March 6, 2001

Professor Lewis Goes Astray on Somalia

The recent writings of Professor I. M. Lewis on Somalia are less objective, agitated and counter productive. The opinions he has expressed with regards to the recently established Transitional Somali Government (TSG) are flawed. His casual dismissal of the results of Arta peace conference in Djibouti is irresponsible and biased.

Professor Lewis' accusation of the TSG as one being dominated by "Islamist supporters and mercenary militia" is, to say the least, a shock and caused grave disappointment to those of us who had valued his long contribution to Somali studies. Although the TSG ostensibly includes various sectors of the Somali society, Islamists do not dominate its leadership. To the contrary, Western, primarily American educated individuals hold some of the most crucial positions in the government. Just consider the following: the Prime Minister (Ali Khalif Galaydh), his Chief of Staff (Farah Hussein), the Deputy Prime Minister (Osman Jama), the Foreign Minister (Ismail Buba), the Defense Minister (A. Muse Boqor), the Press Secretary (Idris Hassan), the Minister for Rural Development (Ali Hersi) have all received their higher education in the US and Great Britain. It is indeed incomprehensible for most Somalis that someone with the knowledge of Lewis will discredit these leaders simply because they are practicing Muslims. Or, worse, he will discredit their government because they included in the coalition of the TSG the Mogadishu-based Islamic Courts.

To our utmost dismay, Professor Lewis laments that the response to the announcement of "this lackluster crew," meaning the leaders who established the TSG at Arta, Djibouti, "was predictably unenthusiastic, and warlords ominously declared that they did not recognize Mr. Abdulkasim's UN-sponsored 'government.'" This is utterly nonsense! The whole wide world reported rather extensively that the public response to the establishment of the TSG and the arrival of its leaders in Mogadishu was overwhelmingly positive. As to the issue of the warlords' refusal to recognize the TSG, that is hardly any surprise. Somalia's warlords are infamous for not agreeing on any substantive matter pertaining to the rehabilitation of the Somali State.

The most pedestrian accusation professor Lewis makes is when he refers to the Djibouti conference as a "conference bazaar" whose participants are "political refugees living outside Somalia". He goes on to say that "street boys were recruited from the town to swell the numbers" of conference participants. Such assertions by the professor have tempted at least one Somali scholar, professor Abdi Samatar of Minnesota University, to question publicly the sanity and fitness of Lewis in the affairs of Somalia's burning question: the reconstitution of former Somali Democratic Republic and all its regions intact.

Lewis is at his best when he defends the administrations of the breakaway state of Somaliland and the autonomous region of Puntland. His suggestion regarding a peacefully worked out regionalism and a sort of federal arrangement is most welcome. It is perhaps the only viable solution in the cards for Somalia. However, his tendency to chastise the unitary state system and its advocates (for united Somalia) is unconvincing.

Unity is not a bad concept. It is a cause worth fighting for. In America's history, for example, unity is so important that Abraham Lincoln is said to have entertained the possibility of compromising on the question of Black America's emancipation in favor of containing the Slave owning secessionist South. In fact, the United States lost more lives to the civil war than it had lost to the two world wars, the Korean and Vietnam wars combined.

The TSG has shown admirable restraint visa vi Somaliland and Puntland. Ali Khalif Galaydh, the Prime Minster, said on various occasions that his administration would not be a threat to either Somaliland or Puntland and their hard-won peace and stability. He also acknowledged these two regions' achievements and ruled out any sort of intimidation or provocation. The TSG left the doors open for future negotiations with the leaders of Somaliland and Puntland without any preconditions. Professor Lewis conveniently ignores all these facts.

We are taken aback by the anger and virulent distortions with which professor Lewis views the current affairs of Somalia. Furthermore, his personal crusade against the UN and its special envoy to Somalia, David Stephens, as well as his portrayal of the Arab world as forces hurting the cause of the Somalis borders obsession, and he obviously comes across as no more than an angry and irrational man, quite different from the Lewis Somali scholars have known for the past many years.

Having said this, we are not in any way endorsing the TSG. Nor are we exempting it from being criticized. To the contrary, this TSG has serious flaws. It is a government of primarily men dominated by the bigger clans. The northern component in the government is not by any means commensurate with the size and seriousness of the Somaliland question.

Also, it is very troubling that the grip hand of Mogadishu businessmen (yesterday's financiers of Mogadishu-based warlords) around the throat of the new government is growing by the day. But the most serious issue is Abdulkasim's dictatorial orientations and his Siyadist disposition to manage the national affairs. A case in point: Abdulkaism has taken several decisions without involving neither the Prime Minister nor the speaker of the Parliament who rightly threatened to call a no-confidence vote if such acts continue unchecked.

None of these short comings, however, warrant Lewis' virulent attack on the Arta Peace deal and its results. The Arta peace conference so far represent the most serious effort of national reconciliation since 1990. Lewis' causal dismissal of the Arta peace process (Geedi-Socodka Nabadaynta Soomaliya) is counter productive.