Is the Mayor of Hargeisa, Mr. Moge, A Political Opportunist or the Savior that Somaliland Needs?

November 16, 2023

The blind embrace of personality cults and a propensity to swallow heavy dose of empty rhetoric whole has led to the calamity that is President Bihi’s tenure, possibly the worst President since the reestablishment of our Republic. While we won’t dwell on the train wreck that is President Bihi’s place in the history books, the crux of the matter is Somaliland’s public has troubling tendency to fall head over heels for charismatic figures with minimal substance.

The Somaliland public, evidently slow learners in the school of political disappointments, now entertains the absurd notion that Hargeisa’s Mayor, Mr. Abdikarim Ahmed Moge, is the panacea to all their ills. Before we start dancing to the premature tunes of his supposed salvation, let’s examine what Mayor Moge has accomplished so far as the mayor of Hargeisa since his election in 2021.

Credit is due to Mayor Moge for surpassing his predecessor, Mayor SOLTELCO, with notable initiatives like monthly city garbage clean-ups, tree planting, and public roadway rehabilitation, earning praise from Hargeisa residents. His early crackdown on corruption within the local municipality is commendable. However, let’s peel back the charismatic facade and delve deeper.

It’s important to remember that SOLTELCO is an insanely low bar to clear. In fact, Hargeisa would have fared better if it had no mayor at all. He was one of the worst mayors in recent memory, and because the public is so accustomed to horrific leadership, even mediocrity is mistaken for salvation. Mayor Moge has barely moved the needle in making Hargeisa the capital it deserves. He has promised that Hargeisa would rival world capitals and two years on, that seems like a pipe dream.

Mayor Moge has failed a basic litmus test as a true leader, an anti-corruption champion and the reformer he sold to the public as a candidate as he chose to look the other way on the mass-looting of public land and institutionalized corruption put in place by his predecessor that still puts money in SOLTELCO’s pocket at the expense of Hargeisa residents.

Former Mayor SOLTELCO privatized key funding sources—land management and refuse collection—to companies he had personal stakes in. Mayor Moge, two years in, turns a blind eye, allowing SOLTELCO to to continue to bleed Hargeisa dry even when he is no longer the mayor. This makes Mayor Moge another politician who will say anything to get elected and a willing accomplice who will put his political ambition over the public interest without hesitation.

Mayor Moge has proven himself a shrewd politician, although this attribute hardly deserves commendation. His mastery of political expediency is evident in his adeptness at rolling over and playing dead to avoiding confrantation and difficult battles. An example is rebuilding the Waheen Market, a matter falling squarely within his municipal jurisdiction, which was astonishingly, it was effortlessly wrested away from him by the Ministry of Public Works, a move presumably orchestrated to accommodate a lucrative contract awarded to a company from Estwini in less than transparent manner. Strikingly, Mayor Moge remained silent, offering no protest in the face of this blatant corruption.

His conspicuous silence and absence from public view continued in the ongoing surge of public asset sale to private hands, such as the sale of Police Lane land and the forced displacement of residents, predominantly comprising families of current and former police officers, and the basketball playground in Jijiga Yar to make way for a parking lot for the adjacent hotel, further showcases Mayor Moge’s inexplicable disappearance from public scrutiny when confronted with potential negative publicity.

In these instances of questionable dealings involving public land that falls within his jurisdiction, Mayor Moge has perfected the art of vanishing into thin air, leaving the impression that his political acumen is not directed toward championing the public interest but rather towards self-preservation and conveniently avoiding any controversy that might tarnish his image. This pattern of behavior raises serious concerns about his honestly, commitment to transparency, accountability, and, ultimately, the well-being of the constituents he purportedly serves.

Despite Mayor Moge’s ostentatious use of the slogan “it’s your taxes” on billboards, his two-year tenure has been marked by a glaring absence of transparency. Shockingly, not a single report detailing the revenue, expenses, and budget of Hargeisa Municipality has been published under his leadership, mirroring the opacity of his predecessor. Compounding this lack of transparency are allegations that the municipality been heavily borrowing from Somaliland’s Central Bank. Mayor Moge attempted to deny this fact but callously admitted it in the same speech, underscoring a concerning pattern of obfuscation and potential fiscal mismanagement under his watch.

Moreover, Mayor Moge’s about-face on anti-corruption and freedom of speech, coupled with his newfound apathy towards these critical issues, indicates a leader more concerned with self-preservation and appeasing President Bihi’s than the well-being of his constituents and Somaliland in general. His toned-down bravado may suit his role as mayor, but it raises serious doubts about his suitability for the arduous role of leading a nation.

Leading the Republic of Somaliland, an unrecognized country grappling with monumental challenges, is a far cry from overseeing the Hargeisa municipality. Unfortunately, Mayor Moge, shrouded in a record of political expediency and a blatant disregard for transparency and accountability, not only falls catastrophically short as the leader Somaliland needs, but practically serves as the embodiment of everything wrong with Somaliland’s leadership. His current rightful place seems to be nothing more than standing behind President Bihi, smirking and complacently witnessing the central government pillage whatever meager public assets remain.

Somaliland Chronicle is responsible for the content of this editorial.

Notice: This article by Somaliland Chronicle is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Under this license, all reprints and non-commercial distribution of this work are permitted.

Projects funded by the World Bank Group’s private sector arm fuel violent conflict – it’s time to reform the system

Staff

November 15, 2023

Brian Ganson, Stellenbosch University; Anne Spencer Jamison, Copenhagen Business School, and Witold Jerzy Henisz, University of Pennsylvania

To what extent does private investment help developing countries to reduce conflict and violence and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals?

This is a hotly debated issue. Most international institutions such as the World Bank Group take the stance that the problem is not enough private investment. So they mobilise public resources to subsidise and protect private sector actors with the goal of greatly increasing foreign direct investment.

Meanwhile, community, labour and human rights advocates – particularly in fragile and conflict-affected countries – tend instead to see the dominant patterns of foreign direct investment as part of a continuing history of exploitation of the developing world.

To help shed light on this debate, we undertook a comprehensive study of thousands of projects of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. We focused on the period between 1994 and 2022.

We chose the IFC because it claims to invest with developmental purpose. It also purports to apply the highest standards of social and environmental performance. Additionally, many other private and public actors follow its lead in setting standards. If the IFC is getting it wrong it would be a good indicator of how things stand in the broader global system. We focused our study on the relationship between IFC projects and armed conflict, as violence has a clear and detrimental effect on human development.

The results establish that IFC projects cause significant increases in armed conflict around the world. A single project, on average, causes 7.6 additional armed conflict events in the year after it is introduced. These findings are consistent with other large quantitative studies that question the relationship between foreign direct investment and development. Foreign direct investment that increases violent conflict and makes development nearly impossible appears the rule, not the exception.

We conclude that current approaches to foreign investment need urgent reconsideration, with particular focus on the risk of violent conflict.

Our methodology

Many factors influence violent conflict, including the history of intergroup and state-society relations. So the study used sophisticated econometric analyses to isolate the IFC’s impact.

We first geolocated IFC projects and noted the years in which they were approved. Then we tested whether armed conflict rose in the area proximate to the IFC project in the following year. We controlled for other factors – such as the presence of politically excluded groups, GDP, the regime type, or the population size – that affect conflict.

In the analysis, we were careful to match and compare an IFC project area with those areas without IFC projects to which it is most similar. Finally, we considered and controlled for the possibility that conflict was already rising before the IFC project arrived. By excluding these other explanations for conflict events, we were able to make reasonable causal attributions.

Disturbingly, the study found that increases in armed conflict were concentrated in projects that the IFC told local and international stakeholders had potential limited adverse environmental or social risks. It claimed that these could be readily addressed through mitigation measures. These mitigation measures appear to be either ineffective or under-employed. Alternatively, the IFC is mis-classifying projects that carry more substantial conflict risk than it recognises or cares to make public.

One particularly disturbing example is the Ugandan government’s campaign of terror against local citizens to turn land over to an IFC client. The IFC also has yet to resolve activists’ complaints from 2019 of gender-based violence and threats of reprisals and intimidation against one of its project partners, Salala Rubber Corporation in Liberia.

The study also demonstrated that capital-intensive projects (that is, agribusiness, oil, gas, mining and infrastructure) have a larger propensity for socio-political and socio-economic disruption. Areas that receive capital-intensive projects experience, on average, an additional death from armed conflict in the following year.

Not above the rule of law

These results should perhaps not be surprising. Civil society groups have long concluded that the IFC prioritises its own profits and business interests over the “suffering of others” in ways that contribute to “multiple paths of extraction, dispossession, and conflict”. In 2020 Human Rights Watch characterised the IFC as “failing at remedies for project abuses”. This was based on the World Bank Group’s own commissioned review.

Yet, the IFC’s strategy has been to position itself above the rule of law. It continues to assert sovereign immunity. It claims that, as an international organisation, it should not be liable in national courts – even to parties it admittedly harms.

It maintains this stance despite recent reports of IFC complicity in covering up the sexual abuse of children to further its investment projects.

It appears beyond time for the 186 member governments that own the IFC to demand transparency, accountability and redress for harms done from the corporation and the private sector actors it funds. Others can also play a role. Governments that have perhaps naively relied on the World Bank halo should question the benefits they are told they can expect from IFC investments. The ratings agencies that classify IFC bonds as positive from an environmental, social, and governance perspective may want to question the bases on which such determinations are made.

At the same time, perhaps more credence can be given to recent calls by the UN secretary general to reform the global financial system to better support human security and human development.

This could include specialised intermediaries between the IFC and sensitive projects in difficult places. Independent and empowered local oversight appears necessary to ensure more inclusive and accountable forms of contextual analysis and risk mitigation planning, monitoring and evaluation of development impact, proactive conflict management, and accessible redress for harms done. This could reduce violent conflict and open more developmental potential for private investment in the developing world.

Brian Ganson, Professor and Head, Centre on Conflict & Collaboration, Stellenbosch University; Anne Spencer Jamison, Assistant Professor of International Economics, Government, and Business, Copenhagen Business School, and Witold Jerzy Henisz, Vice Dean and Faculty Director, ESG Inititative; Deloitte & Touche Professor of Management, University of Pennsylvania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Taiwan Working With The World Toward A Net-Zero Future

Staff

November 15, 2023

By Shieu Fuh-sheng, Minister of Environment, R.O.C. (Taiwan)

Climate change is impacting the world at an unprecedented rate. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise and global average temperatures have reached record highs. But it is not too late. If we act now, we can still achieve a livable and sustainable future. Taiwan is working together with the international community toward the common goal of net-zero emissions. It is looking for opportunities to contribute its strengths in green and other technologies. With the world facing the threat of climate change and the challenge of supply chain restructuring, Taiwan is a reliable, secure, and trustworthy partner.

This February, President Tsai Ing-wen announced the enactment of the Climate Change Response Act, codifying the 2050 net-zero emissions goal into law. By elevating the net-zero target from a policy declaration to a legal requirement, Taiwan has demonstrated its determination to cut emissions. The government is setting up a carbon pricing mechanism and introducing financial incentives to guide businesses toward sustainable, low-carbon development. In 2022, Taiwan published its Pathway to Net-Zero Emissions in 2050 and announced 12 key strategies for net-zero transition. Based on the twin governance foundations of technology research and development and climate legislation, Taiwan is stepping up energy, industrial, lifestyle, and social transition. The first phase (2023 to 2026) of the net-zero science and technology programwill focus on five main development areas—sustainable and future-oriented energy sources, low-carbon and carbon reduction, negative carbon emissions, the circular economy, and humanities and social sciences. The program will promote net-zero technology research, development, and applications.

Taiwan has achieved outstanding results in energy transition. For the past 10 years, energy intensity has improved by an annual average of 2.9 percent. According to a 2022 report published by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Taiwan’s energy efficiency has risen to eighth in the world, second only to Japan in Asia. Over the last five years, Taiwan’s installed capacity of renewable energy has grown by an average of 21.9 percent each year. The global average is 9.1 percent. Taiwan has outperformed its Asian neighbors including the Republic of Korea, China, and Japan. In 2023, the combined capacity of wind and solar power installations in Taiwan reached around 13.9 gigawatts, a sevenfold increase from 2016. A total of 264 offshore wind turbines have been installed nationwide. Renewable energy is expected to generate 10 percent of all Taiwan’s electricity this year. To ensure a stable power supply and reduce air pollution and carbon emissions, the government will continue to maximize the development of green power and future-oriented energy and further improve energy efficiency. Through these efforts, together with complementary measures such as developing diversified energy storage and strengthening power grid resilience, Taiwan is steadily achieving energy transition.

As more countries commit to net-zero emissions, Taiwan has made structural reforms to consolidate its environmental authorities and strengthen administrative capacity. This August, the Environmental Protection Administration was restructured and upgraded to the Ministry of Environment (MOE). Its newly established Climate Change Administration coordinates efforts to respond to climate change and reduce greenhouse gases. The results of scientific research on climate change and the implementation of adaptation actions have been published in the Adaptation Communication report. Taiwan also set up an interdisciplinary team to compile the Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan. The initiative promotes nature-based solutions and empowers vulnerable groups. These efforts aim to boost Taiwan’s overall capacity to respond to climate change, protect public safety, and promote national sustainable development.

Over 70 percent of Taiwan’s resources are imported. But in 2022, the municipal waste recycling rate reached 59.5 percent and the industrial waste reuse rate rose to 86.5 percent. Through the newly established Resource Circulation Administration under the MOE, the previous focus on controlling pollution has shifted to developing overall resource circulation, improving the efficiency of environmental governance, developing a circular economy, and introducing the concept of zero-waste. Building on existing solid foundations, Taiwan has formulated three circulation strategies—using green designs for waste reduction at the source, recycling and reusing resources, and balancing and managing waste treatment capacity. A well-functioning circular network will be created in coordination with upstream, midstream, and downstream industries. Taiwan is also developing innovative technologies and systems to support resource circulation and accelerate progress toward the vision of zero-waste and net-zero emissions.

Taiwan is an export-oriented economy. Its business operations are heavily influenced by international conditions and regulations. With the global trends toward carbon border adjustment mechanisms and green supply chain requirements, the government has established an interministerial coordination mechanism to help companies understand and reduce the carbon content of their products and promote a carbon pricing system. Taiwan’s Green Finance Action Plan supports the low-carbon transition of industry by steering capital investment to green or sustainable businesses; improving the environmental, social, and corporate governance of Taiwanese companies; and strengthening their sustainable development. The Taiwan Carbon Solution Exchange (TCX), established this August, creates incentives for enterprises to reduce carbon emissions through market trading and exchanges. The TCX also promotes low-carbon technology research and development, strengthens carbon market talent cultivation, and drives the virtuous cycle of the green economy.

As a force for good in the world, Taiwan continues to pragmatically seek opportunities to contribute to the international community, despite encountering multiple obstacles. Leveraging its advantages and strengths in green technology development, Taiwan can apply its expertise to programs in fields such as disaster relief, disaster prevention, the environment, medicine, public health, and green energy. We look forward to the Taiwanese people gaining equal access to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We hope that Taiwan will be able to join international cooperation mechanisms to address climate change, participate in negotiations related to the Paris Agreement, and take collective action with the international community to jointly overcome the climate crisis. Taiwan is an important part of the solution and a reliable, secure, and trustworthy partner as the world confronts the mounting threat of climate change and adjusts to the restructuring of supply chains.

President Bihi’s Latest Cabinet Shake up Maintains Status Quo in Security and Economy

Staff

November 14, 2023

In the latest restructuring of his cabinet, the President of the Republic of Somaliland has fired the ministers of of Technology and Telecommunication, Endowment and Religous Affairs, Investment and Agriculture. In addition, he has nominated two new members to his cabinet where he has reassigned some ministers to other portfolios.

Despite holding a technology PhD from a Sudanese university, Dr. Abdiweli, the ousted Minister of Technology and Telecommunication, demonstrated a shaky understanding of technology fundamentals. He faced setbacks in fulfilling early commitments, such as obtaining a separate country code for Somaliland and securing its internet top-level domain. In pursuit of the latter, he sought assistance from Sierra Leone to share its .sl TLD with Somaliland.

Despite making numerous promises and performing expensive public stunts, including the establishment of an e-government that materialized as a basic website and the implementation of a STEM curriculum, Dr. Abdiweli failed to achieve significant progress in promoting IT innovation in both the public and private sectors during his tenure. Dr. Abdiweli who issued a statement, thanked the President for the opportunity to serve and have touted his record in contributing to the technology sector of Somaliland.

Eng Abdikadir Iman Warsame, Former Minister of Agriculture with Taiwan Representative Ambassador Allan Lou

Another notable departure is the Eng Abdikadir Iman, the now former Minister of Agriculture who previously held the post of Chairman of Somaliland Election Commission and most recently prior to appointment to President Bihi’s cabinet as a member of the committee to rebuild the Waaheen market. Although his tenure was short, there was no notable contribution in terms of policy or tangible result in making Somaliland a food secure nation.

The latest appointments introduce two highly controversial figures to key positions. Mr. Abdinasir Muhumad Hassan Buni, the current ruling party’s spokesperson and a onetime spokesperson for the First Lady of Somalia to the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, and Mr. Saleban Awad Ali (Bukhaari), the former Director of Somaliland’s Insurance Agency who was removed after multiple controversies including the botched rolling out of automobile insurance in Somaliland which resulted in clogging the Berbera Port with imported vehicles and appointing his wife to a finance position at the same agency among other issues to the Minister of Transportation and Road Development.

President Bihi who is currently in office through an extension granted by Somaliland’s House of Elders also known as the Guurti in October 2022 in is entering his sixth year of leadership. His tenure has been characterized by evident social divisions and widespread corruption, contradicting his campaign commitments to tackle graft.

Despite grappling with significant inflation, a rising cost of living, and pressing security concerns, President Bihi refrained from making alterations to portfolios directly associated with security or the economy. The question of whether forthcoming changes are on the horizon for sectors such as finance, banking, and security remains uncertain. The country’s ongoing economic challenges and security issues underscore the potential need for strategic adjustments in these critical areas, and observers are keenly watching for any developments that may address these pressing concerns.

Somali Prime Minister’s Endorsement of Hamas Explains why Somalia has been Unable to Defeat Al-Shabaab

Staff

November 8, 2023

In a world rife with complex geopolitical issues and conflicts, one thing remains crystal clear: the sacred duty of any nation to defend its people from terrorists. Just as Israel and Somaliland understand this sacred obligation, it seems that Somalia’s Prime Minister, Hamza Abdi Barre, has finally, albeit inadvertently, explained to the world why his country has been unable or, more precisely, has been unwilling to defeat the Al-Shabaab terror organization.

In a truly ironic twist of fate, the Somali Prime Minister has thrust his terror-stricken nation into the spotlight by openly supporting Hamas as a legitimate Islamic resistance group. This endorsement inadvertently exposes a deeper problem plaguing Somalia, where Al-Shabaab continues to wreak havoc, despite receiving hundreds of millions in mostly United States taxpayer funds to combat terrorism and establish peace. The Somali Prime Minister’s support for Hamas is a paradox. It is impossible to truly defeat a terrorist group that you actively endorse and support. In other words, you cannot defeat that which you are.

The Prime Minister’s recent remarks were nothing short of astonishing if not downright despicable. He not only proclaimed that the liberation of Palestine and Al-Aqsa Mosque is imminent but also labeled Israel as the actual terrorists. His language, of course, was far from diplomatic, and it carried a disturbing genocidal undertone.

Rather than distancing itself from these blatently dehumanizing and inflammatory comments, President Hassan Sh. Mohamoud’s administration has resorted to deploying lobbyist in Washington, D.C., to whitewash and spin Prime Minister Hamse’s remarks and attempting to scapegoat Somaliland for the whole debacle. In essence, they are trying to put lipstick on an ugly anti-Semitic pig, all while ignoring the fact that the Somali Prime Minister openly lauded Hamas and essentially echoed Al-Shabaab’s statement on the subject.

The undeniable truth is that Somaliland, like Israel and Ukraine, is burdened with the sacred responsibility of safeguarding its people against terrorists and those who seek to kill and maime in the name of religion. On the flip side, Somalia’s Prime Minister has displayed an astonishing hypocrisy by selectively condemning global injustices while cozying up to Communist China and never uttering a word of protest on the plight of Muslim Uighurs. At the same time, he loudly cheers for Hamas, an organization responsible for killing innocent civilians and kidnapping even grandmothers and babies.

It’s high time the international community, particularly the United States, holds the Somali government accountable for its actions and rhetoric. Perhaps it’s time for Somalia to seek funding from sources more aligned with their newfound allegiances, like Hamas and Iran and China, to combat Al-Shabaab, as their actions and words have consequences that can no longer be brushed aside.

Controversy Surrounds President Bihi’s Advisors’ Involvement in New Round of Talks between Somalia – Somaliland

Staff

November 2, 2023

A recent media report alleged that the Hargeisa Cultural Center was attempting to broaden its scope by involving itself in the complex discussions between Somaliland and Somalia. In the proposal, which the center has vehemently denied any involvement and threatened legal action, there is no mention of a separation between the two nations; rather, it strongly emphasizes the idea of reconciliation and reunification.

The proposal, examined by Somaliland Chronicle, outlines a comprehensive plan for the Horn Dialogue Conference 2023, scheduled to take place in Hargeisa, Somaliland. The primary focus of the conference is to explore the role of civil society in facilitating dialogue and reconciliation between Somalia and Somaliland. The proposing organizations, the Horn Dialogue Conference and Hargeysa Cultural Center, emphasize various aspects of the conference, including its objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

You can access the Horn Dialogue Conference proposal document here

The proposed conference carries significant objectives, primarily centered on promoting dialogue, reconciliation, and political cooperation between Somalia and Somaliland. It also seeks to address critical issues related to governance, security, and economic development, with an emphasis on fostering trust and consensus among key political actors. Notably, the document suggests a departure from traditional government-to-government negotiations in favor of involving civil society groups, such as traditional elders, women, youth, and academics, as key players in bridging divides and establishing a foundation for meaningful dialogue and cooperation.

The proposed methodology for the conference includes conducting in-depth research, mapping critical issues, and identifying key political factors that hinder reconciliation. It further introduces the concept of establishing standing committees to ensure that the progress made during the conference is effectively translated into action. The long-term impact and outcomes envisioned for the conference involve promoting democracy, negotiating plans for the political future of the region, and establishing stable civilian governance.

One intriguing aspect of the proposal, outlined in a section titled “Politics, Peace, and Security,” is its avoidance of any mention of Somaliland’s independence. Instead, it strongly emphasizes the idea of reconciliation and suggests a path forward rooted in dialogue:

reaffirm that for genuine peace to take hold in Somalia/Somaliland we should seek dialogue, reconciliation and political cooperation including establishing inclusive, accountable and legitimate governance.
The Conference is grateful for the wide-scale and strong Somali participation, including women, in this Conference, and the powerful and meaningful messages they have pronounced.
To affirm that at this critical period in Somalia/Somaliland history, the security, political, social and economic achievements of the past year have given Somalia/Somaliland and the international community a renewed hope for the future. Somalia/Somaliland have made considerable progress towards achieving stability, security and reconciliation: this opportunity should not be missed.
To initiate the beginning of a new phase of peacebuilding, in which all Somalis would contribute to peace and have their voices heard.

Although he denies it, the author of the report “HORN DIALOGUE CONFERENCE 2023, Hargeisa, Somaliland: The Role of Civil Society: Somalia and Somaliland Reconciliation Dialogue” is Abdinasir Suleman Omar Kujoog, who is listed as the Convener of the Horn Dialogue Conference.

Mr. Omar Kujoog who did speak to Somaliland Chronicle about this report and called it an elaborate hoax and a photoshop, stated that the biographies of the various people mentioned in it must have been collected from online and stitched together. For some reason, Mr. Omar Kujoog was forceful in his defense of Dr. Jama Muse and the Hargeisa Cultural Center more than himself and his Horn Dialogue outfit and repeatedly neither has anything to do with the document even though he called it a fake document concocted from thin air. He has accused of those behind it as engaged in a smear campaign against Dr. Jama, the Chairman of Hargeisa Cultural Center.

Asked about his opinion on the continuance of talks between Somaliland and Somalia, Mr. Omar Kujoog called it “mission impossible” and a follow up question on the role of the civil society in the future of the talks, although he claims to have never seen the document and that is it fake, his points seem to align with the document which postulates more community involvement.

Despite Mr. Abdinasir Suleman Omar Kujoog, has denied that he wrote it and has called it a “hoax.” However, there is evidence to suggest that the document is authentic. For example, the Horn Dialogue website, which has since been taken down, listed a conference called “Building Bridges Conference l September 2023,” which is described in a similar way to the conference proposed in the document.

Google cached version of http://www.horndialogue.com/ can be accessed here

Building Bridges Conference September 2023. The conference is described as “Somalia and Somaliland have long been divided, with protracted conflicts that have caused significant human suffering and impeded development. Traditional justice and customary laws have been used to address these grievances, with civil society organizations playing a key role in promoting dialogue. This conference aims to explore how civil society can further utilize traditional justice and customary laws in bridging divides and normalising relations.”.

Hargeysa Cultural Center has issued a strongly worded denial of the accusation in media reports and the document and alluded to taking unspecified legal action against those responsible.

Dr. Jama Muse Jama, the chairman of the Hargeisa Cultural Center who did not respond to request to speak on the record posted on social media “@HargeysaCC and I have nothing to do with the video and the fake document prepared by someone who uses our names and shared, if not invented, by irresponsible media that now has to prove the source of this document.”

Dr. Jama Muse Jama is one of President Muse Bihi’s closes advisors on foreign policy and possibly other matters.

Recently, Dr. Jama was the subject of international headlines when he met with the President of Uganda who publicly stated his opposition to Somaliland’s independence. President Museveni is a major stakeholder in Somalia’s stabilization efforts where Ugandan troops make up a large percent of the ATMIS contingency stationed in Somalia.

Another close advisor to President Bihi, Dr. Amal Ali has been accused of attending a meeting held in Qatar on Somalia – Somaliland reconciliation. Dr Ali and her law firm has denied accusation as “Fake News”.

Somaliland’s Intelligence Agency Detains 10 Foreign Nationals Suspected of Ties to Terrorism

Staff

October 31, 2023

In a rare public announcement, Somaliland’s National Intelligence Agency (NIA) said on Tuesday that it had detained 10 foreign nationals suspected of ties to terrorism. The agency did not provide any further details about the arrests or the suspects’ nationalities, but said that they were from Pakistan, Syria, and Morocco.

The arrest of the 10 individuals comes as Somaliland faces a number of security challenges, including the threat of terrorism from al-Shabab, a Somalia-based militant group affiliated with al-Qaeda which has been fighting in Las Anod against Somaliland military in the eastern conflict.

It is unclear if the detention of the 10 individuals is linked to any specific terror plot. However, the fact that the spy agency has made a public announcement about the arrests suggests that the agency may believe that the suspects pose a serious threat to Somaliland’s security.

Although not publicly announced, a new intel chief was recently appointed by President Muse Bihi Abdi and signs of major departure the agency’s secretive nature seem to be taking on a much more public persona including posting on social media. It is unclear if the change of posture is intended to foster transparancy or simple rebranding of the agency in its new chief’s image.

It is unclear whether the change in the agency’s posture is intended to foster transparency or simply rebrand the agency. However, the detention of the 10 individuals suggests that NIA is taking a more aggressive approach to combating terrorism albeit very publicly.

Unconfirmed reports indicate that the new intelligence chief has served with the US military overseas at various capacities. It is unclear how his previous expertise has prepared him to helm the spy agency at a time Somaliland is facing major security challenges and lapses in intelligence that failed to predict events in Las Anod and beyond. It is unclear if the new chief’s role is intended to shore up the armed forces in threat detection or establishment of new offensive and defensive capabilities.

The appointment of a new intelligence chief with experience in the US military could be a sign that Somaliland is seeking to strengthen its ties to the United States and other Western countries in order to better combat terrorism. However, it is still too early to say what impact the new chief and the K9 units will have on the spy agency or Somaliland’s security posture as a whole.

Somaliland solves the geostrategic problems of Ethiopia and the United States

Staff

October 31, 2023

Berbera sits in a strategic commercial and security position, where 30% of world trade passes through with a deep-water port and the longest airstrips in Africa. It historically served as a gateway for trade and civilisation for centuries, connecting the vast hinterland of East Africa with the rest of the world. The geographical location of Berbera and its sheltered harbour towards the southern side of the Gulf of Aden is a significant factor in its geostrategic importance. The strategic interest of Berbera Port for commercial and shipping lanes attracts the Dubai Port operator to transform the port into a commercial hub with a multipurpose port with integrated maritime, logistics and industrial hub, making Berbera Port a credible alternative to the ports in Mombasa, Djibouti, and Dar Es Salaam. The UK Government investment arm, CDC Group, funnels $100 million to expand Berbera port and logistics operations, including dry ports.Further investment from Singapore-based commodity trader Trafigura Group injects $50 million in Berbera oil terminal facilities to position it as a regional supply hub serving customers in Somaliland and integrate oil logistics throughout the Horn of Africa, making Berbera port a strategic hub in a region where demand grows every year. Local firms also merged their share of investment in Berbera, including the newly completed $50 million fish factory that exports various types of fish and the construction of a cement plant that will produce 1.2 million tons of cement invested in $60 million. Sound government policies for a competitive and conducive investment environment attract multinational firms to invest in the country. The inflow of foreign direct investment and domestic investment into Berbera provides a vital economic boost to Somaliland and spills over into the broader Horn of Africa region.

Berbera solves Ethiopia’s sea outlet problems

Currently, Djibouti is the only seaport in Ethiopia. The rapidly growing increase in imports and exports in Ethiopia created an outcry among importers and transporters due to the highly congested and insufficient infrastructure in Djibouti to meet the demand of Ethiopia. The presence of foreign powers in Djibouti frustrates Ethiopia, which is perceived as an imminent threat to Ethiopia’s interests and national security. Djibouti is becoming very expensive, preventing the economic growth of the country. The absolute dependence on the Djibouti port threatens Ethiopia’s national security and economic development. Ethiopia opts for a minimax policy of diversifying Ethiopia’s access to the sea to eliminate its dependence on Djibouti, which serves as the only outlet for Ethiopia. Addis Ababa is embarking on efforts to find alternative ports, which saw the development of several ports, including the use of Port Lamu in Kenya, Port Sudan, the prospective use of Assab and Massawa ports after the highly publicised Ethiopia-Eritrea rapprochement in 2018 and the Berbera port of Somaliland. Berbera is the second-closest port to Addis Ababa, making Berbera the most viable alternative to mitigate the prohibitive cost of transit due to the adverse geography.

The Berbera port infrastructure, such as improved container terminals, expanded handling capacity, and improved logistics facilities, increases the efficiency of the port to accommodate the growth of trade volumes in smooth and seamless operations. Additionally, Berbera offers Ethiopia a 19% stake in the 30-port concession, with DP World and Somaliland owning 51% and 30%, respectively, cementing Ethiopia’s use of Berbera port due to cheaper sea outlet access.

Berbera as an economic and security corridor for the West to counter China’s Belt Road Initiative

Through BRI, China has invested billions of dollars in connectivity projects to promote an alternative trade route and the idea of development that favours a Chinese-centric order in the East African region. In a recent BRI forum attended by African leaders, President Xi Jinping said that Belt and Road cooperation has expanded from physical to institutional connectivity and offered new funding for the initiative. Somaliland is the only government to withstand Chinese inroads through investment. Somaliland allowed pro-Western firms to invest in Berbera to access the markets of Ethiopia, Uganda, and South Sudan. It also allowed the US military to use the Berbera seaport and airfield for military purposes, making Somaliland the only nation in the region to resist Chinese investments.

Somaliland enjoys stability and is free from terrorism and piracy. The strategic location of Berbera solves the geostrategic problem of a landlocked Ethiopia and counters the rise of China’s expansionist agenda. Somaliland offers alternative and cheaper port access to Ethiopia and cements the economic and defence interests of the United States and its allies. It is the time Somaliland reaps the reward of aligning itself with Ethiopia and the West for recognition.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Abdinasser Ahmed is a developmental economics practitioner and political commentator based in Hargeisa, Somaliland. He can be reached through Twitter @Abdinasserahm or abdinasserahm[at]gmail.com.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints of Somaliland Chronicle, and its staff.

Notice: This is an article by Somaliland Chronicle and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Under this license, all reprints and non-commercial distribution of this work is permitted.

Is Abiy’s Delusional Pursuit of Red Sea Access An Existential Threat to Somaliland?

Staff

October 18, 2023

The alarm bells are ringing as Ethiopia’s unrelenting quest for port access raises the troubling specter of the annexation of Somaliland’s strategic Zaila port. While this may sound like a far-fetched scenario, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, appears driven by a grand delusion, repeatedly asserting that landlocked Ethiopia has an unquestionable “right” to secure a port. When this ambition is viewed against the backdrop of Somaliland’s current vulnerabilities, it paints a deeply concerning picture.

Upon assuming office, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed embarked on a mission to secure port access for landlocked Ethiopia. He initially won multiple port concessions from Somalia’s former President, Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed Farmajo, and forged similar agreements with Eritrea’s Isaias Afwerki and Djibouti’s Ismail Omar Guelleh. However, these agreements failed to materialize, and Ethiopia even lost its 19% stake in Somaliland’s Berbera port, which Somaliland’s Finance Minister, Dr. Saad Ali Shire, attributed to ‘non-payment’.

Despite these setbacks, Abiy’s determination to secure port access remains unshaken. Following a tumultuous period marked by the devastating civil war in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, Abiy has revived his port ambitions, reiterating Ethiopia’s “right” to a port and subtly alluding to Somaliland’s underutilized and underdeveloped Zaila port.

What is most disconcerting is Abiy’s rhetoric on this matter. He frames Ethiopia’s lack of port access as an inherent injustice and even as an existential threat, suggesting a zero-sum game mentality where Ethiopia must obtain a port at all costs. This assertive stance raises legitimate concerns about his intentions and, more importantly, the potential implications for the fragile Horn of Africa, particularly Somaliland.

Eritrea has already responded forcefully to Abiy’s grand delusion and the fact that it is run by an actual mad man makes the price too high. Djibouti, although tiny and militarily weak, it enjoys the protection of the French and is a host to the United States Africa Command among other militaries which makes it another unattainable prize. That leaves Somaliland and realistically the most attractive option that Abiy may be eying.

Somaliland, at the moment is at its lowest point since regaining independence, is grabbling with a host of formidable challenges and political tumult. The Bihi government’s unyielding thirst for power, coupled with its obsession with the unabashed pillaging and sell-off of state assets, has only worsened the situation. To compound the issue, Bihi is surrounded by a group of former NGO drones masquerading as diplomats, whose recent blunders include Museveni’s outspoken opposition to Somaliland’s sovereignty. It is highly likely that these individuals will advise Bihi to entertain any proposition from Abiy and spin it as an acknowledgment of Somaliland’s status.

While the potential annexation of Zaila by Ethiopia remains unrealistic as annexing an area and then building a port is a pipe dream, Abiy’s unrelenting and dangerous pursuit of port access and Somaliland’s internal issues signal the need for vigilance. As the geopolitical landscape and regional dynamics continue to evolve, it is of utmost importance to closely monitor these developments any overtures from Abiy to sign any sort of deal that places Ethiopian forces on Somaliland’s soil.

Somaliland Chronicle is responsible for the content of this editorial.

Why President Museveni Should Rethink His Approach Towards Somaliland: He Must Not Promote the Idea of Greater Somalia

Staff

September 26, 2023

President Museveni of Uganda recently waded into the contentious topic of relations between Somaliland and its infamous neighbour, Somalia. In a press release emailed to news agencies President Museveni announced he had received a visit from a special envoy of Somaliland President Muse Bihi Abdi. The Ugandan President disclosed that, amongst other things, he had offered to mediate between Somalia and the Republic of Somaliland.

This news immediately generated headlines across the world, including in most East African countries, and received significant backlash on social media from Somalilanders across the world. In addition, many Kenyan, Ugandan, Ethiopian and British commentators similarly indicated that President Museveni’s intervention was unhelpful. In what has turned out to be quite a diplomatic blunder for Uganda, the Government of Somaliland released a statement that the “Somaliland Government affirms that any dialogue that transpires between #Somaliland and Somalia will not discuss unification, but rather how the two previously united countries can move forward separately”.

This article explains why the President’s approach towards Somaliland requires a rethink. It will start by recounting the correct history of Somaliland in the regional context. It will then set out the immensely negative unintended regional consequences for East Africa, if Somaliland was forced into another ill-advised union with failed state Somalia.

The Republic of Somaliland: Not a Secessionist Movement

Firstly, it is important to retell the correct history. Somaliland is not a secessionist movement, nor is it a ‘breakaway region’ of neighbouring Somalia. The correct history – supported by ample evidence, facts and legal documents – is that Somaliland is a country and not merely a region. The State of Somaliland gained independence on the 26 of June 1960 from Great Britain. This in fact makes the Republic of Somaliland older than both Uganda and Somalia. To suggest Somaliland is merely a small secessionist region of Somalia is therefore factually, historically and legally incorrect, misleading and untrue.

Somalia has long sought to label Somaliland as a secessionist or breakaway region. However if one independently investigates and verifies Somaliland’s history, it quickly becomes clear that nothing could be further from the truth. How could Somaliland be a region of Somalia, when the State of Somaliland gained independence entirely separately (from the UK) on 26 June 1960? While on this day Somaliland became a sovereign, independent and internationally recognised country, Somalia was at this time was still a UN Trusteeship, under Italian administration. How can a sovereign independent country which gained independence completely separately, be a secessionist region of a neighbouring United Nations Trust Territory? The suggestion Somaliland is a secessionist region of Somalia reveals either a fundamental lack of understanding of Somaliland’s history, or a deliberate perversion and distortion of history for personal self interest. President Museveni has been poorly advised; his team should revisit and familiarise themselves with Somaliland’s history.

Somaliland’s Long History as a Sovereign Independent Country

Modern day Somaliland is the successor the famous Adal Kingdom. This country had existed in the approximate boundaries of present day Somaliland for centuries, from around the 8th century AD to the 1600s. After the decline of the Adal Sultanate, in the early 17th century, it was succeeded by local sultanates which emerged in the same present-day borders of Somaliland that had also been the Adal Kingdom.

Over the centuries, these local Sultanates were independent and self-contained. Somalilanders maintain extensive sea and land trade relations. Principally with neighbouring peoples including other East Africans, the Swahili coast, and Ethiopians – then known as Abyssinians. But Somalilanders have also maintained trade links also further afield with with Arabian Peninsula on the other side of the Gulf of Berbera (the Gulf of Aden), the East African hinterland through inland trading networks and even India and Persia.

As in much of East Africa, by the 19th century the British Empire had arrived on the shores of Somaliland, knocking on the proverbial doors. In 1884, through a series of Treaties of Protection signed between the U.K and Somalilanders. It was in this way that the country of Somaliland that we know today come into being.

It should be noted that Somalians on the other hand became a colony of Italy. Specific tribes such as the minority cross-border Dhulbahante community, and the small Majeerteen subclan, had willingly signed treaties of protection with Italy, in which they agreed to become subjects of Italy. This included the Ilig Treaty of 1905 signed between Italy and the local ruler known as ‘the Mad Mullah’. Concurrently Italy had separately purchased the remainder of Southern Somalia from the Sultan of Zanzibar, as it was part of the Swahili coast. By the 1930s Italy had introduced fascism as the predominant political philosophy in Somalia, as well as the Madamato system of Somalia Italiana, plantation slavery of Somalians and raft of other policies that were deeply destructive to Somalia’s social fabric and traditional structures. This unique history of neighbouring Somalia as East Africa’s only fascist indoctrinated country, largely contributes to Somalia’s present day issues. Till today Somalia’s political philosophy is ‘might is right’, autocratic dictatorship and abuse of minorities such as its large Somali Bantu population (the secret Somali Bantu Genocide).

Turning back to Somaliland’s history, it clearly and demonstrably has a long, illustrious and incontrovertibly rich history as a sovereign, independent country. The territory that is present day Somaliland with a recorded history of over of 2000 years. For at least 1,200 years the country that is modern-day Somaliland had a distinct identity, territory and indigenous citizens. Somaliland has had various successive forms of government (usually in the form of sultanates and kingdoms). It has also maintained relations with nearby countries, kingdoms and peoples.

If one looks at the Montevideo convention, which provides the modern definition of States, it is self evident that Somaliland has been an independent sovereign state for a long time. Over the past 1,400 years, there were perhaps only two a brief exception of two brief periods when the territory of modern-day Somaliland was not an independent, sovereign, self-governing country. Firstly, the 76 years Somaliland spent as British Somaliland and secondly the 31 years, between 1960 and 1991, when Somaliland attempted a failed union with neighbouring Somalia to create a new country called ‘The Somali Republic’.

Somaliland is not Somalia: Different Histories and Incompatible Cultural Values

For most of its 1,200 year history, Somaliland has had very little to do with the neighbouring territory of Somalia. This might seem unlikely, but is in fact true, and is an accident of geography due to the simple distance between Somaliland and Somalia. To put this into perspective consider this: Somaliland’s capital and main population centre Hargeisa is 2,300KM by road from the southernmost regions that are Somalia’s population centres. While Uganda’s capital is a mere 1,500KM from that same point in Somalia. Somalia was also part of the Swahili coast, various forms of Swahili are spoken in Somalia. Lastly Somalia also shares much culture with Uganda including posho (which Somalians call soor), Niiko dancing and Somali Bantu populations.

Beyond trade, Somalilanders historically had no connection with the neighbouring territory to their South, that would later become neighbouring Somalia. Post 1991 Somaliland has reverted to its old relationship with neighbouring Somalia: trade, but nothing more. Not only because of the geographic distance, but cultural and political incompatibility.

It is worth noting that when modern day Somaliland was created in 1884, neighbouring Somalia was, at that time, a possession of the Sultan of Zanzibar. Somalia was later acquired by Italy. Mussolini became its head of State. The territory inaugurated the Fascisti Party of Somalia as the first political party of Somalia. The Fasciti Party headquarters in Mogadishu would become Somalia’s parliament building. Fascism was taug in ht in schools throughout Somalia (not including Somaliland). Somalia was aligned with the Axis powers during world war 2, and even sent a delegation to the conference of Nazi allied countries in Rome, Italy. Somalian leaders are pictures with Hitler and Mussolini, sporting swastikas and carrying out fascist salutes.

Until the present day the values of fascism (might is right), machiavellianism, britality and autocracy are the national values of Somalia. This is displayed by Somalia’s government and citizens actions including the Isaaq Genocide, the Somali Bantu Genocide, terrorism, piracy and general anarchy that has become commonplace in Somalia.

Somalilanders on the other hand had a very different experience, much closer to Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania in experience.

Somalilanders also have values very different from Somalia, based on egalitarianism, pastoral community and democracy. This is why the rule of law prevails in Somaliland, whilst Somalia has been in anarchy for 32 years.

Somaliland and Somalia are culturally incompatible, just as Somalia and Uganda are culturally inconpatible. To seek to forcibly absorb Somaliland into Somalia, would be to wish for the destruction of the values, livelihoods and country that 6 million Somalilanders have so diligently built over decades. It is unthinkable.

The Idea of a Union between Somaliland and Somalia has Been Tried, Tested and Failed

The 31 year period during which Somaliland was under illegal occupation and attempted annexation by neighbouring Somalia, was one of the most destructive periods in its history. Somalia under the fascist genocidal dictator Siad Barre, who was an expansionist ethno-fascist, destroyed Somaliland and levelled it to the ground. Somalia then carried out the brutal Isaaq Genocide, in which it killed hundreds of thousands of Somalilanders, and bombed, burned and destroyed most of Somaliland’s cities, towns and villages. Somalilanders have not forgotten this genocide, nor forgiven Somalia.

Somalilanders are also cognisant that neighbouring Somalia is still the worlds most comprehensively failed state. We note that neighbouring Somalia continues to be famous for piracy, terrorism, mass murders, anarchy and daily bombings. Who in their right mind would want to unite with Somalia, especially when the rest of the world actively shuts the doors to Somalia to protect their own citizens from its chaos. It is for this very reason why both Kenya and Ethiopia have established buffer zones inside Somalia: to keep it at bay. Kenya has even gone as far as building a border wall with failed state Somalia. Therefore clearly any attempt to unite with Somalia will bring Somaliland nothing but death, destruction and destitution. We say, no thank you.

Museveni a Proponent of Greater Somalia? A Destructive Path for East Africa

Under Somalia’s leadership the Somali Republic, emboldened by its annexation of Somaliland, also invaded and attempted to annex Northern Kenya and Eastern Ethiopia. The Somali Republic also had designs to incorporate other countries including the Republic of Djibouti into his fantastical new country called ‘Greater Somalia’. Is more war, destruction and conflict in East Africa the wish of President Museveni? I pray it is not so. As Africans we must learn from our mistakes of the past, lest we be doomed to repeat them, ad infinitum.

The idea of Greater Somalia is one of an ethnically pure, supposedly superior country, for so-called ‘ethnic Somalis’. Greater Somalia’s claimed land area being twice the size of Western Europe, would incorporate Somalia, Somaliland, Eastern Ethiopia, Northern Kenya and the entirety of Djibouti. Its capital would be Mogadishu, Somalia. This is all very ironic and some might say delusional, given Somalia can’t even govern itself… yet Somalia has grand designs on neighbouring countries including Somaliland. In any case Greater Somalia which would be kick-started by Somalia attempting to annex Somaliland, would be a sure way to envelop East Africa in a great regional conflagration.

Greater Somalia ideologically very similar to Hitler’s Greater Germanic Reich – based on ideology of supposed ethnic purity, forced homogeneity, genocide & ethnic cleansing, and autocratic forms of government.

Somalia’s expansionist and ethno-fascist ideology of ‘Greater Somalia’ begins with invading, annexing and incorporating Somaliland into Somalia. The second step would be annexing Djibouti. Followed by Eastern Ethiopia (the Somali region of Ethiopia) and Northern Kenya (the Northern Frontier District of Kenya).

Somalia’s current constitutional including provisions claiming extra-territorial jurisdiction over Eastern Ethiopia, Somaliland, Northern Kenya and Djibouti. Somalia’s did this by including in its constitution provisions which state that anyone who is an ethnic Somali, even if they their ancestors have always lived in Kenya, Ethiopia, Somaliland and Djibouti and never even so much as set foot in Somalia, are citizens of Somalia simply by virtue of their Somali ethnicity.

This idea of Somalia as an ‘ethnic state’ is the basis that Somalia uses to claims extra-territorial sovereignty over neighbouring countries. In this way Somalia claims Somali Ethiopians (Somali Region of Ethiopia), Northern Kenya (NFD Province), Somalilanders (The Republic of Somaliland), and Djiboutians (Djibouti) are sovereign subordinates of Somalia. President Museveni is inadvertently and unwittingly lending support to and giving credibility to Somalia’s extraterritorial claims on neighbouring countries, including its illegal and baseless claims over Somaliland.

Regional Consequences of Greater Somalia’s Annexation of Somaliland, as Promoted by Museveni

President Museveni should be careful to not promote an ideology – of Greater Somalia – that he neither understands, nor can control. To do so would unleash a terrible and protracted new conflict and border wars between Somalia and all its neighbours, including Somaliland. President Museveni should respect Somaliland, Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. He is supporting and unleashing forces of Somali ethno-nationalism and ethno-fascism that few outside the Horn of Africa understand or appreciate.

To support Somalia’s claims over Somaliland and neighbouring countries would unleash in the Horn of Africa, and East Africa more widely, immense instability, uncertainty. This would be bad for business, government and citizens alike in East Africa. It would adversely affect investor sentiment, international trade and political and economic stability. President Museveni should be careful to not be pulled into the orbit of Somalia’s chaos and anarcho-capitalism. After all, it has not worked out so well for Somalia.

Somaliland is the only bulwark that stands against the Greater Somalia ideology. Removing Somaliland from the region would be sure to pull Somaliland, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya into a regional conflagration and war the like of which the region has not seen since Somalia’s illegal 1977 invasion of Ethiopia. President Museveni would do well to remember that Ethiopia and Somalia went to war in 1977 because of this ideology. Somalia and Kenya went to war in 1963 because of this ideology. The Isaaq Genocide was committed because of this ruinous ideology.

The Legal & Moral Argument Against a Forced Union Between Failed State Somalia and Democratic Somaliland

The State of Somaliland then gained its independence on the 26th of June 1960 as part of the African decolonisation movement, similar to most other African countries. Somaliland therefore has its own borders based on internationally recognised and legally binding Treaties between the local people and the UK, between the UK and Ethiopia (demarcating the Somaliland-Ethiopia border), between the UK and France (demarcating the Somaliland-Djibouti border), and between the UK and Italy (demarcating the Somaliland-Somalia border).

By advocating a forced illegal union between Somaliland and Somalia, President Museveni is invalidating and opening up a Pandora’s Box of colonial African borders. He is giving credence to and providing credibility to Somalia’s illegal claims on not only Somaliland (based on supposed shared ethnicity). And also Somalia’s claims on Eastern Ethiopia, Djibouti and Northern Kenya. This goes against the AU charter which “SOLEMNLY DECLARES that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence”. This includes Somaliland’s sovereign borders with which it duly and legally gained independence on the 26 June 1960. Surely this cannot be his intention?

President Museveni should be careful to not wish to go back in history and seek to nullify Somaliland’s independence, unless he wishes to do the same for Uganda. After all, the age old saying teaches us that ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander’. In other words, if President Museveni wishes people to respect Uganda’s independence from the UK on the 9 October 1962, why does he deny the same to Somalilanders? It is illogical, it is rash, it is unjustifiable.

President Museveni, as an elder statesman of East Africa, should be proposing solutions such as formalising recognition of Somaliland (which is effectively a 32 year old foregone conclusion – a reality on the ground that is not going away), and not contributing more problems and conflicts to the region such as proposing an unworkable, unfeasible, unthinkable forced union between Somaliland and Somalia.

Why is President Museveni advocating something for Somaliland that he would not accept for Uganda?

President Museveni has no right to dismiss the will of Somalilanders. Somalilanders have the same right to self determination as Ugandans – and any other African country. To suggest a reunification between Somaliland and Somalia is to reveal a lack of understanding and knowledge on the issues between them. Under no conceivable circumstances will Somalilanders accept being reunited with the country that waged a brutal genocide on them: Somalia.

To suggest a reunification between Somaliland and Somalia would be like forcing relatives of mass murder victims to live with the same mass murderer who killed their relatives. It would be immoral. It would be inhumane. It would be unthinkable. It would force onto Somalilanders a level of indignity, humilitation and inhumanity that they would never and will never accept. No sane person would accept it. Most of the 6 million or so Somalilanders will likely fight to the death and sacrifice their lives before their country is annexed by and forcibly given to neighbouring failed state Somalia (which cannot even govern itself).

Conclusion

In summary, President Museveni’s interjection is unhelpful, counterproductive and will aggravate the situation rather than help it. He must not inadvertently promote Greater Somalia. He must respect the history, identity and wishes of Somaliland’s 6 million people. He must not advocate for Somaliland a tried, tested and failed union with Somalia that historically only brought death, destruction and destitution. He must not tell Somalilanders to do something he would not accept for Uganda: giving up their independence, sovereignty and country, to join with the worlds most comprehensively failed state that is famous for terrorism, piracy and anarchy: Somalia. Somalilanders have considered his proposal and have resoundingly rejected it. Any attempt to forcibly reunite Somaliland with Somalia is unthinkable, unworkable and unacceptable.

About the Author

Dr Adali Warsame is a political commentator and public policy professional, who is a long time observer of Somaliland politics. He writing focuses on standing up for the dignity of Somaliland’s citizens, who appear to be forgotten in the melee that is everyday Somaliland and Horn of Africa politics.

Adali is an unapologetic Somalilander. He is passionate about achieving justice for the forgotten Isaaq Genocide victims, stopping the doomed Somaliland-Somalia talks and international recognition of the Republic of Somaliland.

1...567...80 Page 6 of 80

Investigative Reports

Somaliland Chronicle is responsible for the content of this editorial.

Our methodology

Not above the rule of law

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Somaliland Chronicle is responsible for the content of this editorial.

About the Author

About us

Most recent

Most popular

Subscribe