Hiiraan Online

by Abdirizak Omar Mohamed
Wednesday, December 21, 2011 

Jowhar’s article starts with a title that presumes the partition of Somalia, a subject that he has been so focal in advocating on behalf of the secessionist enclave in northern Somalia for so many years, that is yet to materialize, but this time with an apocalyptic approach that stirs defeatism on the notion of Somalia state as a political national unit. Despite the picture of gloominess he painted about Somalia undergoing in the last death throes, the psychiatrist-turned-secessionist-turned-alarmist failed to express his purported emotionality to mourn for Somalia. Deploying a misplaced Somali adage to justify a fictional narrative of the disintegration and partition of Somalia, Jowhar resorts to some epiphanies that only describe how incognizant he has been about the prevailing realities in Somalia over the last two decades.

But interestingly, his article coincides at a time when the clannish construct of “Somaliland” has met its limits, exhausting all options to secure recognition for Somaliland, which prompted the Awdalites in Awdal to declare a separation from the rest by reaffirming strongly their aspirations for Somali unity under the Somali state. In fact, his epiphany applies perfectly to the new realities emerging in northern Somalia, awakening the clan-based regime in “Somaliland” to confront the Awdalites with violence. In this case, the butcher is Awdal, the knife is the determination they declared to join with their brethren, and the end is the process of evaporation in which the so-called state of “Somaliland” is currently undergoing. Since Mr. Jowhar has embarked on a fictional narrative, I am here to provide an interpretation by juxtaposing his unfounded assumptions with a contrasting epiphany that reflect the realities on the ground in northern Somalia.

The Epiphanies I: The objective of those who fund the Somali wars is not to rescue Somalis. It was, and remains to be, about limiting Alshabaab’s freedom of action, degrading its capacity and containing it progressively to smaller and smaller territory. The era of America’s great wars is over. This is the diktat of contracting economics of the time. Wars will now have to be fought cheaper and smarter; with the help of allies, with predator drones in the sky and expendable proxies on the ground. The strategy has succeeded beyond expectations in the Somali theatre. That the Somali people have become victims of a permanent war in the process is the collateral damage and truly unfortunate in the eyes of the funders. But it is neither here nor there. War is ugly.

Now, the author opens up the first epiphany with several assumptions in which he defines the

intentions of United States’. foreign policy in Somalia as well as its detrimental consequences on the Somalis in the South. However, one can deduce that deeming the war ‘strategy’ used by U.S. government in Somalia as “successful” at the expense of poor Somalis provides only the degree of indifference the author espouses as an observer secessionist who in “Raabi’s Prophesy ” condoned the south to be contained for the sole intention of killing (Somalia) and to die of slow bleeding death. How cruel is that to come from a fellow Somali who is a doctor, one wonders! What happened to bio-ethics in medicine?.  On the other hand, he thinks that downsizing the war expenditure because of the prevailing economic conditions in the West would make the strategy more sustainable and effective.

So far, these assumptions don’t reflect the realities on the ground for several reasons. First, calling the death of thousands of Somalis as a collateral damage makes one wonder what he has been taking, because neither the ‘funders’, which I suspect are western powers, nor those rented soldiers from African Unions had expressed any remorse at the killing of innocent Somalis. So why should he speak on their behalf and purport a humane image of the killers when in fact the killing is an ongoing reality in Somalia.  And when he says war is fought in cheaper and smarter way, is he implying this kind of war is a kinder way of taking innocent lives, a sort of slow motion death which to him is preferable to all out war. Secondly, Mr. Jowhar seems as though he just woke up from a long slump to preach that the foreigners are there for their own self-interests, which considering the current public opinion seems an outdated fact. Thirdly, Mr. Jowhar should define for us the success brought about by U.S. strategy in Somalia, because so far no one has declared a success in the saga of Somali crisis.

The weak perish in it.

II: the Principle of IGAD in Somalia is not to recreate a Somali state (even a weak one, like the TFG); it is to prolong the state of disorder and chaos, to allow for the ripening of unclaimed real estate. IGAD’s ultimate purpose is not driven by the benevolence of a neighbour but by the base and more powerful human drives of greed and lust. I call a spade a spade: IGAD is primarily and almost exclusively driven by unstated yet obvious and macabre agenda of Kenya and Ethiopia. In this light Mogadishu is but a diversion and the TFG a sucker, a cover story, at best a patsy. To behold the stark reality as it stands on the ground look beyond Mogadishu.

The fact that Mr. Jowhar is stating these facts makes me celebrate for the confessions, but what

else is he proposing for solutions besides compelling everyone to embrace the trajectory of Somali disintegration? This admission from a secessionist must be approached with a diligence because the underlying message is to give up and accept the will of others to determine our fate as a society. And that is the danger attached with this defeatist narrative. But in reality, there are thousands of Somalis who are at work, trying to unravel the schemes of those countries with considerable sacrifices. However, the likes of Mr. Jowhar hardly see the factors that often offset such poorly organized plots against the Somali people.

Since when did the author come to accept the notion of calling a spade a spade, in previous countless Op-eds he wrote in the past in which he was advancing the secessionist derive he had no problem with Ethiopia’s influence on Somaliland, to the extent the author is well grounded on the changing social fabric of Somaliland society where over 20 percent of domestic employees are Ethiopians, yet he never called a spade a spade then. Again here the author fails to give any substantive solutions out of the quagmire, and contradicts himself by suggesting to look solutions beyond Mogadishu, yet suggesting his secessionist enclaves to embrace doomsday with his analogy of “soo qoyso adiguna”. Let me be a devil’s advocate and say he is right with that analogy, when you take into account the growing Ethiopian population in the north, they will make a sizeable voting block that will advance the Ethiopian interest in the near future.       

Ethiopia and Kenya have finally stumbled upon and mastered the most important lesson about the Somali people; a lesson that the British, French and Italians found extremely handy in the Scramble for Africa a couple of centuries ago. Somalia is not a nation in crisis but a group of desperate wild tribes each entirely focused in a life and death struggle against the neighboring tribe.

Yes, Kenya and Ethiopia have been meddling in Somalia since the collapse of Somali government, but one should not forget that these poor neighbors have neither the capacity nor resources to maintain an effective presence in Somalia, even when they flex their military influence to sway local dynamics in their own favors. And characterizing the Somali people as a bunch of warring clans – I wish the author would know the distinction between clan and tribe in anthropological terms – is just another fallacy because currently no where in Somalia has clans warring with each other. One should not get confused with the dynamics of conflict, conflicts go through what is called “a conflict progression stage” and the initial stage of the conflict could be identified as communal clan warring stage, and not anymore do we have clan conflict.  In fact, the vast majority of Somali people are at peace with each other and that has been the case over the last ten years or so. Again, hidden agenda of Mr. Jowhar’s narrative is that the Somalis are nothing but an inward society that could hardly focus its outside adversaries. But this assertion can’t be substantiated in terms of the Somali history who are defined by their history of dealing with outside aggressors, making the Somali inhabited regions in the horn a front against all types of enemies, which has been the glue that kept the Somali family as a nation.

Most unfortunately the tribe remains alive as a vestigial form of social organization in Somali society and it continue to reap a heavy harvest in death and destruction. And Ethiopia and Kenya finally got it.

One could argue that all things in Somalia point the opposite in terms of the use of clan which has been declining over the years because of the changing population dynamics that the country has experienced in the last two decades. Clan could be a fact of life with elders and those wretched educators in the west who don’t see beyond clan, but today majority of Somalis in the country subscribe anything that caters to their personal interests, rather than the interest of the clan. And with that, the Ethiopians and Kenyans do know well the resilience of our people that decipher their machinations. None of those cohorts who are subservient of Kenya and Ethiopia have any vested interest of their fellow-clansmen 

How hypocritical could the Dr. be, in “Gadabuursi Manifesto” he was elevated after Rayaale was elected president of Somaliland and wrote “We bristled with pride. We were ecstatic with his delivery of three elections in rapid succession for the benefit of the nation (sic) and here was one humble Gadabuursi who could deliver it for his nation” and Now Dr. Jowhar is born again with this misleading narrative of clans in somalia being synonymous with death and destruction, this is the Dr. now and then!   

IV: Truth of Partition: Partition of Somalia is no longer a fear, a theory but a reality that can be demonstrated on the ground. Ethiopian and Kenyan states have mastered the Maxims that govern Somalia’s tribal society and they put it to effective use in the service of their strategic and national interest. These same maxims have been used by aid agencies to ensure their own safety in troubled spaces and it lead to the era of Somalia’s Warlords that peaked with Blackhawk down and Ethiopia’s 1st invasion of Somalia. The mafia, mercenaries and private contractors have all used the tribal maxims to get their way with the Somali people in pursuit of their own interest.

So, here the author spills his fallacy in a way that captures the essence of the piece. He is simply saying that because of the meddling of others, Somali state has gone beyond the point of no return. But that is not true. If that was the case, Somalia would have been in the belly of these poor neighbors long ago. What Mr. Jowhar has failed to acknowledge is that in the international system, nations tend to infringe each other based on the position of power that one occupies. For instance, if you are a poor nation, you would be subjected to all kinds of domestic interference because of chaotic nature of the set up in the international system. That fact is at play in Somalia and Somalis are not sleeping supinely; people are pushing back.

The myth about the tribal maxim is that while skirmishes do take place over grazing areas, it is the hospitality that is shared by all Somali clans that had always minimized the clans fighting over limited resources. In contrast, it is the likes of this author’s intellectual dishonest of advancing secessionist agenda that the neighboring countries capitalized and not the clan maxim as purported by the author    

VII: Somaliland Walaalkii loo xiiryow soo qoyso adiguna.

Now, the author ended the last point with a Somali saying, which roughly translates “that whose brother was murdered, expect a similar onslaught.” But the advice is directed at Somaliland where the author hails from, as he considers that a separate nation that could face similar treatment from the hostile neighbors. However, the Somali people, including those that inhabit in Northern Somalia, know one or two about the significant Ethiopian influence in their lot. The people were subdued by the western-dressed demagogues in their midst who peddle the divisive narrative of secessionism, because that serves only the interest of those at the cockpit of leadership in Somaliland. At least, the author should be frank about that reality that makes Somaliland kowtow for the dictates of Ethiopia in the most humiliating way without any challenges. And that is the sad truth that Somalis in the South are deeply bothered.

In conclusion, let me ask what happen to one of his concluding remark in an article he wrote titled “Somaliland: After the race everyone is winner” in that piece he concluded there will be life after the Somali republic.  However, in this piece he is prophesying Somalilanders to embrace doom should that occur. It is this intellectual dishonest, stupid! That is likely to tear the nation into pieces and not your purported epiphanies; mind you we have no shortage of honest and patriotic individuals in the north and south who will rise up from the ashes to advance the notion of greater Somalia.

Abdirizak Omar Mohamed

Toronto, Canada 

Email: [email protected]