19 May 2007 04:17


  • Title: [SW Column] (Gacmo) The outcome of Jabuti would be a big child of conflict resolution experts
    and would be called "Somali government". But what kind of a government!
  • From:[]
  • Date :[23 Jun 2000]

"...The outcome of Jabuti would be a big child of conflict resolution experts
and would be called "Somali government". But what kind of a government!..." Gacmo 23 Jun 2000

Opinions expressed in this column are those of the contributors and not necessarily those of SW.

The outcome of Jabuti would be a big child of conflict resolution experts
and would be called "Somali government". But what kind of a government!

by Gacmo


Never before, so few has decisively manipulated and set the agenda of
Somalia. Never before, a farce of consistency and commitment wielded such a
might and fear on the outcome! Allot is at stake! Doctrines are in stake!
Crocodile tears of world commitment and donor fatigue are at stake! Most
important Somali Future is at stake, in the believe, that if we don't come
up a government we would perish and disappear from the planet.

This is a show of a lifetime, history in the making in front of our own
eyes. Somalia per se becomes a lab of international experts, a guinea pig of
conflict resolution doctrines; the vagueness, ambiguity and confusion of the
agendas are a pillar of conflict resolution, in addressing to satisfy the
different and diverging contenders. This is a main pillar of pretension, in
the view that all the contenders might picture their interests in the
agenda, if it is vague and ambiguous. Theoretically the only documental
agreement that can satisfy both contenders (Eg. Israel and Palestine) has to
be vague. To make them at least come to the same table, they both has to
sign a vague document each can see it's own interest! And when they come to
the table the mediator or facilitator is needed to twist the hands of the
participants. That is why most of the time each would interpret differently
the same document, they both signed! The reliability of the vagueness hinges
on the honesty and sincerity of the mediator or the facilitator, or in that
matter, the believe, that diverging contenders might find a neutral
facilitator! Conflict resolution experts have found one for Somalia, in the
name of Jabuti! Every Somali bought the Idea that at "Heart" Jabuti is
Honest and have no ulterior agenda beside stable Somalia!

But what happens, when some of the competing contenders didn't not see their
interest; in the "Pillar of conflict resolution"?
Easy! In the minds of experts they can solve this by picking and imposing a
representative to a contender. The fluidity of the Somali clan structure
might support this goal; culturally any member of that clan can represent
the clan. Delegates had been based to clan memberships, and every Puntlander
can represent a Puntlander legally and rightfully. By the time Puntland
elite and delegates accepted a clan representation, Puntland state
government has lost its shaky ground!

Conflict resolution experts have set in motion the mechanics of their lab;
A) They have a neutral facilitator, Jabuti
B) They have all the divergent competing contenders of Somalia; Clan
C) And they have the means and theories to test in realization of the
illusive common goal of all Somalis; State.

After the end of the cold war, the advocates of conflict resolution have
lost almost all their clients and become out of work. All the precious
studies were based on resolving conflicts that inhibit cold war influence,
all the consulting firms has to be closed. All dissertations have to be
Conflict resolution experts who haven't seen a check a while are feasting
the Somali debacle!
But conflict resolution doctrines have another much adored pillar; "Civil
Society".  This pillar's argument was based on assumptions of the existence
of an established and institutionalized state. There are two arguments:

A) The course a state takes is largely influenced by its "civil society".
B) The impact "Civil society" has on the course of state is largely
dependent, on the role state institutions allow for the Civil Society to

The first one states that "Civil Society" can unilaterally influence the
course of political actions a state takes. Or in Somali case, "Civil
Society" can unilaterally create a state. All cold war veterans have adopted
this theory with the encouragement of western states. Poland of the eighties
was case in hand; Somalia is in the process of making this theory, "You

The other one argues, civil society is powerless. It only plays to a large
degree the role government institutions allow. Case in hand is the American
civil movement. Even thought, to a large extent "Civil Society" was
relentlessly advocating the rights of the "Negroes", they didn't have impact
before government institutions flexed their muscles in favor of the
movement. Somalia is also a testing ground.

Like a vulture that doesn't care which Caracas would be the next meal,
conflict resolution experts have found "El Dorado" demand for their
expertise from Bosnia, Asia and to the Horn of Africa. It is unfortunate
that Somalia becomes a statistical footnote for the conflict resolution
experts, but that is the reality!!

Now we know the building blocks of the experts. So far their strategies in
implementing their doctrines were fiercely successful. But do we know where
they are heading!!

The outcome of Jabuti would be a big child of conflict resolution experts
and would be called "Somali government". But what kind of a government! The
effectiveness of the outcome depends on; First the influence of the
delegates on the ground and. Second the hand that rocks the rolling chair of
the state, Donor money, not Jabuti government.


Another cycle of influence peddling and new alliances would forge. If the
process continuous as it is now and every thing is based on clan delegates,
the alliances would be based on clan; Eg.  H/Gidir-M/Saleeban a déjà vu of
the 60's, which would have a very bad consequence.

In the other hand if Somaliland and Puntland administration participate the
process, delegates on these regions would be based on districts,
participation would be inclusive and alliances would be based on
regionalism; Puntland and Rahenweyn land VS Central and North or North and
Northeast VS South

La arki doonee!!!!!!



Copyright © 1999 by somaliawatch.org.  All Rights Reserved.  Revised:  19 May 2007 05:05 AM. Webmaster HomePage