- Title: [SW Column] (Aweys O Mohamud) In reply to
‘President’ Mohamed Ibrahim Egal of ‘Somaliland’
- From:[]
- Date :[10 April 2000]
"...‘Somaliland’ or north-western Somalia
became a British colony in 1884, the rest of Somalia became so-called Italian protectorate
in 1889. All the arguments by Egal and his regime for secession and/or partition are
essentially based on this historical fact. Because their country was colonised by the
British in 1884 and thereafter, the argument goes, they are a separate country/nation.
Never mind that colonialism was about the domination of one group over the other. Never
mind that it was about the conquest and exploitation of poor and relatively weak countries
by technologically advanced nations. For purposes of clarity I shall define a country as
‘the geographical characteristics of a place,’ and a nation as ‘the
political and social ones’. Now applying this simple definition, where was
‘Somaliland’ prior to the arrival of the British colonisers? It was just another
sub-marginal land of the Somalis, wasn’t it? Did it have distinct social and
political characteristics that fundamentally separated it from the rest of Somalia? I
leave the answer to the reader, but I do not think it did..." AOM
In reply to ‘President’ Mohamed Ibrahim Egal of ‘Somaliland’
By Aweys Omar Mohamoud - London (E-mail: Oaweys@aol.com) - 29 March 2000
In a posting which appeared on the Internet earlier this month,
Mohamed Ibrahim Egal launched into a tirade of abuse against the former Somalia and its
leaders - perhaps conveniently forgetting that he was at the helm of that leadership at
various times. There was nothing new in the letter, and Egal stuck to his usual vacuous
comments. I think he must have set himself two tasks. First to convince himself, his
supporters and anybody else who cares to listen that the Djibouti ‘reconciliation
conference,’ in his words, ‘is of no direct concern to Somaliland’. And
second to try and construct once more a credible case for partition and/or secession from
Somalia. In the first he managed to produce an extended diatribe against any peace
initiative on Somalia anywhere, be it in Djibouti or elsewhere. But he miserably failed in
his second task: attempting to construct a plausible case for secession. In the next few
paragraphs I am setting myself that very task: to show you how Egal has since come a
cropper.
He started off by protesting about constitutional arrangements that, he
claims, were violated: “Taking advantage of their majority, the representatives of
Somalia lost little time in dropping the official nomenclature [sic] of the union and
replacing it with the name of their own territory -Somalia”. The objective in here,
according to Egal, was “the complete absorption of the territory and people of
Somaliland into Somalia, and the subsequent eradication of all traces of Somaliland
from the map (my emphasis)”. What an unconscionable mess paraded as an argument,
you might think. Indeed I do. But what Egal fails to comprehend is the fact that there is
nothing wrong with people, as he put it, “taking advantage of their majority” to
effect legislation. Isn’t democracy (and Egal purports to be a democrat!) about
taking a vote and then accepting a majority decision? Just because Egal’s group were
a minority and did not get their way does not by itself render the majority decision
illegitimate. Remember the maxim ‘if minority voting were to be the rule people would
vote against the outcome they preferred’.
Moreover, there is no substance in any of Egal’s arguments above.
All available evidence suggest that prior to Siyad Barre’s military coup in
1969, Somalia was known as the Somali Republic. Only then did Barre change it to the
Somali Democratic Republic, a pseudo-democracy that led the country to a ruinous end. In
fact what Egal is objecting to is the name Somalia. But why? Somalia is simply
‘Somaliland’ minus the foreign word ‘Land’ plus ‘a’ to
denote a republic in NE Africa, on the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden. So what is wrong
with that, Mr. Egal? You obviously don’t like that name, but do you like the shorter
form Somali? That is simply a straightforward ‘Somaliland’ minus the foreign
suffix ‘Land’ and denotes, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘a
member of a tall (of course, some are of average height including myself) dark-skinned
people inhabiting Somalia’. I bet you are a member of that group, or are you? But
that too is a problem for you, isn’t it? I say this because you seem to be confused
about who you are? Not that everyone knows (or even cares) who they are or what their
ancestors looked like, but Mr.Egal’s unrelenting claims to have descended from a
separate ethnic and cultural group superior to the rest of the Somalis is totally
unfounded.
For example, few years back when annoyed by the continuing Arab support
for Somali unity, Mr. Egal was reported as saying that ‘Somaliland has customs and
rich oral traditions, more akin to Hebrew culture and traditions than to Arab or Islamic
heritage’. Apparently pressed by Arab delegates from the Arab League and clerics from
his own territory, Mr. Egal not only retracted his statement but jumped to the other
extreme saying “Anaa ibnul carab, wa jaddul carab, wa jaddul kabiiril carab, wa
qabiilatul carab - (translated into English, it reads roughly something like) I am the
son of an Arab, the grandson of an Arab, the great-grandson of an Arab, and hails from a
noble Arab tribe”. Never an African! Nor a Somali! Ha! Just as I suspected. In many
of his so-called nation-building exercises, Egal told the citizens of his
‘Somaliland’: “Waar anigu madxweynihiinii baan ahay. Waxan ahay nin Isaaqa
oo Habar Awala, oo Habar Jeclaa, oo Habar Yoonisa ...; waxan ahay nin Gadabuursiya; waxan
ahay nin Ciisaa; waxan ahay nin Daarooda oo dhulbahantaa; waxan ahay nin Warsangeliya. Dee
intaba waan isku ahay - (translated into English, it reads roughly something like) I
belong to all the subclans of Issaq; I am a man who belongs to gadaborsi; I am a man who
belongs to Iisse; I am a man who belongs to all the Darood subclans (who live in the
north), such as the Dhulbahante and Warsangeli. I belong to all of you”. That just is
not ‘nation-building’. It is simply being all things to all men. Mr. Egal,
Nations are multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-clan entities. What you are advocating
is the antithesis of nationhood.
And all of these from a man with a colourful resume as Egal.
According to The International Who’s Who 1998-99, Mohamed Ibrahim Egal (Somali
Politician) was born in Berbera in 1928. He is the son of Haji Ibrahim Egal, and Hajia
Khadija Mohamed Osman. Egal married Aasha Saeed Abby in 1946, and they had three sons and
two daughters. Egal learned the Koran at a young age and also attended Sheikh Intermediate
School. He had also been educated in the United Kingdom. In 1956 Mohamed Ibrahim Egal
became the Secretary of the Berbera branch of the Somali National League (the dominant
political party in the north). Between 1958 and 1960, Egal was the Secretary-general of
the Somali National League. He became the Prime Minister of Somaliland in 1960. Egal was
the Minister of Defence of the Somali Republic between 1960 to 1962. Between 1962 to 1963,
he was the Minister of Education of the Somali Republic. He resigned from the cabinet in
1963, and founded the SNC party in that same year. Egal was re-elected to parliament in
March 1964. Between 1963 to 1965, Egal was the leader of the parliamentary opposition
group - a post from which he resigned in 1965. In 1966, Egal became a member of the Somali
Youth League (SYL). Between 1967 to 1969, Mohamed Ibrahim Egal was the Prime Minister and
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Somali Republic. He was put in detention in 1969
following the coup, and was released in 1975. Egal was appointed ambassador to India in
July 1976. He was rearrested in October 1976, and released February 1982. Egal was then
appointed chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture. Egal was the
President of the self-proclaimed Republic of Somaliland (N.-Western Somalia) between 1993
up until today. Well! What did Egal learn, you might ask, from these megapostings and
'lived experiences'? Nothing much, it seems. And as a septuagenarian, if that is indeed
what Egal is, how much longer does he have to accomplish his wild dreams? Again not much,
I think.
The fact is, Mr. Egal, as the last line of your Who’s Who entry
has it, whatever you may have been in the past, you are now the leader of a
self-proclaimed republic, a secessionist leader if you like it. And secession is only
straightforward where there is no large or disgruntled ethnic minority (in your case,
clans other than yours) within the relevant region affected by the proposed secession and
when the seceding area includes the great majority of those who wish to leave.
Unfortunately for you it is difficult to think that these optimum conditions apply to
‘Somaliland’. We know, for instance, that not only the Daroods and the Dir (the
principal non-Issaq clans in the north) vehemently oppose the very idea of secession, but
that numerous Issaq clansmen are unwilling to secede from Somalia. I can foresee that,
having read my letter, Egal might declare: “let the people decide whether they are
for or against independence for ‘Somaliland’”. Well! You might as well ask
the people to decide. But that very idea itself is in fact ridiculous because the people
cannot decide until somebody decides who the people are themselves. Thus in addition to
the question ‘Who are the people?,’ Mr. Egal needs to address himself to at
least three other key questions: (1) What is the relevant territorial unit in which
Egal’s people should exercise self-government? (2) What constitutes a majority? (3)
Given it gets the right to secede, is Egal’s ‘Somaliland’ willing to extend
the same right of secession (or reunion with Somalia) to every sub-area within the
proposed secessionist territory?
The difference between Egal and the rest of Somalia on the issue of
‘Somaliland’ is this. Egal see ‘Somaliland’ almost as a God-given
condition. But many people in Somalia perceive it as an outcome of a certain historical
situation. The latter is far more nearer the truth. ‘Somaliland’ or
north-western Somalia became a British colony in 1884, the rest of Somalia became
so-called Italian protectorate in 1889. All the arguments by Egal and his regime for
secession and/or partition are essentially based on this historical fact. Because their
country was colonised by the British in 1884 and thereafter, the argument goes, they are a
separate country/nation. Never mind that colonialism was about the domination of one group
over the other. Never mind that it was about the conquest and exploitation of poor and
relatively weak countries by technologically advanced nations. For purposes of clarity I
shall define a country as ‘the geographical characteristics of a place,’ and a
nation as ‘the political and social ones’. Now applying this simple definition,
where was ‘Somaliland’ prior to the arrival of the British colonisers? It was
just another sub-marginal land of the Somalis, wasn’t it? Did it have distinct social
and political characteristics that fundamentally separated it from the rest of Somalia? I
leave the answer to the reader, but I do not think it did.
I suggest to you Mr. Egal that the Somali people (East, West, North,
and South) have shared historical, cultural, and linguistic unifying traits than you are
ready to admit. Long before British Imperial power arrived, to adopt Prof.
Cassanelli’s telling argument, the interplay of environmental, social, economic, and
religious forces produced a society which, though politically fragmented, was integrated
at various levels of structure, belief, and behaviour. The processes that Cassanelli
refers to are: (1) the Somalis’ common struggle against a harsh environment and the
construction of regional networks of mutual aid to adapt to that environment; (2) their
struggle against foreign invasion; (3) the periodic incorporation of Somali kinship groups
into larger political structures, either territorial confederations or theocratic states;
(4) the diffusion of common Islamic institutions and practices; and (5) the development of
long distance trade routes and regional economies that linked Somalia to the wider world
of international commerce. Despite serious hiccups in the 20th century in the form of
imperial conquest, colonial rule (an institution in which Mr. Egal and his peers still
look back to with an air of nostalgia), frontier settlement, internal repression such as
civil war, servitude, and self-destruction, the Somalis’ common identity is valid to
this day and is based on a number of shared traits: a common homeland and culture, a myth
of common origin, a shared faith in Islam, a unifying language, and a history of bitter
conflict with outsiders and compatriots alike. Of course, how these ‘shared
traits’ help the Somalis overcome their recent tragic past and present predicament
remains to be seen!
But the separatists would reject any argument of Somali common identity
and shared traits. Because they have failed to convince anyone that they are a separate
geography, and a separate social and political entity, they would hark back to their
‘God-given’ ethnic/clan identity. Rather than negotiate compromises with other
groups, the secessionists feel it is in their interests to proclaim their hatred of other
groups. That, I am afraid, has been the position of Mr. Egal and his colleagues. “The
misreading of Somalia’s true identity has been detrimental to the inherent rights and
interests of Somaliland and its people,” declared Mr. Egal. What is Somalia’s
true identity, Mr. Egal? And if ‘Somaliland’ and its people have inherent rights
and interests, don’t the other groups too have rights and interests? Mr. Egal, you
are simply manipulating ethnicity and clanism for your own selfish ends. You are deceiving
your people by telling them that they are inherently different from the rest of the Somali
people. They should then be mindless of the needs of others and seize whatever privileges
they can and, according to your view, hold smaller communities under subjugation.
Undeterred by any criticism of his ethnocentrism, Mr. Egal went on the offensive still:
“Somaliland will resist to the utmost any attempt to drag it into the quagmire of the
anarchy and chaos that characterises current conditions in Somalia”.
Even discounting Egal’s gross incompetence and the serious
corruption and nepotism that marred his regime as Somalia’s Prime Minister between
1967-1969 (Prof. Lewis contends that, under Egal, “democracy had lapsed into
commercialised anarchy”), it is generally accepted by many that Mr. Egal and his
‘Somaliland’ have contributed to the making of that “quagmire of anarchy
and chaos” in Somalia. Surprised by this! Well, have a think Mr. Egal about 40 odd
years ago when you were first coming to Mogadishu. Do you remember carrying Qat
with you when you arrived? I am simply asking you a straightforward question, Mr. Egal.
Were you and your colleagues from ‘Somaliland’ in possession of Qat for
your own consumption on the day when you first arrived in southern Somalia? There
wasn’t Qat in southern Somalia then, was there? The fact is, Mr. Egal, it is
‘Somaliland’ who brought Qat, scientific name Catha edulis and
also written as Khat, to the people of the rest of Somalia. That introduction of Khat
had dire economic and social consequences that will last for generations to come. During
the 1990s, the international community and millions of ordinary people conceded that Khat’s
widespread use was a culprit in Somalia’s violent anarchy. In terms of economic
waste, according to one foreign journalist who closely observed the situation, “the
Kenya-Somali import trade alone yields over $100 million annually ... And the import value
of Khat dwarfs that of any other imported commodity, particularly food”
(Jonathan Stevenson, 1995:13). In my considered opinion, ‘Somaliland’ owes an
apology and full restitution to the people of Somalia for this horrible Khat habit
that had been inflicted upon them.
The rest of Egal’s argument is garbled nonsense. He doesn’t
even seem to understand the difference between truth and falsehood when he declares:
“... Somaliland had successfully overthrown the brutal rule of Siyad Barre in
1990”. That regime had been overthrown by the USC. The fact is, however, the latter
has self-destructed. And it is mainly that self-destruction of the USC that brought about
the situation that currently prevails in southern Somalia. I reject any comparison of the
south with the north which is what Mr. Egal tries to make the most in his extended
diatribe. With hindsight, I think concentration was put on the removal of the dictatorial
regime without adequate planning on how power would effectively pass from the old regime
to the new one. Still I am prepared to put a positive gloss on Somalia’s ugly recent
past. My contention is the Somali civil war, like many other contemporary conflicts
between and within ethnic groups, is a part of the heritage of large historical processes:
imperial conquest, colonial rule, slavery, frontier settlement, and the international
migration of labour. Each of these major historical processes left legacies of antagonisms
and inequalities that fuel contemporary ethnic conflicts, and the Somali one is no
exception. Conquered peoples seek to regain their lost autonomy; indigenous peoples ask
for restoration of their traditional lands; immigrant workers and the descendants of
slaves demand full equality (I am indebted to Ted Robert Gurr and Barbara Harff for these
ideas). It is of course true that the Somali tribes or clans (in Lewis’s coinage)
have not pursued political objectives to settle their differences recently, but they have
done so in the past and have the potential to do so in the future.
Lastly, I say this to Egal and the rest of the benighted leadership in
Somalia. You need to learn to cooperate with other Somalis for the good of your people and
the country as a whole. Unilateral declarations and positions amount to nothing but
self-deception and continued suffering for both your supporters and others.
[Column] |