them glaringly stick out. The ill-effects of these three cataclysms are still bedeviling Somalis everywhere with no dependable end of the hardships in sight.

The First Catastrophe: It began at the start of the last century and it did not come into a merciful conclusion until twenty one years later in 1921. A man who had claimed to be a Somali Muslim Scholar (a Mullah of sorts) started what he had presented as a struggle to get rid the land of the British colonialism, which—at the time, for a quarter of a century before and for half a century hence—was Somaliland‟s disgrace and misfortunate to be the object. His name was Mohamed Abdulle Hassan. He might or might not have been a Mullah. But, without a doubt, his character, ethics and antics were decidedly un-Somali as well as un-Islamic. On the face of it, the Mullah‟s proposition to free Somaliland of foreign rule seemed to have had the hallmarks of all a divine duty, a noble imperative, and an honorable undertaking. It was inconceivable that any Somalilander of the time would have been contented with bondage of any kind. Thus the Mullah‟s proclaimed rebellion for independence gained almost instantaneous appeal, sympathy or support from almost every quarter of the society. There is little doubt that if this insurgence were conducted in a principled manner and were directed exclusively against the British, it would have succeeded with flying colors. Somaliland could have thrown out the yoke of colonialism long before struggles for self-determination and freedom became fashionable with humanity‟s colonized peoples. It did not take long, however, before the Mullah showed his true colors and his real intentions were exposed. He could not even contain his tyrannical instincts and brutal dispositions long enough to establish a sizable foothold in the country and consolidate his authority over large stretches of territory. Within a short time, it became abundantly clear the Mullah‟s purported Jihad or war of independence was rather a means to a sinister end. His real purpose had been the establishment in Somaliland of an absolute sultanate or monarchy, which revolved around his tribe and, more ominously, around the cult of his personality. Moreover, his modi oparandi in realizing his objectives were distinctly unprecedented in the annals of Somali warfare. Never before his advent were civilians targeted in Somali Warfare culture or rules of engagement as a matter of combat practice or policy. The Mullah had, on as yet mysterious grounds, harbored a predisposed mistrust and hatred against certain tribes. The subjugation of these tribes by means of unqualified slaughter and dispossession transpired to be the Mullah‟s officially guiding principle and practice of retaliation. It made no difference whether the victims were armed or unarmed or whether they were combatants or civilians or whether they were British collaborators or simply neutral bystanders. No distinction was necessary with regards to the age, gender or culpability of the victims.

Typically, one of the first casualties of this absurdity was a man who, through a poetic utterance, had thought he knew a foolproof way to escape the Mullah‟s wrath. After he had been informed of the Mullah‟s brutality, he famously said: Geel iyo ninkii adhi leh; Buu Darwiishku kala tegeeyaaye; Haddii aan tiro riyo uun ah dhaqdo; Oon aan tuuladan agjoogo; Ma tunkuu isoo qaban; Haddii aanan timirlahaaba gaadin? It is he who owns camels and sheep; Whom the Darwish (The Mullah) dispossesses; If I raise a hundred of goats only; And stay in this township whereabouts; Will he [The Mullah] grab me by the neck; If I do not even venture beyond that Palm Tree? The Palm Tree, which he had referred to, was easily visible a short distance away to the east of Berbera. Knowing that the Mullah and his dreaded mercenaries, known as Dervishes, were active several hundred miles away in the eastern Sanag Region, he had thought that staying put where he was offered him the safest and most sensible course to follow in order to avoid harm. A short time later, the Dervishes made a hit-and-run raid on Berbera. Unfortunately, our friend of the Palm-Tree fame became one of many civilians who met their untimely and undeserved demise in that raid. The great poet of the time, Ali Jama Habil was perhaps the first perceptive visionary who saw—and did much to articulate—the unmistakable contradictions and the obvious inconsistencies between the Mullah‟s admittedly laudable proclamations and the realities of his detestably un-Somali, un-Islamic ethics and antics. In an especially fitting verse of one of his more memorable poems, the bard had this to say: Muslinimo niman kula daqmin; Minimo khaas ah; Gaal maxasta kuu nabad gesha; Oo magansato baa dhaama If a man treats you not in accordance with the Islamic spirit; And in genuinely God-believing manner; An unbeliever who spares your vulnerable ones; And who offers you sanctuary is preferable It is clear from this ode that the Mullah neither exempted the defenseless from harm nor extended refuge to a Muslim if he deemed or imagined either one to be in the way of—or if harsh treatment towards either one was useful to—his scheme of things. Somaliland was not only the Somali territory where the Mullah‟s lunacy cut short the lives of unsuspecting innocents. When he went to the lands of the Rahenweyn and some Hawiye clans, he was said to be in the habit of rounding up the locals and demand of them: “Berito Af Muslin ama Af Gaallo miduun ii la kaalaya” “Tomorrow, you must come up speaking to me either in a Language of Muslims or of Unbelievers.” Though they were Somalis to the bones and notwithstanding that they were genuinely Muslim folks, these tribesmen‟s unforgivable sin, in as far as the Mullah was concerned, amounted to no more than a harmless happenstance that had been no fault of theirs: The venerable Mullah could not readily understand the Somali Dialects these unfortunate people were speaking. Incredible as it should have been at the time or in hindsight, “Tomorrow”, of course, brought death and destruction on the poor folks whose vocals had displeased the holy Mullah‟s ears. This was because, lo and behold, the speakers could not rectify the sin in time. One last shocking discovery demonstrated the Mullah‟s unusually odious character and the exceptional repugnance of his wartime exploits: When eventually he was evicted from his fort in Taleh, human skeletons were found hanging from trees all over the place. No doubt these human remains were victims who had been unfortunate to fall out of the Mullah‟s favor for one reason or another or perhaps for no reason at all. If, at any rate, they were criminals to whom punishments had been deservedly administered, then what humanity was it to leave their remains hanging from trees until nature decomposed them to their bare bones? What inevitably defeated the Mullah‟s ungainly project was that it never had been a war of liberation in the first place. It was a tribally driven and religiously disguised hostility that had been designed to advance the Mullah‟s sinister ambitions. More than anything, what reduced his venture into an exercise in futility were the unprecedentedly un-Somali and un-Islamic wartime strategies and tactics, with which the Mullah had chosen to conduct his infamous campaign. After all, to paraphrase Abe Lincoln, one can only fool some of the people only some of the time. And in the end of the day right triumphed over wrong as always it does. Waxuu na baday, waxuu na baray baa nagaga daran Rather than what [the suffering] he caused to us, what [the misbehavior] he taught us is more harmful The above is a Somali adage that is as old as the Language itself. Its essence is that once someone sets a bad precedent in a society, it could be replicated. The bad precedent could give ideas, aspirations and encouragement to naturally vicious individuals to engage in similar misconduct and worse still strive to do better at it than their predecessor. How unerringly and eloquently graphic the maxim is of the spiteful precedent, which the Mullah had instituted into his country. Already the ugly legacy of that precedent has haunted Somalis twice since then. And there is no certainty that it will not do so yet again.

The Second Catastrophe: October 21, 1969—arguably, the darkest day in the history of the Somalis. In the beginning, hardly a Somali expected that day to attain that unenviable distinction. Instead, it was a day most Somalis, with relief and hope, thought was the dawn of a second chance for Somalia; an opportunity for national renewal. Nine years had elapsed since the Union of the Somali Republic came into existence. Nearly all the expectations, aspirations and hopes for better times, which the country‟s citizens had thought independence and unification would bring about, evaporated into the thin air. It was clear to the man in the street and the initiated alike that the country had been on a wrong course. The nation‟s politics had been in disarray; its economy in tatters; corruption and nepotism had been shamelessly rampant. So when on that day some two dozen armed forces officers took over the business of governing the country—by the pullet and not by the ballot, mind you—nearly no one raised a finger in protest or voiced a word in criticism. As a matter of fact, most citizens welcomed this turn of events. Nor could one argue with the pressing problems the officers had cited as the amble justifications for taking their unconventional action or with the remedies they had proposed to undertake in order to overcome these failures. The program, which they professed was as admirable as it had been to the point: good governance; eradication of tribalism, corruption and nepotism; equal opportunity and justice for all under the law; focused policies to turn the economy around; the recovery of the missing Somali territories expeditiously so that Somalis everywhere would be under one single flag for once and all; etc., etc…. Could there have been promises that sounded as sweeter music to the ears of the public as the very ones the good officers have so generously given? Above all, the officers solemnly pledged that these objectives would be achieved in a speedy manner. Therefore, in few years‟ time, the officers assured the nation, they would step down and genuine democracy would be restored through truly free and fair elections. The officers‟ preliminary acts did not provide any I-told-you-so ammunition to visionaries (and there were some) who might have harbored intuitional suspensions of the officers true intentions or to those who were wary of the inherent risks of coup d‟états per se. As for the more acquiescent citizenry, well, were not these initial good actions proof enough of the officers‟ commendable integrity and their worthy seriousness in turning into deeds what they had said in words? Again, as in Mohammed the Mullah‟s initial proclamations, the officers‟ preliminarily avowed goals were dandy stuff on the face it. Alas! Again, like Mohammed the Mullah‟s grand betrayal, what actually materialized was, for the Somali Nation, an incalculable catastrophe. Enter the profile of the second catastrophe in my tale. What went wrong? One day, Somali historians will—objectively, professionally and comprehensively—document exactly what, how, when and why things unexpectedly went so abysmally wrong. But here is where one could start with: The person who—by a divine fate or by his canny premeditation; by an unfortunate default or by unforgiveable dereliction of duty on others‟ part; due to ordinary respect for seniority or due to unjustifiable submission to rank; by or due to whatever else—well, the person who emerged at the helm and who had the golden opportunity—nay, the obligation—to lead the officers‟ new regime on the right course happened to be the nation‟s top military officer at the time. His name was Mohamed Siad Barre. He turned out to be a Fascist par excellence. Without a doubt, his character and antics were decidedly un-Somali as well as un-Islamic. The personalities and the regimes of Mohamed the Mullah and Mohamed the Fascist contained stunning similarities. In as far as their personalities were concerned, both possessed tyrannical instincts. Both aspired to establish absolute dynasties. Both were sadists who knew no mercy. Both loved the trappings of cult of personality. Both harbored deep-seated and inexplicable malice towards certain unsuspecting tribes. Both were treacherously untrustworthy, unreliable and deceitful. For both, a friend or a colleague or a subordinate was so for only as long as the friend or the colleague or the subordinate was useful for their scheme of things. After that, the friend or the colleague or the subordinate was expandable without a second thought. For both, the end always justified the means and no exceptions to that rule needed apply. As for their regimes, both stood on foundations and pillars of tribalism. Both chose brute force to create, consolidate and maintain their authorities. Both were evil dictatorships. Brutality, oppression, corruption, nepotism, the dispossession and the disenfranchisement of others were the trademarks of both their policies and principles. But unlike Mohamed the Mullah, Mohamed the Fascist had two crucial advantages that eventually allowed him to wreck more far-reaching havoc on his direct victims in particular and on Somalis at large. One, he had taken over the levers of state in an intact, strong and effectively working form.

Second, the modernity of the time of his reign of terror had placed at his disposal advanced instruments of death and destruction that enabled him employing them far more effectively and comprehensively. Thus while the Mullah was the mentor who distinguished himself by being the first Somali „leader‟ to introduce hitherto unheard of, alien and unethical wartime antics and politics into the Somali conflict culture, the Fascist not only proved himself to be a true disciple of his predecessor, but also was more notable than his idol at the unmatched scale and reach of the calamities and horrors, which he had managed to inflict on his fellow Somalis. It was during the Fascist‟s reign that widespread genocide, ethnic cleansing, and dispossession of one singled-out tribe was attempted and was nearly pulled off. Never before were entire cities leveled to the ground by tanks and artillery pieces that had been deployed on the said cities‟ overlooking hills. It hardly bothered the bombardiers‟ and certainly not their commanders‟ consciences that the residents of these cities were trapped within the walls of their homes as the barrages rained on them. Never before were those cities‟ residents who had managed to flee these cities alive—some of them wounded; most of them with children in tow; nearly all of them with nothing except the rags on their backs—subjected to strafing by warplanes. No irony was seen in the fact that the planes had taken off from the same cities‟ local airports. Nor was any incongruity discernible in the fact that the upkeep of the regime that was committing this mayhem and the lethal assets it was using to perpetuate it were being financed through the victim‟s tax treasury. It is not necessary to chronicle here all Mohamed Fascist‟s horrific actions and policies and their unspeakable consequences. However, it is utterly revealing and an indisputable testimony of his evil character that the Fascist, himself no less, was fond of warning anyone who would listen, that when and if he ever left power in a manner that was in contrary to his own terms and wishes, he would leave neither a country nor a people intact behind. Unfortunately twenty odd years after his downfall, that expressive, though heartless, “No People No Country” motto of Mohamed the Fascist‟s prophesy still holds true hardly unabated.

The Third Catastrophe: December, 24, 2006—another day of infamy in the history of the Somalis. It was the day the unthinkable actually took place. It was the day that the great city of Mogadishu unbelievably, in point of fact nonetheless, fell into the hands of an invading foreign army. It was the day that, in the annals of nations, Somalia joined the short list of countries where a nation‟s sovereignty was effectively transferred to—and exercised from—the capital of another country as a result of a conquest. The incongruity, the shock, the disbelief and the lingering dismay that this event inflicted on every Somali worth his/her salt were rendered all the more agonizing by the fact that the invader had not initiated and declared war on Somalia. Instead, the invader‟s takeover of the nation‟s capital and most its territory had come about at the express behest and pleasure of the “president of Somalia” at the time. The name of that “president of Somalia” was Abdillahi Yusuf Ahmed. He ended up to be a Traitor without equal anywhere and at any time. Without a doubt, his character and antics were decidedly un-Somali as well as un-Islamic. Unlike Mohamed the Mullah and Mohamed the Fascist, Abdillahi the Traitor had not even felt the need to employ initial discretion, stealth or lofty proclamations to ascend to the station that eventually allowed him to commit the crimes his “Traitor” tag so aptly denotes. Abdillahi the Traitor was a man terminally crazed by love for power and crazily still, he never made any secret of that affliction. From the time in the late 1979s when he staged a failed coup d‟état against Mohamed the Fascist‟s regime to his days as the head of the grossly ineffective SSDF insurgency in 1980s; from his super-warlord tenure in Puntland following the Fascist‟s downfall to the day of his selection as „president‟, Abdillahi the Traitor left no stone unturned in his tireless quest to become the ruler of Somalia. Moreover, his obsession was mostly characterized by violence. Eventually, two years prior to the invasion, his dreams had come true when he was installed as “president of Somalia” in Nairobi, Kenya, by—oh! No need to say by whom again. Everyone knows where Somali „presidents‟ are installed these days and more importantly by whom. It is a sad saga by itself, but let us proceed with the tale of the tale. In the inaugural address at his coronation ceremony—in Nairobi, where else?—Abdillahi the Traitor made no secret of his desire and determination to see foreign troops to be the bedrock of his “presidential” authority. Without mincing words, he begged his foreign sponsors to put their Armed Forces at his disposal! The Traitor was so bold—some might say so foolhardy—as to appoint the number and the time. He wanted twenty thousand soldiers and he wanted them now! No legitimate, semi-legitimate or even illegitimate Somali head of state before him, even those struggling under similar circumstances of powerlessness, even if adorned with grandiose titles, had ever contemplated—much less had called for—such monstrous treason against his own country. But, of course, Abdillahi the Traitor was only joking. He was just being characteristically bombastic. He was merely exercising his penchant for hyperbole and indulging in the normally harmless fantasies that his super-warlord illusions of grandeur had inflicted to his frame of mind. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, don‟t worry, Abdillahi the Traitor was, of course, only joking. This was because it was unthinkable that a Somali—much less one who, after a long quest, had at last laid claim to the highest office of his country; never mind the murky circumstances and the dubious legitimacy of his ascension to that exalted station—well, I was saying it was unthinkable that a Somali would entice foreign troops to occupy so much a square inch of his own country‟s territory. No personal ambition or no tribal interest or no national exigency, however so overwhelming and pressing, or no circumstance of any definition would justifiably drive a Somali to call for such so extraordinarily heinous and traitorous action. And was there anyone who doubted that Abdillahi the Traitor, in spite of all his obviously frightening shortcomings, was a Somali indeed? Nonetheless, for the third time in less than a century, a Somali „leader‟, senseless with boundless avarice for self-aggrandizement and brimming with tribal vendetta, has managed to visit on fellow Somalis yet another catastrophe of monumental proportions. It turned out that Abdillahi the Traitor had not been joking about shepherding foreign troops to invade and occupy his country after all. He did not flinch a moment or waste a second when the first feasible opportunity in realizing his wish presented itself. Thus in mid December 2006, at Abdillahi the Traitor‟s express behest and pleasure, a foreign army matched from several fronts into Somalia. In less than two weeks, much of southern Somalia, including the nation‟s capital, fell firmly into that alien army‟s hands. Yet another gruesome „first‟! Yet another indelibly ugly stain was embossed into the lore of Somali body polity! Utter incredulity, unbearable dismay, intolerable humiliation, excruciating disgrace and paralyzing agony could naturally only be the sorry lot of every Somali worth his/her salt as this cataclysmal turn of events unfolded before him/her. Worse still and adding insult to injury, the occupying army happened to be none other than that of Somalia‟s neighbor, Ethiopia. The longtime and somewhat irrational enmity between Somalis and Ethiopians had ebbed somewhat, at least in its naked form, in later years. Nonetheless, every Somali worth his/her salt would only consider an Ethiopian army occupying any part of an independent Somali territory—that be Somalia, including the so-called Puntland, or Somaliland or Djibouti—as nothing less than a doomsday. And indeed nearly a doomsday it was. The invasion and subsequent occupation was a doomsday—a doomsday, a time of cataclysmic destruction and death; a doomsday, which matched the two catastrophes that Mohamed the Mullah and Mohamed the Fascist had visited on Somalis in their times. Nobody knows exactly how many Somalis died in this Abdillahi the Traitor-promoted aggression, but knowledgeable observers say the number was well over hundred fifty thousand. Hundreds of thousands more were wounded or maimed. Over a million yet others were forced to flee their homes or were generally displaced or dislocated by the fighting. The loss in properties and of livelihoods was incalculable. For the second time in Somali history, cities and their civilian residents were bombarded with artillery barrages, tank and other heavy weaponry shells which had been fired from positions within these cities‟ environs. For the second time in Somali history, cities and their civilian residents were bombed and strafed by warplanes, which had taken off from these cities‟ airports. The ill-effects of this invasion and occupation went well beyond the immediate physical human sufferings it had caused, abhorrent as they were. The invaders also succeeded in uprooting the only indigenously inspired and owned semblance of effective governance that had emerged in Somalia in over a decade and half. Six months prior to the invasion, the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) managed to eliminate the notorious warlords who had been bedeviling the country and its unfortunate citizens since the fall of Mohamed the Fascist‟s regime in 1991. For the first time since then, the denizens of Mogadishu and most of Somalia were able to enjoy and cherish some precious peace, tranquility and rule of law—any law. Besides, it was obvious that UIC have, since their emergence, been steadily earning relative legitimacy and somewhat the consent of the people. Now, as another direct consequence of the invasion, the UIC was no more. The fate and destiny of southern Somalia and the Capital city of Mogadishu reverted to the hands of foreigners and their Somali stooges. Worst of all, the occupation and the understandable resistance that it inevitably stirred in countering it also motivated the birth of the phenomenon of Al-Shababism. Today, not only is Al-Shababism the biggest menace that all Somalis and their entities face, but also it poses a credible threat to the security of many other nations; not least of which is Ethiopia and other countries that either overtly or covertly colluded with the invader in its ignoble enterprise on Somalia. In the end, Ethiopia could not long sustain its occupation. It dawned on that country, fairly soon enough, that it had bitten more than it could chew. Moreover, it is much too uncertain that Ethiopia achieved any of the objectives, whatever they were, for which it had sustained—and to Somalis had inflicted—immense sacrifices. Quite on the contrary, Ethiopia might have lost more than it gained from its Somalia misadventure. Certainly it weakened whatever mutually beneficial rapport and goodwill that had been in the making between the Somalis and the Ethiopians after ages of senseless enmity and mistrust between the two peoples. Besides, the emergence of inherently violent groups, such as the Al-Shabab, in particular and the continuation of the turmoil in Somalia in general, proved that the ultimate outcome of the Ethiopian fiasco turned out to be decidedly counterproductive for all concerned—not least of them all, this debacle‟s primary promoter, Abdillah the Traitor. This is because for Abdillahi the Traitor, though it conferred no solace to the direct victims of the invasion in particular and to Somalis at large, his unmatched treachery towards the country he was supposed to serve and protect inevitably led to his dishonorable political demise—and so deservedly too. And in a posterity sealed in notoriety, Abdillahi the Traitor joined his soul-mates, Mohamed the Mullah and Mohamed the Fascist as the third exalted member of their exclusive Club of Vandals. Furthermore, so fearful was Abdillahi the Traitor for his personal safety that he could not even trust to find safe refuge in his tribal enclave of Puntland. He had to flee to Yemen to be under the protection of a kindred betrayer of his own people, namely the uncivilized and ignorant tyrant of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh. (Abdillahi the Traitor may these days be worrying about his personal safety anew. His protector, Saleh himself, is presently facing the final days of his political and perhaps mortal life.) Nonetheless, there is a six million dollar question that begs for an answer: What, in God‟s Name, had impelled Abdillah the Traitor to commit such so capital treason against his own country? How could he had been so cruelly un-Somali and so patently un-Islamic? Though most Somalis—inattentive and imperceptive as they are wont to be most of the time and to their regret later—dismissed them of no consequence Abdillahi the Traitor, himself no less, had on numerous occasions publicly provided sufficient clues to the answer of the six-million question. Characteristically tactless—or perhaps senselessly arrogant—and displaying sickening tribal vendetta, he openly avowed, and not too infrequently, to avenge retributions, both real and imagined, which he believed his tribe had suffered in Mogadishu and in other locations in southern Somalia following the fall of Mohammed the Fascist. Typically incapable to disguise his tyrannical disposition and exhibiting his disdain for fellow Somalis‟ intelligence, Abdillahi the Traitor had been heard to have famously opined that it was only through terrifying fear of—rather than earned respect for—authority and the holders of the levers of power that Somalis could be governed in a meaningful way. Trepidation, Abdillahi the Traitor had emphasized, was the only language that Somalis could understand where government and the exercise of its authority were concerned. On both counts, i.e. Abdillahi the Traitor‟s ingrained tribal hatred and his tyrannically autocratic bend; do they not ring a bell? Will not Mohamed the Mullah and Mohamed the Fascist come to mind? All three gentlemen—Mohamed the Mullah, Mohamed the Fascist and Abdillahi the Traitor—shared an immensely fateful distinction. Each was responsible for one of the three major life changing catastrophes that were Somalis‟ undeserved misfortune to suffer. Finally, there is one other attribute they had in common: All three hailed from the same tribe. In case the Wailers may be inclined to identify the tribe in question, here is one clue: it is not the Isaac. That is the end of the tale. Chauvinism Addiction The post-Siad Barre era has, indeed, been a tumultuous period for Somalis everywhere. The persistence of this turmoil is fueled by two stubborn legacies of his regime. The first caustic legacy is that his metaphorical avowal to “leave neither a country nor a people intact behind” had been no mean joke. It was for real. Before he was forced out of power, he had made absolutely certain that there would be no national cohesion; no national institutions; thoroughly shattered inter-communal customs; erosion of the traditional authorities of clan elders, clerics and statesmen in the society and ingrained mistrust as well as ill-will between all sectors of the society upon his departure. This is in addition to the unspeakable physical human suffering which he caused to so many whom he had been supposed to serve and protect. People and especially Somalis are, by nature or necessity, resilient. They are bound to strive rebuilding their personal lives as best as they can. However, rebuilding a national life (that is reconstituting a state) is entirely another matter. Attempting to accomplish such an intricate task is a tall order at the best of times. In the absence of national cohesion, institutions, goodwill and trust, respect for leadership both modern and traditional etc. it is a devilishly monumental undertaking. Then, there is another crucial factor that the country‟s systematically broken state has brought into more ubiquitous and complicating play. Now, devoid of the conventional national defense mechanisms and a unified representative authority to speak on its behalf, Somalia‟s foreign meddlers have become like hyenas living in the same encampment as the sheep. For the second Siad legacy that continues to sustain the Somali disorder, revisit the veracity of the previously mentioned Somali adage, “Rather than what [the suffering] he caused to us, what [the misbehavior] he taught us is more harmful”. More than twenty year after his downfall and under entirely different circumstances, there are still those Somalis who still adhere to—and strive to replicate—some of his perspectives and/or practices. One of the crucial pillars of the dictator‟s regime had been the manipulation of tribalism. As a matter of policy, he had persecuted certain tribes in more ways than one. He used all means that had been available to him to disadvantage these tribes. Among those, for instance, he had employed his autocratic powers to redraw the country‟s regional borders in order to dilute the political influence and otherwise disenfranchise those who had been in his disfavor. Conversely, he used to openly confer undue and conspicuous favors to other tribes. These indulgences traversed all corners of the state assets and institutions as well as employment and business opportunities. Nothing was off limits in dispensing this gigantic generosity. Where, for example, he had interfered with the regional borders at the expense of the disliked tribes, he had created new regions in order to empower the favored ones beyond their actual numbers and traditional habitats. As the backbone of both his grassroots support and ruling establishment, the main beneficiary of this limitless largesse was, of course, his own tribe: the Darod. Having been uninterruptedly enjoying these lopsided privileges for long, the beneficiaries have in due course come to take them for granted. Then they saw the favors as their unalienable right. Then they developed untoward behavioral attitudes such as offensive arrogance, shallow superiority complex and reinforced clannish chauvinism among others. They saw their role as the country‟s natural rulers and first claimants of its resources. All others were their subjects and the scavengers of the leftover crumps. That their easier circumstances were only possible at the expense of fellow Somalis was forgotten long ago if, indeed, it had registered with them in the first place. The regime that had instituted this unsustainable environment inevitably collapsed in 1991 like a house of cards. However, the spoiled brats, the elites of all tribes would not shake off their acquired chauvinism addiction and adapt to the new circumstances. After their initial shock at the loss of the goose that had been laying the golden eggs, the spoiled brats regrouped. They decided that, in any entity or governing authority that might replace the erstwhile Somali republic and/or the fallen regime, most if not all of their exclusive privileges of the old should be maintained in the new. This is because these privileges, in case you have forgotten—stupid!—was their inalienable right. Nothing less would suffice. They had their own plans and intrigues to insure that this happened. Besides, whenever or wherever an arrangement which would not be amenable to their wishes was contemplated, it should be frustrated until it was rendered undoable. The cornerstone of the chauvinists‟ strategy transpired to be the revival of most elements of the old Siadist order—in substance if not in style—in any new Somali entity or governing authority. Where any of their demands could not be realized directly, it would be ingeniously (or may we say disingenuously?) repackaged and sold to Somalis and the International community at large as a new and appropriate idea that should contribute to the Somali reconciliation and state- rebuilding processes. In this regard, consider the following selection of maneuverings, among many others, which could not escape any perceptive scholar of the Somali political dynamics in the last two decades: The Darod has left no stone unturned in putting wedges between the sub-clans of the Hawiye tribe especially the two main sub-clans, the Abgal and the Habr Gidir, at every opportune instance. The purpose was obvious: A divided Hawiye was a week Hawiye and as such could be more easily manipulated by playing one sub-clan against another whenever the need or the desire arose. This would confer more power and influence to the Darod than should be fairly its due. In 1988 the Darod sub-clan, the Mejertan, established what they so-called the Puntland State of Somalia. This scheme had two primary objectives. a) The first was to create a large expanse of territory that would be effectively outside the jurisdiction of any central authority which was likely to emerge in Mogadishu—essentially handing them veto powers or disproportionate influences over the form and shape of potential national entity and/or governance that might eventually materialize. b) Somaliland was direct target of the second objective of the „Puntland‟ theatrics. Its castle-builders declared that certain regions of Somaliland were part and parcel of Puntland. The only justification they forwarded as the basis of their strange assertion was even stranger: These regions were home of kindred clans of the Mejertan (the Mejertan of Somalia along with the Dhulbahante and the Warsangele of Somaliland collectively make the Harti, a sub-tribe of the Darod). It was the first time ever in Somali history that a Somali entity was not only proposed to be constituted on purely clannish foundations, but also the proposers did so with a straight face without the slightest trace of shame, irony or incongruity discernable. (This was yet again another Darodist precedent. From that time to this day, purely clannish xxxxxx-State-of-Somalia enclaves à la Puntland have cropping up in Somalia like weeds in an unkempt garden. One or two have been also attempted in Somaliland. At least give the Isaac credit for protesting the Wailers‟ assertion that Somaliland is a one-clan entity). What blinded them from seeing this absurdity was the other purpose of the „Puntland‟ creation: It was an attempt to deny Somaliland one of the fundamental tenets of statehood i.e. its territorial integrity within defined borders. If successful this would have rendered Somaliland neither feasible nor viable. The fiendish 4.5 power-sharing mechanism was the brainchild of the Darod and others with similar chauvinistic interests or aspirations. The system bestows the Darod the lion‟s share of power, which in reality is not commensurate with their numbers and other defining attributes. With the Ogaden, by far the most numerous of Darod‟s sub-clans mostly found in Ethiopia and Kenya, the other Darod sub-clans—the Majertan, the Dhulbahante, the Warsangale and the Merehan—can at best rank as the fourth biggest tribe in the erstwhile Somali Republic, behind the Hawiye, the Rahanwein and the Isaac. At any rate, the overriding purpose of the 4.5 invention was the malicious marginalization of the Isaac. In the process, other undeserving tribes, such as the Samaroon of Somaliland and the Dirs of Somalia were also adversely shed in bad light numerically speaking, that is. The addicted chauvinists have been behind the defeat of every post-Siad national authority not to their liking, which was attempted to be established in Mogadishu. Count them with me if you may: Ali Mahdi, Aidid, the Abdiqasim TNG, and the Sharif/Farmajo TFG (though Farmajo is a Darod, he was not a diehard addicted chauvinist; rather, he was their black sheep). When they succeeded to be at the helm of a government in Mogadishu, they could not have made a worse choice than Abdillahi the Traitor as their candidate and eventual „president‟. Thus his subsequent demise reserved them right. But that was a temporary aberration. The grand plan is back on track. These days, they are more amenable to the Sharif/Abdiwali TFG since it is more acquiescent to the grand plan. If one reads between the lines of the so-called Road Map, the Garowe I and Garowe II agreements, the drafts of the much-hyped Constitution, one would see that the elitist pork barrel special privileges are essentially and ingeniously (or may we say disingenuously) embedded in these documents. One telling point of this is the proposal to maintain the so-called 18 Regions that Siad Barre had imposed on the nation without legitimacy and whose sole purpose and outcome was the institution of the very elitist pork barrel special privileges that the addicted chauvinists are after anew. There are those who argue, and not without substantial credence, that this chauvinism addiction and the tireless efforts to keep that affliction is the main driving factor behind not only the persistent intractability of the turmoil in Somalia, but also some recurring—though typically less successful—threats that Somaliland has been subjected to since its rebirth. Of Tribalism‟s Scourge and Oddities I feel neither the need nor the desire nor the expectation to see the Wailers cease their habitual Somaliland and Isaac bashing. The dogmatism and naked hatred they employ in the practice of their trade are self-defeating enough and are likely to help their intended targets rather than harm them. One thing, however, is an irrefutable and eternal fact: Tribalism is a highly destructive and an incalculably immoral vice. Its usage as a means to an end is equally a fundamental evil. The thoughtful late Poet Abdillahi Tima‟ade so aptly hit the nail on the head when he described tribalism thus: Dugsi ma leh Qabyaaladi; Waxay dumiso mooyee Tribalism offers no shelter: It only destructs How true. What makes tribalism all the more abhorrent, agonizing and senseless is that, in the Somali context, one‟s tribalism-motivated wrath is, in all intents and purposes, more likely to affect adversely one‟s kin and kith, one‟s neighbor, one‟s friend and, in its all-embracing shadow, one‟s fellow countryman rather than one‟s real enemies. Strangely, tribalism only acknowledges one‟s paternal, but not maternal, linage. Thus it could ostensibly allow one to slaughter relatives who belonged to his mother‟s tribe. A potential victim could be as close to a would-be offender as the offender‟s own uncle, cousin or nephew (i.e. the brother of one‟s mother, the son of that uncle, the son of one‟s aunt [i.e. the son of one‟s mother‟s sister] or the son of one‟s sister) provided that the potential victim happened to hail from the wrong clan in time of tribal conflict! Another of tribalism‟s baffling absurdities is that one could never tell where exactly its practice should start and where exactly it should end. It could pit one tribe against another or one sub-clan of a tribe against another sub-clan of the same tribe or members of a same sub-sub-clan or even members of an extended family against each other. Most distressingly still, for the Somalis, tribalism seems to be an inescapable doom. It is like a supper-maximum security penitentiary that is located in a remote island, which in turn is in the midst of a vast and impenetrable ocean. Obviously, not only is escape or release from this hellhole hopelessly impossible, but also it looks as if it is exclusively designed and built to incarcerate all Somalis either by choice or by default. By choice? One simply needs be a tribalism-villain to be an inmate. By default? One could as simply be an internee on account of an act of legitimate self-defense. It appears that at any one time 50% of the Somalis are involved in the villainy and the other 50% are engaged in its resistance. Hence at all times, 100% of Somalis are mired as captives either way. Moreover, it is not rather the more gullible ordinary layman or the nomad only who is thus affected. Somalis who are as well educated as rocket scientists and those who were exposed to non-tribal societies and cultures and consequentially, therefore, have had the opportunity to experience the beauty of the non-existence of tribalism in these societies and cultures have—as strangely as it may sound—not developed the immunity to avoid ending up in this godforsaken penal colony. Tribalism is a depravity whose rules of engagement shift like desert sands. It can never be exactly definable or definitive. It spares no one. It defies all logic and human decency. Tribalism, however, should not be confused with Tribal Affiliation. The former is a nasty vice while the latter is a harmless, if not perhaps an entirely a refined, attribute. Allah, the Almighty, created His people as nations and as tribes in order to enable them to know each other. The Almighty preaches us to be kind, to be caring to each other and, in times of need, to be of assistance to our kin and kith, neighbors, community and by extension to fellow nationals as well as to fellow human beings. In the eyes of Allah, belonging to a certain tribe and utilizing this membership within its permissible limits are acceptable. It would be a divinely marvelous and memorable day when tribalism, in all its forms and hues, is simply not a factor in any discourse of Somali affairs anywhere, at any time and whatever the issue or circumstance that is under debate. For all it is worth, I might be excused in making one or two points regarding my purpose in writing this piece absolutely clear. I am not wishing or calling for any retribution, God forbid, against any Somali tribe. Tribal vengeance or settling tribal scores only breeds vicious cycles of communal conflict without end and would leave all tribes and thus all Somalis to be nothing but miserable losers through a folly of no one but our own. Whatever past injustices that were committed; however serious, pervasive, unfathomable these injustices were; whatever grievances that any tribe may hold against another and notwithstanding the power of the desire, urge and justification for revenge that any tribe might feel, forgiveness and reconciliation constitute the only sensible course for all concerned. Forgive and reconcile? Yes. Forget? Never. Lest history (i.e. the events in our history that were horrendous and unacceptable) is repeated, history should first be based on solid facts alone. Besides, whenever attempts are made to rewrite history or to take it out of context or to selectivize it à la the Wailers, one would do us all a priceless favor in setting the facts straight. Every nation‟s past contains both dreadful and pleasant episodes. Whether we like it or not, our history is our heritage. At any rate, history should be on public record and should be told like it is; every and any part of it; the Good, the Bad and the Ugly of it. Then and only then, could we learn the obvious lessons of our history. Only then could past horrific pitfalls be avoided to haunt again the Somali people in part or at large. Of Dissent and Dissenters in Somaliland I would like to reiterate in no uncertain and unequivocal terms that Somalilanders‟ irreversible decision to withdraw from the union with Somalia as well as that their immovable determination to remain a sovereign country in its post-colonial borders are not driven by any hatred or malice whatsoever towards other Somalis wherever they may be. Quite on the contrary, only peace and prosperity are all that Somalilanders would wish for all other Somalis, including those with whom they had shared that dreadful union. Rather Somalilanders took this course because, for once, they had learned from the follies and the consequences thereof of their history. Somalilanders firmly believe that, all things considered, this is the only practical, viable and equitable option open to them in order to ensure their freedom and wellbeing. It was taken and is being maintained at no one‟s expense within Somaliland or to disadvantage others without. It would be disingenuously dishonest to claim that everything in Somaliland commands the absolute unanimity of all Somalilanders. Absolute unanimity is something that is associated with autocratic countries. Somaliland definitely neither has been one of them nor has the need or the desire to join them now or in the future. Therefore, there have naturally been, still are and will always be dissenters and dissentions in the affairs of the country. The dissentions stem from two main issues. One is the fundamental principle of Somaliland‟s Re-independence. The other pertains to concerns with Somaliland government‟s policies and/or actions. In either case, the misgivings are attributable to various reasons. The reasons are, as usual, a combination of the real, the imagined and the facades behind which sinister motives lurk. Some Somalilanders are apprehensive of political and economic marginalization that might in particular disadvantage their tribes, or communities or regions. Others disagree with the course and means the country has adapted towards achieving its objectives and aspirations. And then, there are the Somalilander remnants who still not only adhere to the concept of Pan-Somalism, but also still are doggedly determined to stay the course hitherto taken to achieve that ideal regardless… Whatever the reason, the validities of the dissent on the two issues are different. On the one hand, the issue of the Re-independence was firmly settled in the Burao Conference resolutions—resolutions that were endorsed by the overwhelming majority of a leadership, which represented all the tribes of Somaliland. It was further reaffirmed in subsequent equally representative meetings, the most prominent of them being the Borama Conference of 1993. Above all, the Independence and Sovereignty of Somaliland was finalized and solemnized by the introduction—and its over 90% approval of Somalilanders in a referendum—of the country‟s constitution. Thus, as in all nations of the world, any open and active opposition to Somaliland‟s Independence and Sovereignty would amount to treason by law. And no nation in the world tolerates treason. Period. On the other hand, dissension pertaining to governmental policies and/or actions is legally permissible. Actually, it is an unalienable right of the country‟s citizens. And dissenters can be open and active not only in fearlessly expressing such dissension, but also in vigorously seeking appropriate changes that could reverse their discontents. Whether the dissenters in Somaliland is driven by fears or by dissatisfaction or by holding unpopular, though honest opinions or by adhering to far-fetched principles, the integrity of these groups and their overall goodwill toward Somaliland do not raise contentious issues. Remedies could be and should be found to address these concerns in an atmosphere of goodwill, dialogue, flexibility and compromise by all concerned. Perceived fears, for instance, can abate as time, in due course, exposes the false and unjustifiable foundations for their existence all along. In other words, imagined fears die a natural dead. If, on the other hand, fears reflected facts on the ground, then appropriate redresses should be put in place in order to remove them. The ones thus affected, indeed, should be excused if they raised hell in pursuing the redemptions that should be fairly their due. Dissatisfaction with governments or with their policies and/or actions thereof can also be legitimately overcome as well. One way that this task could ultimately be accomplished is—if all else fails—to change the governments themselves. After all, what are the elections for? Constructive, though unconventional, viewpoints serve useful purposes in democracies if only as food for thoughts. And lastly, men of dogmatic principles are just that: men of dogmatic principles. They simply live and as simply die with that frame of mind. Unlike all above groups, there is a tiny, and by far the noisiest, clique whose feral opposition of Somaliland‟s statehood and all that it stands for spring from motives and/or sentiments that could not withstand logic or civilized standards of decency. Reasoning or engaging in a meaningful debate with members of this faction is simply an exercise in futility. The Wailers are the very embodiment of this last group. Regardless the calibers and motives of the dissenters, the fact of the matter is that without the express wish, determination and/or consent of an overwhelming majority of its population in all its regions and demographic setup, Somaliland‟s cause and aspirations could not have endured for as long as they had. Its existence, de facto independence and self-reliance could not have been sustained for 20 odd years. It could not have gone from weakness to strength and then from strength to strength. Who did not hail from the Isaac? I would say never. But if you are a brave and risk-taking bettor and believe that it would, I‟m willing to be the other party. And you can dictate the betting amount and other terms. However, as good-hearted consideration, I have a word of caution for you. My confidence in taking such a potential bet is rooted in precedents on both sides of the coin. When Abdillahi Yusuf, a Majerten and a kind of warlord capo del capo tutti, was recruited by foreigners as Somalia‟s president-puppet, he had to vacate the Puntland presidency that he had grabbed and held at the time. His vice-president was a fellow Harti clansman but not a Majerten. He was a Dulbahante. Alas, the Dulbahante-man was robbed soon enough of the opportunity to feel either the comforts or the burdens of the presidential seat. Of course, he had to unceremoniously make way for another Marjerten-president. So much for tribal chauvinism. Compare that with when Somaliland‟s late President M. I. Egal, an Isaac—the chauvinistic and domineering tribe of Somaliland, if the Wailers are to be believed—died. The Vice President was not a fellow Isaac. He was from the Samaron tribe. Without fear, opposition or hesitation—in fact much to Isaac‟s gratitude and blessings—he assumed the Presidency as the country‟s constitution obligated. This honorable man, Dahir Riyale, went on to win the Presidency in his right in a multiparty election later. His honor is now reinforced and cast in granite when he conceded defeat and handed over power in a willing, peaceful and constitutional manner after a subsequent Presidential election. The Wailers, as a matter of course, either do not mention this glorious juncture of Somaliland‟s recent history or, if and when they do, they belittle it. The „s‟ that is denoting the plural is an indication of the number of times these governments that have been installed in Villa Somalia in Mogadishu by foreigners. They never served Somalis well. It is debatable that they served their creators well either. Or if they did, it is only for the short term. Time will tell. And time is ticking faster than most think it is. The 4.5 tribal power sharing system was forwarded as a mechanism to ensure broad inclusiveness in governmental affairs by all Somali tribes. I have no issue with that laudable objective. However the 4.5 tribal classification is a figment of imagination as much as it is an exercise in disingenuousness. It dreamed up by Ismail Omar Gelle, of Djibouti, Abdillahi Yusuf, of Puntland and other Neither Here Nor There In conclusion, it is highly inconceivable that Somalilanders would so much as contemplate any fundamental changes in their status quo in the foreseeable future—least of all changes that are likely to remotely lead them back to a political re-association of any form with the other party of the erstwhile Union. It is even more inconceivable that Somalilanders would relinquish one square inch of its territory as defined by the borders that the British left behind on June 26, 1960. In their unshakable adherence to these convictions, the issue of political recognition or lack of it thereof by the International Community or by anybody else is decidedly secondary. And neither is it here nor there whether the Wailers‟ weeping continues and intensifies. As a matter of fact, we need the entertainment.

Ahmed I. Hassan ahmedihass@hotmail.com Somaliland haters. Its whole purpose was to politically disenfranchise the Isaac in a potential resurrection of the erstwhile Union of the Somali Republic. If there is a Dir tribe, the Isaacs are not part of it. The Dir scheme was hatched so that in a potential Somalia that would include Somaliland, the Isaac, the Samaron and the Isa of the North as well other tribes in the South will be deficiently represented in government in disproportion of their actual numbers. As a matter of fact, Abdillahi Yusuf is habitually fond to brag, that one of the major achievements of his political career is the eradication of the name „Issac‟ from the Somali political and social lexicons. Just as Somaliland and Somalia did in 1960 in creating the Union, any of the three missing Somali territories, in the event of gaining freedom, no matter how, was assumed to embrace the Union and become a part of it automatically and unquestionably. Djibouti happened to be the first and so far the only of the three to which such an opportunity passed its way when it attained its independence from France in mid 1977. To the chagrin of a great many Somalis however, Djibouti chose to have nothing with the Union and opted to be a separate and a fully sovereign country. That decision constituted as the first devastating blow to the concept Pan-Somalism. Nonetheless, with the wisdom of hindsight and in all fairness to Djiboutians, it is hard to find fault with the Djiboutians for having taken that separate route. Having been keen and perceptive observers of how things were unfolding in the Union—in practice as opposed to the expectations of all Somalis within the Union and without alike—since its inception, that course of action must have been the only sensible option at their disposal. No doubt in so doing, they have spared themselves a great deal of trouble. Looks like congratulations are in order

Ahmed Hassan

Some political leaders and military commanders will argue that cooler heads must prevail and that a long-term strategy demands America’s indefinite presence in Afghanistan. They will argue that any drawdown must be based on conditions on the ground. But conditions on the ground do not warrant staying the course, only narrowing our mission and avoiding further tragedies.

Retired four-star general Jack Keane, who has traveled to Afghanistan four times within the past eighteen months, says of the outrage and rioting that America in fact has a good relationship with the Afghan people. “We’ve forged an unusually strong relationship with those people. We’ve done it based on the values of the American people and our sensitivities to their culture. That’s what is so frustrating about this.” With all due respect, General Keane and other like-minded observers are wrong. The mission is a waste of money, effort and, most importantly, lives.

Former heads of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal (retired) and General David Petraeus both emphasized the importance of winning hearts and minds of Afghans by treating them and their culture with respect. They believed the most helpful indicator of progress on the ground and the integration of political and military strategy is the protection of Afghan civilians.

But according to a recent report by U.N. mission in Afghanistan, 2011 was the fifth straight year in which civilian casualties rose. Of course, last year insurgents were responsible for 77 percent of Afghan civilian deaths. Despite this fact, after tripling the number of U.S. troops in that country—far fewer than the Pentagon asked for—President Obama made it America’s mission to protect the Afghan people.

A decade into the conflict, the Afghan government still remains incredibly weak, widely distrusted and underrepresented in poorly secured areas of the country. The roughly 180,000-strong Afghan army, whose performance and effectiveness remains questionable, has an officer corps teaming with ethnic fissures and competing subnational interests. Meanwhile, the Afghan police force has developed a reputation for desertion, illiteracy and rapaciousness. On top of limited and potentially unsustainable security improvements, the spiraling violence does not instill confidence in our victory.

Too many U.S. government planners forget that for Afghans we are their guests, and it is their country. We forget that back in 2010, Afghanistan’s president Hamid Karzai imposed a crackdown on alcohol consumption and closed a number of expat bars around Kabul because they were deemed offensive to Islam. The Afghan general who carried out the alcohol raids told the Los Angeles Times it was done for “Allah’s sake.” After that, violent demonstrations and intercultural hostility increased after Florida pastor Terry Jones promised to “stand up” to Islam and burn a Koran. The recent incident of U.S. Marines urinating on corpses was yet another provocative episode in the erosion of American-Afghan relations.

As I argued months ago, “Recent events in Afghanistan should be a wake-up call to how our ten-year occupation is actually being perceived. Rather than winning ‘hearts and minds,’ America’s civilizing mission has become increasingly associated with a Western cultural invasion.”

Many Afghans see outsiders constantly changing their mayors, their governors and their customs. They are told how to dress their women, what is culturally acceptable and what is culturally repugnant. Americans are infuriated when their politicians redistribute their taxes, yet they ignore how intrusive their own military and civilian planners have become to foreign peoples.

It’s no surprise that a report published last May by the Kabul-based Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit concluded that negative sentiments about democracy emerge from “the stated distaste among respondents for ‘Western culture’ and the potential threat it poses to ‘Afghan culture,’ traditional norms or values, and an Islamic identity.”

None of this should imply that the Quran burning or the grisly violence meted out against innocent people was justified. But the fact remains that America is widely scorned throughout the region—in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Source: AP

David Cameron buoyed by his victory in Libya wanted an international endorsement to air bomb Somalia under the pretext of fighting Al Shabab and Piracy but in real truth he wanted to address domestic concerns: read Olympics, economic hardships, British tourism in Kenya, future oil & mineral prospects and home security, genuine interests indeed against genuine threats coming from a poor Horn of African nation. It was unacceptable, genuinely unacceptable.

But genuine causes are not enough. No politician and especially a British for that matter flaunt naked objectives. They have to be sugar coated with diplomacy and altruism. And this is why decisions were already made, the daggers were out and the victim was brought to the altar to submit to his fate or sign his verdict.

The whole episode looked like a Scramble for Africa all over again. Even the Group Photo shows Cameron’s arrogance standing as a colonial governor in the front and apart from the rest. No wonder my mind raced back to Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and flashes of the Mad Mullah’s resistance to the British colonization. You see, history is hard to forget, especially its painful episodes and oppression is never far from the African heart. And in the 21st century when all are educated and aware about the real intentions it is painful to see someone exploiting you because of your circumstances.

There is no doubt that the Somali people who suffered under the ruthless rule of Al Shabab and experienced how their twisted thinking has converted Islam and Sharia into a ghoulish nightmare will absolutely welcome any force that could liberate them from the grip of Al Shabab.

Looking at this situation one may be forgiven to welcome a deal with the devil and say: “Muslinimo ninkaan kugu wadayn muumino khaas ah, gaal maxasta kuu dhawra ood magansataa dhaama…” (If a leader doesn’t manage your affairs in the true spirit of Islam with pure honesty and fairness, it is better to seek refuge in a non-Muslim who cares for the wellbeing of your family.”

And this is why the Somali leaders, who stood like colonial subjects before their colonial master, had been put between a rock and a hard place.  The bitter reality came in Sheikh Sharif’s speech: “We’re looking for security. We’re scared of tomorrow.” And tomorrow indeed is very scary and has been scary for many of the Somali people and particularly for Somali mothers’ over the last twenty years.

But a sound and a pragmatic reading of the regional political landscape may bring forth another ironic analogy from the rich Somali literature: “Baadida nin baa kula dayday, daalna kaa badina, oon doonahayn in aad heshaa, daayin abidkaaye.” (There is a man who searches your lost beasts with you and even makes extra efforts, but who deep in his heart does not want you to find them).

But despite the current situation, Sheikh Sharif could have reminded the British Prime Minister that Somalia was not always a “failed state” nor it is now. That there was a day when Somalia was fixing the problems of its African brothers that are now boasting to fix it; that it was Somalia that successfully mediated a conflict between Idi Amin’s Uganda and Nyereere’s Tanzania in 1972 and averted an imminent war; that Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi was once a refugee in Mogadishu and that his Tigrean movement would not have been successful in deposing Mengistu Haile Mariam if the communist regime in Addis Ababa was not broken by the powerful Somali army in 1977; that Somalia was the first African country where two elected civilian presidents passed power to each other democratically in 1967; that even now and despite the world media focus on what is wrong with Somalia; that the Somali people have one of the robust, cheapest and fast growing telecommunications sectors in Africa; that Somalis have the most successful money transfer companies in Africa; that Somalis have more airlines and more universities now than ever.

Sheikh Sharif could have reminded Cameron and the world that with their known entrepreneurial skills Somali people have activated the business sectors in Nairobi, Dar-es-Salam,  Kampala, South Africa and beyond; that the streets of some our towns in Somaliland; Puntland and other areas are more safe than the streets of many African countries, have achieved more progress than ever achieved in the 30 years under independence; that what is right with Somalia can easily offset what is wrong if foreign terrorists and governments with vested interests were not meddling with our affairs; that a well trained, well armed and well paid Somali army would have defeated Al Shabab and secured the country more than an foreign force could ever do.

Sheikh Sharif could have reminded Cameron that the British had a moral duty to support what was right in Somalia as was eloquently expressed by Alex De Waal in his brilliant piece  Getting Somalia Right This Time.

Sheikh Sharif should have told Cameron that if he met his promises and translated his words into reality by emulating the Turkish role and building big projects then Somalis would definitely tolerate and welcome his colonial arrogance and may forget the dark legacy that his patronizing posture evokes; a legacy that was the root cause of Somalia’s plight today. For it was Cameron’ predecessors, British gentlemen like him, who divided the Somali territory and gifted parts of it to neighboring countries against the will of the Somali people. It was the indefatigable search for the dream of greater Somalia that Cameron’s forefathers have shattered in the 20^th century that led the Somalis to end up in vain and turn against each other in frustration in the 21^st century.

Bashir Goth,26^th Feb. 2012.

Source: www.hanua.blogspot.com 

Somali conference scheduled to take place in London, U.K. in February 23, 2012 divided Somaliland people. Although Somaliland is invited as a country that is not recognized, but is not part of the conference’s agenda either, Somaliland people remain divided into two camps: those who are adamant that we cannot share a table with Somalia’s notorious warmongers and lower our status, as a sovereignty state, to that of Somalia’s warring regions. And those who argue we can no longer permit Somalia’s warmongers speak on our behalf in the International arena. Therefore, we must help Somalia stand on its feet, so we could speed up the divorce process between Somaliland and Somalia.

The opponents of the conference have valid concerns. Their strategy is: Somaliland is not a broken nation, so don’t bother fixing it. Instead, fix Somalia. This group resolutely opposes Somaliland’s participation in the conference; but they neither propose an alternative solution to end Somaliland’s isolation nor reflect back on the two decades plus that Somaliland remained in political and economic limbo. They also argue if Somaliland’s gets involved in Somalia’s interminable conferences and conflicts, Somaliland would be dragged into the conflict.  Hence, if Somaliland participates in Somalia’s conference, condemnations against Hargeisa would pour from every corner.

On the flip side, the proponents of the conference, the second camp argues the International community recognizes Somalia’s savage warlords, not Somaliland’s democratically elected leaders. So, we must reshuffle our deck of cards. And this time play our Ace card. This group is adamant that the International community doesn’t say or hint that it won’t recognize Somaliland but demands that we sit down with failed Somalia, just as South Sudan negotiated with Sudan and Eretria gained its independence from Ethiopia through peacefully.  They emphasize: the international community cares less whether or not Somaliland and Somalia agree on Somaliland’s separation. All we are required is to take a photo opportunity with Somalia’s warlords and say, “There you see: we tried to negotiate with them to expedite the divorce process, but having dialogues with them is as meaningless as negotiating with the silly goats on the streets…and therefore, just as easily we joined Somalia in 1960, so too, we simply withdrew from the failed union in 1991.”  After all, it wasn’t Somalia that joined Somaliland; but it was Somaliland that united with Somalia—a union that was never ratified, anyways.

Additionally, the proponent group argues the longer Somalia remains in turmoil, the longer Somaliland remains in isolation. And if anyone is under the illusion that Somaliland would be dragged into Somalia’s conflicts, truth is: Somali warlords who couldn’t contain Al-Shabab, much less defeat it, would have a snowball’s chance in hell to destabilize Somaliland.  That is, Somaliland is not only obligated to participate in the conference and spearhead a vigorous campaign to end Somalia’s carnage, but also Somaliland has the opportunity to put its case for independence in front of the world. Forty nations including Somaliland are invited in the conference, so this will be a golden opportunity for Somaliland to push its quest for an International recognition, while finding a lasting solution for Somalia, echoing across the conference hallway its [Somaliland] success to achieving a lasting peace and establishing democratic institutions.

What’s more, Somaliland President, Ahmed Mohamed Mohamoud (Silanyo), will have the opportunity to address the British Prime Minister’s, David Cameron, plan to arm ships travelling the Gulf of Aden and warn the International community against the impeding ecological disastrous in the event that pirates fight back, riddling a super-large oil tanker with millions of gallons of oil with bullets. Doubtless, Somaliland and Somalia’s crystal-clear beaches would turn into muddy oil fields, with millions of marine lives and seabirds perishing overnight.  U.K. will be held accountable for the impending ecological disaster, once Mr. Cameron’s ill-fated plan is implemented.

Moreover, Mr. Silanyo will echo that Somalia’s problems are beyond terrorism and piracy (TP). Taking the focus off from the TP phenomenon and shedding a light on the devastated fishing communities in Somaliland and Somalia because of the heartless European and Asian fishing fleets—the condoned pirates, under the NATO protection—as well as dumping toxic waste in Somalia’s waters are the root causes of piracy. To protect Somaliland and Somalia’s rich marine resources, the world should compensate the devastated coastal community and rebuild Somaliland Navy forces. And again condemnation would pour from everywhere, if Somaliland fails to take advantage of this opportunity.

As for the second component of the TP phenomenon—the T word, terrorism, never-ending foreign meddling in Somalia’s affairs and millions of Somaliland and Somalia’s unemployed youth is what keeps Al-Shabab terror group alive. And contrary to the misleading reports from the International news outlets, the latest Kenyan and Ethiopian’s incursions into Somalia are not defeating Al-Shabab but they are reviving it. After all, just as Al-Shabab was facing a devastating defeat, both Ethiopia and Kenya jumped on the wagon to rescue Al-Shabab. Now, Al-Shabab screams fake Somali nationalism and Islam (its version of Islam, not real Islam) to defend Somalia from its natural adversaries. That is, Al-Shabab’s recruits number by the thousands. Indeed, Al-Shabab remains a curse upon the Somali people, but a blessing in disguise—a propaganda tool—for Somalia’s archenemies and Western Intelligent Agencies.

On the economic spectrum, Mr. Silanyo must expose the International community’s hypocrisy of keeping Somaliland poor and isolated while stationing hundreds of U.N. and aid agencies for Somaliland and Somalia in Nairobi, Kenya, instead of relocating them in peaceful Somaliland; for one thing, the presence of these aid agencies in Somaliland will provide jobs for thousands of unemployed youth. For another, almost eighty present of the donated money is spent on the U.N. and aid agencies’ overhead expenses. Additionally, the president must demand the U.N. to move the Somaliland and Somalia’s airspace control center located in Kenya to Somaliland. Again, hundreds of people will have employment opportunities and the fees collected—currently looted by none other than the U.N. itself and its collaborator: Kenya—from the International carriers passing over Somaliland and Somalia’s airspaces would generate countless jobs. What’s more, sadly, Somaliland and Somalia’s shipping lanes are controlled from Kenya, while Somaliland is far more peaceful than Kenya. Figure that one out!

As for Somaliland’s recognition, Somaliland would simply remind the International community: if South Sudan and Eretria could gain independence, so could Somaliland. But Somalia’s warlords must not mistake Somaliland’s participation in the conference for an indication that Hargeisa is ready rebuild the shattered Somaliland and Somalia’s union. Usually, empty euphoria keeps Somali unionists alive! Nor would Somaliland’s independence be something that Somalia’s warring factions would have the audacity to question, much less oppose it.

On a positive note: clearly, Britain’s effort to end Somalia’s turmoil is genuine and deservers standing obviations. Also, Somaliland’s participation in the conference would put a shame to Somali “leaders” because for the first—in front of forty powerful International leaders—Somali warmongers would answer the question: why Somaliland is so successful but Somalia is so miserable? Doubtless, holding the conference in London is a great steps but having the second phase of the conference in Hargeisa, Somaliland’s capital, would force Somalia’s warlords to end their bickering—holding Somali people hostage for decades. That is, just as the British government convinced Somaliland to participate in the conference, U.K. also must provide Somaliland the financial and military supports that it needs not just to facilitate the second Somali conference but also show the apprehensive Somalilanders that Hargeisa has the security forces to defend its territory, while helping Somalia stand its feet. The traditional half-baked solution for Somalia won’t work. London must work with Hargeisa to see Somalia stand on its feet and Somaliland gain its long overdue recognition. This will be a win-win situation.

In short, just as Thomas Alva Edison argued, “I have not failed 1,000 times.  I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to not make a light bulb…” indisputably, the internationally community may argue, “We have not failed Somalia 1000 times. But we have successfully discovered 1000 ways to screw up Somalia.”

But, admittedly, this conference will bear some fruits only and only if Britain keeps Somaliland in the loop, paving the way for the second phase of the Somali conference to be held in Somaliland. To do so, Britain as well as the International community ought to do two things: provide economic support for Somaliland and rebuild its security forces. This approach won’t only motivate Somaliland leaders to facilitate the second Somali conference but will also assure the Somaliland public that their country will be safe.

Dalmar Kaahin

dalmar_k@yahoo.com

Palestinian rights are marginalised in US policy, while Washington demands it supervises talks [AFP

This is the second of a two-part article by Noam Chomsky on the decline of US power. You can read the first parthere.

Cambridge, MA – In the years of conscious, self-inflicted decline at home, “losses” continued to mount elsewhere. In the past decade, for the first time in 500 years, South America has taken successful steps to free itself from western domination, another serious loss. The region has moved towards integration, and has begun to address some of the terrible internal problems of societies ruled by mostly Europeanised elites, tiny islands of extreme wealth in a sea of misery. They have also rid themselves of all US military bases and of IMF controls. A newly formed organisation,CELAC, includes all countries of the hemisphere apart from the US and Canada. If it actually functions, that would be another step in US decline, in this case in what has always been regarded as “the backyard”.

Even more serious would be the loss of the MENA countries – Middle East/North Africa – which have been regarded by planners since the 1940s as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history”, Control of MENA energy reserves would yield “substantial control of the world”, in the words of the influential Roosevelt advisor AA Berle. To be sure, if the projections of a century of US energy independence based on North American energy resources turn out to be realistic, the significance of controlling MENA would decline somewhat, though probably not by much: the main concern has always been control more than access. However, the likely consequences to the planet’s equilibrium are so ominous that discussion may be largely an academic exercise.

The Arab Spring, another development of historic importance, might portend at least a partial “loss” of MENA. The US and its allies have tried hard to prevent that outcome – so far, with considerable success. Their policy towards the popular uprisings has kept closely to the standard guidelines: support the forces most amenable to US influence and control. Favoured dictators are supported as long as they can maintain control (as in the major oil states). When that is no longer possible, then discard them and try to restore the old regime as fully as possible (as in Tunisia and Egypt). The general pattern is familiar: Somoza, Marcos, Duvalier, Mobutu, Suharto, and many others. In one case, Libya, the three traditional imperial powers intervened by force to participate in a rebellion to overthrow a mercurial and unreliable dictator, opening the way, it is expected, to more efficient control over Libya’s rich resources (oil primarily, but also water, of particular interest to French corporations), to a possible base for the US Africa Command (so far restricted to Germany), and to the reversal of growing Chinese penetration. As far as policy goes, there have been few surprises.

Crucially, it is important to reduce the threat of functioning democracy, in which popular opinion will significantly influence policy. That again is routine, and quite understandable. A look at the studies of public opinion undertaken by US polling agencies in the MENA countries easily explains the western fear of authentic democracy, in which public opinion will significantly influence policy.

Israel and the Republican Party

Similar considerations carry over directly to the second major concern addressed in the issue of Foreign Affairs cited in part one of this piece: the Israel-Palestine conflict. Fear of democracy could hardly be more clearly exhibited than in this case. In January 2006, an election took place in Palestine, pronounced free and fair by international monitors. The instant reaction of the US (and of course Israel), with Europe following along politely, was to impose harsh penalties on Palestinians for voting the wrong way.

“For 35 years the US has led the rejectionist camp on Israel-Palestine.”

That is no innovation. It is quite in accord with the general and unsurprising principle recognised by mainstream scholarship: the US supports democracy if, and only if, the outcomes accord with its strategic and economic objectives, the rueful conclusion of neo-Reaganite Thomas Carothers, the most careful and respected scholarly analyst of “democracy promotion” initiatives.

More broadly, for 35 years the US has led the rejectionist camp on Israel-Palestine, blocking an international consensus calling for a political settlement in terms too well known to require repetition. The western mantra is that Israel seeks negotiations without preconditions, while the Palestinians refuse. The opposite is more accurate. The US and Israel demand strict preconditions, which are, furthermore, designed to ensure that negotiations will lead either to Palestinian capitulation on crucial issues, or nowhere.

The first precondition is that the negotiations must be supervised by Washington, which makes about as much sense as demanding that Iran supervise the negotiation of Sunni-Shia conflicts in Iraq. Serious negotiations would have to be under the auspices of some neutral party, preferably one that commands some international respect, perhaps Brazil. The negotiations would seek to resolve the conflicts between the two antagonists: the US and Israel on one side, most of the world on the other.

The second precondition is that Israel must be free to expand its illegal settlements in the West Bank. Theoretically, the US opposes these actions, but with a very light tap on the wrist, while continuing to provide economic, diplomatic and military support. When the US does have some limited objections, it very easily bars the actions, as in the case of the E-1 project linking Greater Jerusalem to the 39,000-resident settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim, virtually bisecting the West Bank, a very high priority for Israeli planners (across the spectrum), but which raised some objections in Washington, so that Israel has had to resort to devious measures to chip away at the project.

The pretence of opposition reached the level of farce in February 2011 when Obama vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for implementation of official US policy (also adding the uncontroversial observation that the settlements themselves are illegal, quite apart from their expansion). Since that time there has been little talk about ending settlement expansion, which continues, with studied provocation.

Thus, as Israeli and Palestinian representatives prepared to meet in Jordan in January 2011, Israel announced new construction in Pisgat Ze’ev and Har Homa, West Bank areas that it has declared to be within the greatly expanded area of Jerusalem, annexed, settled, and constructed as Israel’s capital – all in violation of direct Security Council orders. Other moves carry forward the grander design of separating whatever West Bank enclaves will be left to Palestinian administration from the cultural, commercial, political centre of Palestinian life in the former Jerusalem.

It is understandable that Palestinian rights should be marginalised in US policy and discourse. Palestinians have no wealth or power. They offer virtually nothing to US policy concerns; in fact, they have negative value, as a nuisance that stirs up “the Arab street”.

Israel, in contrast, is a valuable ally. It is a rich society with a sophisticated, largely militarised high-tech industry. For decades, it has been a highly valued military and strategic ally, particularly since 1967, when it performed a great service to the US and its Saudi ally by destroying the Nasserite “virus”, establishing the “special relationship” with Washington in the form that has persisted since. It is also a growing centre for US high-tech investment. In fact, high-tech -  particularly military – industries in the two countries are closely linked.

Apart from such elementary considerations of great power politics as these, there are cultural factors that should not be ignored. Christian Zionism in Britain and the US long preceded Jewish Zionism, and has been a significant elite phenomenon with clear policy implications (including the Balfour Declaration, which drew from it). When General Allenby conquered Jerusalem during World War I, he was hailed in the US press as “Richard the Lion-Hearted”, who had at last won the Crusades and driven the pagans out of the Holy Land.

The next step was for the Chosen People to return to the land promised to them by the Lord. Articulating a common elite view, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes described Jewish colonisation of Palestine as an achievement “without comparison in the history of the human race”. Such attitudes find their place easily within the Providentialist doctrines that have been a strong element in popular and elite culture since the country’s origins: the belief that God has a plan for the world, and that the US is carrying it forward under divine guidance, as articulated by a long list of leading figures.

Moreover, evangelical Christianity is a major popular force in the US. Further towards the extremes, End Times evangelical Christianity also has enormous popular outreach, invigorated by the establishment of Israel in 1948, revitalised even more by the conquest of the rest of Palestine in 1967 – all signs that End Times and the Second Coming are approaching.

These forces have become particularly significant since the Reagan years, as the Republicans have abandoned the pretence of being a political party in the traditional sense, while devoting themselves in virtual lockstep uniformity to servicing a tiny percentage of the super-rich and the corporate sector. However, the small constituency that is primarily served by the reconstructed party cannot provide votes, so they have to turn elsewhere.

The only choice is to mobilise tendencies that have always been present, though rarely as an organised political force: primarily nativists trembling in fear and hatred, and religious elements – extremists by international standards if not in the US. One outcome is reverence for alleged Biblical prophecies, hence not only support for Israel and its conquests and expansion, but passionate love for Israel, another core part of the catechism that must be intoned by Republican candidates – with Democrats, again, not too far behind.

These factors aside, it should not be forgotten that the “Anglosphere” – Britain and its offshoots – consists of settler-colonial societies, which rose on the ashes of indigenous populations, suppressed or virtually exterminated. Past practices must have been basically correct, in the US case even ordained by Divine Providence. Accordingly there is often an intuitive sympathy for the children of Israel when they follow a similar course. But primarily, geostrategic and economic interests prevail, and policy is not graven in stone.

The Iranian ‘threat’ and the nuclear issue

Let us turn finally to the third of the leading issues addressed in the establishment journals cited earlier, the “threat of Iran”. Among elites and the political class this is generally taken to be the primary threat to world order – though not among populations. In Europe, polls show that Israel is regarded as the leading threat to peace. In the MENA countries, that status is shared with the US, to the extent that, in Egypt, on the eve of the Tahrir Square uprising, 80 per cent felt that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. The same polls found that only ten per cent regard Iran as a threat – unlike the ruling dictators, who have their own concerns.

In the United States, before the massive propaganda campaigns of the past few years, a majority of the population agreed with most of the world that, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a right to carry out uranium enrichment. And even today, a large majority favours peaceful means for dealing with Iran. There is even strong opposition to military engagement if Iran and Israel are at war. Only a quarter regard Iran as an important concern for the US altogether. But it is not unusual for there to be a gap, often a chasm, dividing public opinion and policy.

Why exactly is Iran regarded as such a colossal threat? The question is rarely discussed, but it is not hard to find a serious answer – though not, as usual, in the fevered pronouncements. The most authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and the intelligence services in their regular reports to Congress on global security. They report that Iran does not pose a military threat. Its military spending is very low, even by the standards of the region – minuscule, of course, in comparison with the US.

Iran has little capacity to deploy force. Its strategic doctrines are defensive, designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to set it. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons capability, they report, that would be part of its deterrence strategy. No serious analyst believes that the ruling clerics are eager to see their country and possessions vaporised, the immediate consequence of their coming even close to initiating a nuclear war. And it is hardly necessary to spell out the reasons why any Iranian leadership would be concerned with deterrence, under existing circumstances.

The regime is doubtless a serious threat to much of its own population – and regrettably, is hardly unique on that score. But the primary threat to the US and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence. A further threat is that the Iranians clearly seek to extend their influence to neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and beyond as well. Those “illegitimate” acts are called “destabilising” (or worse). In contrast, forceful imposition of US influence halfway around the world contributes to “stability” and order, in accord with traditional doctrine about who owns the world.

It makes very good sense to try to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear weapons states, including the three that have refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty – Israel, India and Pakistan – all of which have been assisted in developing nuclear weapons by the US, and are still being assisted by them. It is not impossible to approach that goal by peaceful diplomatic means. One approach, which enjoys overwhelming international support, is to undertake meaningful steps towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, including Iran and Israel (and applying as well to US forces deployed there), better still extending to South Asia.

“It makes very good sense to try to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear weapons states, including the three that have refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty – Israel, India and Pakistan – all of which have been assisted in developing nuclear weapons by the US, and are still being assisted by them.”

Support for such efforts is so strong that the Obama administration has been compelled to formally agree, but with reservations: crucially, that Israel’s nuclear program must not be placed under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Association, and that no state (meaning the US) should be required to release information about “Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel”. Obama also accepts Israel’s position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the US and Israel can continue to delay indefinitely.

This survey comes nowhere near being exhaustive, needless to say. Among major topics not addressed is the shift of US military policy towards the Asia-Pacific region, with new additions to the huge military base system underway right now, in Jeju Island off South Korea and Northwest Australia, all elements of the policy of “containment of China”. Closely related is the issue of US bases in Okinawa, bitterly opposed by the population for many years, and a continual crisis in US-Tokyo-Okinawa relations.

Revealing how little fundamental assumptions have changed, US strategic analysts describe the result of China’s military programs as a “classic ‘security dilemma’, whereby military programs and national strategies deemed defensive by their planners are viewed as threatening by the other side”, writes Paul Godwin of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. The security dilemma arises over control of the seas off China’s coasts. The US regards its policies of controlling these waters as “defensive”, while China regards them as threatening; correspondingly, China regards its actions in nearby areas as “defensive” while the US regards them as threatening. No such debate is even imaginable concerning US coastal waters. This “classic security dilemma” makes sense, again, on the assumption that the US has a right to control most of the world, and that US security requires something approaching absolute global control.

While the principles of imperial domination have undergone little change, the capacity to implement them has markedly declined as power has become more broadly distributed in a diversifying world. Consequences are many. It is, however, very important to bear in mind that – unfortunately – none lifts the two dark clouds that hover over all consideration of global order: nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, both literally threatening the decent survival of the species.

Source: Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is the author of numerous best-selling political works.

On Monday, 20 February 2012, President Guelleh of Djibouti will make a rare visit to London, to attend the London Conference on Somalia. He will of course be greeted with courtesy. The dire state of his nation and the nature of his regime however is unlikely to get much of an airing whilst he is is in London. This is not only because, as a former French colony and Africa’s smallest country, little is known about Djibouti in the UK. It is also because his regime has recently found increasing favour in the ‘West’, but not in a way such that too much public scrutiny is welcomed.

Djibouti is home to a large French military base. It is also home to an expanding multi-agency US base, ‘Camp Lemonnier’, about to undergo its next phase of development in the wake of events in Iran, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

Djibouti is host to negotiations over Somalia’s future, and the to training of Somali soldiers supporting the fragile Transitional Federal Government (TFG) based in Mogadishu. A further ‘Western’ feather in President Guelleh’s cap is the arrival in Somalia last month of 500 Djibouti soldiers to join troops supporting the TFG under the AMISOM UN mandate.

What’s more, on the face of it, the Djibouti economy looks in good condition. The IMF estimates economic growth of 4.6% in 2011 and projects 5.3% in 2012.

Djibouti’s economy is based on its strategic location at the narrow entrance to the Red Sea, leading to the Suez Canal. Its Dubai-invested ports provide maritime trade access for landlocked Ethiopia. Djibouti receives several hundred millions of dollars a year income from foreign military bases, and is favoured with generous aid. Its economic future looks bright ‘on paper’ also – the Chinese are re-building the railway to Ethiopia; two countries also cooperating in a planned oil pipeline from newly-independent South Sudan.

Despite all this, all is not well in Djibouti.

Under cover of ‘Western’ support, the regime has become more dictatorial and volatile, the more invincible it believes itself to be. It could easily be overthrown, with unpredictable consequences and the possibility of intervention from Eritrea, Ethiopia or even Somali Al Shabaab. The US and Europe appear unprepared for any of this, preferring to put all their eggs in one basket – and in the hope that the President’s failing health does not test the absence of a viable secession strategy.

The same family and party have been in power since independence from France. The increasingly luxurious lifestyle of the President’s entourage has been criticised by international aid institutions, such as the use of a new Boeing 767 as ‘the family’s private jet’ and the construction of outrageously lavish palaces for relatives. Having changed the constitution allowing himself to be President for life, and having blocked opposition candidates from standing against him for the April 2011 election, President Guelleh then expelled election monitors sent by the US State Department. He banned foreign observers, refused entry to respected journalists, and engaged in widespread manipulation of voter lists.

Whilst in aggregate a middle-income country, the general population live in dire poverty. Djibouti has one of the highest infant and maternal mortality rates in Africa. Much of the population has no reliable access to clean water or electricity. Ports in Djibouti have to recruit abroad to find the skills they need, despite unemployment at home of 60%. Today, 52,000 people receive aid from the World Food Programme.

The latest IMF survey warned that ‘growth has thus far not succeeded in significantly reducing poverty or unemployment. The country ranked 147th out of 169 countries in the UNDP’s Human Development Index for 2010, and malnutrition has risen.

Investment has dried up in the wake of confiscations and arbitrary taxes. Even relations with Dubai investors have deteriorated. According to the World Bank, Djibouti is one of the worst countries in the world in which to do business, ranked 170th out of 183 countries.

Economic deprivation in the wake of profligacy at the top is one potential trigger of instability. Another is the government’s appalling human rights record.

Large numbers were detained and mistreated during last year’s Presidential elections. Prominent human rights and opposition activists were arrested, including leaders of the four main opposition parties. Demonstrations against the election process in February 2011 were met with tear gas and violence. Detention of government critics has persisted – on 3 February this year popular radio journalist Farah Abadid Hildid was abducted by police, stripped naked, and kept in a cell without water, the third time in a year he has been detained. This has been referred to the to the United Nations special rapporteur on torture.

Is it wise to support this callous and kleptocratic dictatorship because it is friendly with the ‘West’? British officials should be properly aware of the background and the risks. It will be in Britain’s interest to promote a more cautious approach to President Guelleh, as part of its Somalia and Horn of Africa peace policy. Propping up deeply unpopular dictators has a habit of leaving the UK on the wrong side of the argument.

Paul Reynolds is Independent foreign policy & international economics adviser, who has had senior political roles in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, among other countries across the globe.

Huffington Post