Futureless Somaliland, Somalia, Abyssinia, and Egypt
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
April 10, 2008
Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse´s response seems to be a series of articles. Following his first response (entitled ´Kosovo and Somaliland: the Impossible Equation – The Egyptian Position ´), he came back with a second part that like the first was published in several East African portals; it seems he will go on, and I must admit that I find this juxtaposition as a very good opportunity for many East African readers (and not only) to seriously mull over the subject discussed.
Mr. Sabeyse´s second article, entitled ´The Somali Irredentism and Regional Politics´ (http://www.somalilandtalk.com/node/3229), consists in an effort to present what was not delivered in the first diatribe, and more specifically to demonstrate that Egypt´s position against a formal recognition of the breakaway state of Somaliland is due to an Egyptian – Abyssinian rivalry.
In the present article, I will publish Mr. Sabeyse´s second article and then comment extensively on it. Numbers encrusted in the text refer to my comments.
The Somali Irredentism and Regional Politics
By Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse
How does Somalia fit into the overall Egyptian regional policy? 1 First of all, to assuage any Ethiopian attempts to utilize the waters of the Blue Nile, 2 a strong, united Somali state is the safest long term insurance policy. 3 During the mid-1950's President invested in the independence movements of the African continent and the Pan-Arab nationalism. 4 Somalia and Egypt concluded a number of trade agreements. 5 The Arabic version of one of the clause in one of the bilateral agreements stated the following: "Wa sowfa la tudbaq al-Iiraadat-ul qatciya calal waaridat al munsha'a min-al-Somal.." Roughly translated: "Customs duties shall not apply on imports originating from Somalia." 6 It cost the Somali government to dispatch numerous delegations to get this simple clause corrected. The missing thing is the effective date of this customs duties exemption.
In 1963 during his return from some western capitals, Prime Minister Abdulrashid Ali Sharmaarke, met in Cairo with President Jamal Abdulnasir of Egypt. The Prime Minister failed to secure military assistance for the Somali army. 7 However, through the intervention of president Nassir, the Somali Prime Minister changed his itinerary and travelled to Moscow instead. The result: The conclusion of a friendship and co-operation treaty between Somalia and the Soviet Union. 8 Within few months, Soviet military hardware start pouring into Somalia.
This perfectly matches the ages old irredentist Somali culture. 9 Ethiopia and the defunct Somali state went to war over the Harraghe 10 region in February/March, 1964 and again in June 1977/April 1978. At initial stages of the 1977/1978 blitzkrieg, the Somali National Army, disguised as Western Somali Liberation Front, overran most of the Ethiopian forward bases in the Ogaden desert. 11 The latter war precipitated the final dismemberment of Somalia. 12 A perpetual state of war between a unitary Somali state and Ethiopia serves 13 the national interest of Egypt. 14 The people of Somaliland 15 have no desire to fall prey to the tangled web of a proxy war. 16 Like any other post conflict society, 17 we ask ourselves the following question: Are we 18 better off charting our own destiny? 19 Certainly we are, compared with the experience of thirty-and-half years of a dysfunctional union 20 with ´southern Somalis.´ 21
The professor's one-dimensional analysis 22 has no substance at all- it is an extension of the preceding rigid Egyptian Foreign policy. 23 The shenanigans of these faulty assumptions 24 consequently lead to equally flawed conclusions. 25
Without a thorough examination of contemporary political history of post independence Somalia, 26 Dr. Megalommatis offers an over simplistic view of the situation. 27 The union of the two former colonies 28 failed to develop a cohesive national identity. 29 The Somali creed is culturally, socially, ethnically, linguistically, and religiously a homogeneous society is a misnomer 30 that no is longer applicable. 31 The same thing applies to the outdated misconception that "the unity, the sovereignty, the territorial integrity, and the national independence of Somalia is sacrosanct." 32 May I draw to the attention of the distinguished professor that the nations of the Arab League are homogeneous if culture, religion, language, and ethnicity 33 are the only criteria determining the characteristics of a unitary state? 34 The Somalis do not fit into that category. 35
The withdrawal of Somaliland from an ill-fated union 36 with Somalia is one of the latent symptoms of a much deadlier epidemic that fragmented and eventually consumed the Somali polity. 37 As a minimum, the Somali crisis merits an objective analysis of the causes in order to postulate a realistic conflict resolution programme. 38 The Egyptian government views 39 the unity of the old Somali Republic as a bulwark against any Ethiopian efforts 40 to divert the waters of the River Nile. This adds an unsettling new dimension 41 to an already volatile region. 42
For the benefit of the professor, the chronicles of the unitary Somali State will shed some light on this issue.
To be continued...
Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse
Comments
1. As the entire article tries to explain the relations between Egypt and Somalia through the viewpoint of Egypt´s policies of Pan-Arabism, and the author interprets Somalia´s participation in the Arab League as instrumental to Egypt´s Nile policies (because of a hypothetical form of a permanent counterweight to Abyssinia), I have to state beforehand that simply Mr. Sabeyse does not know me, my overall historical viewpoints and approaches to the phenomenon of Pan-Arabism. As many readers may read this article without having had an idea about this subject, for them and for the speedy Mr. Sabeyse, I add here a non exhaustive list of articles (and the respective links to them) I have published on the subject:
The Secret Reasons of the Darfur Genocide: fake Arabic imposed on Non-Arabs
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/17560
End the Darfur Genocide – 21st Century´s Most Outrageous Crime Against Mankind
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/17925
Modern Arabic: the Anglo-French Tool of Islamic Terrorism Promotion
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/17075
Yemen and the fabrication of a bogus-Arabic nation
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/24981
Pan-Arabism: the Inhuman Progenitor of Islamic Terrorism
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/41610
Everything said about me, my interpretations, historical syntheses and analyses, approaches and standpoints is irrelevant and/or mendacious, if it contradicts my views therein expressed.
2. Somalia cannot ´assuage´ Abyssinian attempts to utilize the ´waters of the Blue Nile´, and was never viewed by the Egyptian foreign policy as such. Abyssinia has signed agreements with Egypt on the Nile water flow. Either Somalia exists or not, if an agreement is violated, there will be a conflict or war. If there is a war between Egypt and Abyssinia, the only possible allies that would be of significance for Egypt are Sudan and Saudi Arabia. However, for various reasons, Abyssinia was never able to envisage a perspective of war against Egypt, as the military, technological and economic edge of Egypt is enough to deter any initial thought. Do not misunderstand me; I do not consider Egypt militarily strong as a NATO member state like Turkey or as (monarchical or theocratic) Iran, but Abyssinia is so impotent, particularly in terms of military aviation (the two countries have no common borders) that there is no point of further discussion.
Again, this does not mean that Somalia is militarily insignificant; quite on the contrary, Mogadishu demonstrated a great military capability when it attempted to liberate Ogaden in 1977. One could establish a military comparison between Somalia with Israel – certainly not in absolute terms. As Israel did not dare attack countries larger than itself, Somalia attacked in the late 70s a much larger country, and advanced successfully and victoriously. In fact, Somalia won over Abyssinia, because the extraordinary assortment of tyrannized nations that the Amhara and Tigray rulers have in their hands can never become a force.
Abandoned by America and Europe, Somalia lost to the combined military, diplomatic, and technological forces of Cuba and Soviet Union, not to Abyssinia. Why and how an unequipped and incapable country that cannot carry out a successful war against another, much smaller, country should be a matter of concern for Egypt?
All this does not minimize the importance Egypt has always given to Somalia within the context of Pan-Arabist policies, but this is another issue. I do not consider Somalia as an Arabic speaking country, I do not find any reason for a united, free and independent Somalia to be a member state of the Arab League, and I do not accept the Pan-Arabism even for Egypt; this theory did harm to the Land of the Pharaohs, there is no doubt. But all this has nothing to do with Egypt´s Nile policies.
3. It is quite interesting that the author pursues his argumentation without offering the slightest element of support to his assumption. All he is going to say in the rest of the text reveals the importance Egypt and the Arab League gave to Somalia within the context of Pan-Arabism (which is for me an aberration) – not the Nile politics. Indeed, if Abyssinia was a potential threat, an Egyptian – Sudanese alliance and military agreement would suffice to open the way of the Egyptian soldiers to Gondar and Bahar Dar. The subsequent rebellion of the Oromos, the Ogadenis, the Afars, the Sidamas, and all the other tyrannized nations of Abyssinia would put a tombstone on Africa´s cruelest and most inhuman colonial tyranny, without the need for Somalia to be an ally for Egypt.
4. Yes, this statement is very correct indeed. In and by itself, it outmaneuvers the author´s attempt to justify the link made between Egypt´s perception of Somalia´s usefulness as an ally and the Nile politics. In the early 60s, Egypt in alliance with India and Yugoslavia played a role against the interests of the colonial powers, England and France, while pursuing a rather balanced stance between America and Soviet Union. Pan-Arabism is the main reason for all misfortunes and problems of Egypt; as a theory, it was planned by the colonial academia long before the collapse of the kingdom in Egypt (1952), and projected on various unrelated (to one another) nations of the Middle East and Northern Africa; finally, it damaged them all in a multifaceted way.
5. I have no doubt about the different ways the Egyptian diplomacy tried to make of Egypt the focal country of Pan-Arabism; however, it was a very erroneous concept that triggered confusion of identity, lack of viable cultural and educational policy, and grave political conflicts among different nations who were not Arabic but were ruled by ignorant and self-indoctrinated elites of self-destruction. But again, all this does not prove anything as regards Egypt´s concern to set up an alliance with Somalia in order to materialize objectives pertaining to Nile politics.
6. Translated to English or to any other language, this statement does not change the reality: it is irrelevant to Egypt´s objectives pertaining to Nile politics.
7. This clearly backfires; it demonstrates that Egypt did not view Somalia as a military ally against Abyssinia, and more particularly with respect to the Nile politics.
8. The Egyptian gesture was purely diplomatic; it helped offer another ally to Soviet Union. If now one considers this as a mistaken foreign policy of Somalia, the conclusion may be right, but again it does not concern the Nile politics, and does not prove the existence of an anti-Abyssinian direction of the two countries´ diplomacies.
9. "The ages old irredentist Somali culture"; the statement sounds as if just made by a ferocious enemy of the Somali nation, a criminal and barbaric, bloodthirsty monster like Menelik, Zauditu, Haile Selassie, Mengistu, Melese Zenawi. The term, if put in the mouth of any Somali native speaker, turns automatically the orator to traitor. Irredentism signifies advocacy for territorial claims on the basis of prior historical possession. However, when it comes to legitimate demands of oppressed and tyrannized nations – like the Ogadenis of Abyssinia – for liberation, we cannot use the term ´irredentism´ that turned out to acquire a negative, expansionist, connotation. Of course, the term was first used in Italian: Italia irredenta (unredeemed) was a tern used for the designation of territories with partly Italian population that were ruled by the Austrian – Hungarian Empire prior to WW I. It is however better to make a distinction between irredentism and legitimate claims for liberation of populations unwillingly included within a state ruled by another nation.
Somalia has permanent and rightful entitlement to Ogaden. For the submissive (to the Neo-Nazi Abyssinian elite) author, History seems to peremptorily start with the arrival of the colonial powers in Somalia. It is most offensive for any Somali native speaker to minimize his own nation´s History to just 10 – 13 decades. Somalia´s Most Glorious History covers the span of 40 centuries, drawing back from Ancient Punt (later called Opone in the classical Greco-Roman sources – in the Horn of Africa, Cape Guardafui, area) through Azania of the Late Antiquity and the Islamic Times´ Sultanates. Contrarily to the falsehood published in Wikipedia, never did a part of the Somalia´s northwestern confines belong to the Axumite Abyssinian empire.
In the south of Egypt and Sudan (this is the true Ethiopia of the classical Greco-Roman sources), the greatest African radiation of Culture and Civilization emanated from Somalia – not Abyssinia.
Abyssinia, fallaciously renamed as ´Ethiopia´, is an illegal state – direct threat to the entire Mankind. The Abyssinian control over Ogaden is a transfer of colonial pseudo-rights and as such, it represents, after all the perpetrated crimes against the Ogadenis, one of the bleakest pages of African History. The rightful Somali willingness to detach Ogaden from the inhuman clutches of the Neo-Nazi Amhara and Tigray elites meets precisely the top wishes of the oppressed Ogadenis, who are Somalis like all the rest. There is no ´irredentism´ in this regard.
10. The anti-Somali hatred reflected in the text is enough for us to question whether Mr. Sabeyse earns his life by simply lending his name to texts written by the illegal tyrants of Abyssinia. Abyssinia did not enter to war with a ´defunct´ state because this is simply impossible; a defunct state simply does not exist. The war took place in Ogaden. And what makes the author´s sentence even less credible is the fact that all the Ogadenis, the Oromos, the Afars, the Sidamas, the Kaffas, the Shekachos, the Anuak, the Agaw, the Kambattas, and the Wolayitas did not wish to oppose and did not oppose the Somali army. All these oppressed nations of Abyssinia, and all the Amhara and Tigray Muslims sided with the rightful Somalis. So, it was not ´Abyssinia´ (fallaciously and treacherously renamed ´Ethiopia´) that entered in war with Somalia.
It was the elites of the unrepresentative and tyrannical state of Abyssinia, the ethno-religious groups of the Monophysitic Amharas and Tigrays (so just 18% of the country´s population), that entered in war against Somalia. And they lost it, until the Cubans, their communist brigades, the Soviet military experts, advisors and intelligence entered in war against the brave Somali army.
Finally, we have to admit that Somalia lost a war against a Nuclear Superpower and its satellites. This is the only truth. It is disreputable for a Somali not to say it loudly, and not to be proud for having fought against the Soviet Union itself.
11. Mr. Sabeyse should remember that liar is not only the one who distorts the truth, but also he who hides it. You cannot speak about the Ogaden Liberation War without referring to the Cubans and the Soviets; you become ridiculous.
12. Another point of inconsistency and absurdity; the 1977-78 war did not ´precipitate´ developments that took place after …. 13 years. The reasons of Somalia´s civil war are far more perplex than just a military failure against a nuclear superpower. And ´precipitated´ event is something that happens within some weeks or months after another earlier development; not 13 years later!
Even worse for the Anti-Somali, Somali author, Somalia has not been dismembered, and will never be dismembered, despite the evil wish of the criminal Neo-Nazi Abyssinians. Dismemberment means foreign invasions from neighboring countries and annexation of parts of a country. If Kenya, Djibouti, Yemen and Abyssinia invaded Somalia, and each of the invading countries annexed a part of Somalia, then we could speak of ´dismemberment´. Poland was dismembered, and divided among Sweden, Russia and Prussia. The Ottoman Empire was dismembered mainly by France, England, Italy and the Balkan states. Today´s Somalia is divided to warring parts engaged in a civil war, and it has been partly invaded by the Abyssinian death squads of Meles Zenawi.
13. This is comical; I do not see how a war between Somalia and Abyssinia may be perpetual. It will only last as long as it takes for Ogaden to be liberated. That´s all. Certainly Egypt, as an ally of Somalia in the Arab League, would find the development positive, but so would any person and any political authority supporting Freedom, Human Rights, Humanism, and Democracy. If Egypt conceived and machinated a perpetuated war in Ogaden without any winner, this would be at the detriment of the Somali nation; it would not be a friendly act and attitude. I find again no reason for such duplicity, and – which is more important – we never attested a diplomatic attempt of the sort!
´Unitary Somalia´ is also a fallacious term; do you expect, when reading any article in any newspaper and portal, to read expressions like "unitary Norway", "unitary Portugal" or "unitary Australia"? It´s ridiculous. Of course, when we speak of a nation, we mean a "unitary" nation. "Unitary Somalia" is a pleonasm, a redundancy; Somalia is only ´unitary Somalia´, and this will be the end of the civil war and the partly invasion.
14. The sentence is said without any evidence to support it; it is an aphorism like all the so-called arguments of Mr. Sabeyse. There is no proof that Egypt´s national interests would demand something like that.
15. There is no ´people of Somaliland´ because Somaliland is an illegitimate pseudo-state. The Somalis comprised within the undemocratic realm that is ruled by high traitors – puppets of the Abyssinians are the Somalis of the Somaliland, but they are Somalis like all the rest.
We will complete our criticism in a forthcoming article.
Note
Picture: Punt houses and landscape as depicted on the reliefs of the Western Wall of the Southern part of the Second Colonnade of Queen Hatshepsut's mortuary temple ar Deir el Bahari, Thebes West (Luqsor). A picture of Somalia before ca. 3500 years.
Print
Email
