By Mohamed Osman Omar
I believe most of us must have read with interest the Weekly Letter of the President of the Republic of South Africa, His Excellency, Mr. Thabo Mbeki, dealing with the events in Somalia, published in the official mouthpiece of the governing party, ANC, and appreciated it. However, I found it necessary to clarify certain aspects of the Letter, particularly where the occupied Somali territories are concerned. I have written to the President the following letter for his kind attention.
New Delhi, 31 January, 2007
His Excellency, Mr.Thabo Mbeki,
President of the Republic of South Africa,
I have the honour to convey to Your Excellency, my best compliments. I read your letter published in the ANC TODAY, (Volume 7, No. 1. 12-18 January 2007) on the recent events in Somalia. I wish to offer my comments on your letter as follows:
Your Excellency, in your letter, you rightly state that “For many years and afterwards Mogadishu and Somalia remained in our memories as African places of hope for us, a reliable rear base for the total liberation of Africa, including our liberation from apartheid. Indeed, in later years, others of our comrades returned to Mogadishu, this time to work with the Somali government to prepare for the clandestine infiltration into South Africa of cadres of Umkhonto we Sizwe [the military wing of the ANC], who would travel to apartheid South Africa by sea, secretly departing from the Somali ports!”
As the saying goes “A friend in need is a friend indeed”. If South Africa, the Big Brother, could not give generous assistance to Somalia in this critical moment in its history, at the least it should not disseminate distorted historical facts on the Horn of Africa. I am not asking that South Africa return the favour of what Somalia contributed towards the struggle of the people of South Africa, led by the African National Congress, ANC, as it was a genuine duty of Somalia as an independent African country.
In your letter in ANC TODAY, page 3, you said:
“This process of the unification of the Somali-speaking people however also led to tensions with neighbouring countries, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya, each one of which has a Somali-speaking minority. The worst manifestation of these tensions was, of course, the 1977 war with Ethiopia, when Somalia tried to annex the Somali-speaking Ogaden region of Ethiopia. (Feudal Ethiopia had managed to seize part of Ogaden during the 1880s, and later succeeded to get the whole of it through an agreement with colonial Britain).”
As Your Excellency may be aware of, Somalia was the only country in the Horn of Africa which was divided by the colonial powers into 5 parts. They are not, as Your Excellency’s Letter says, territories which have “Somali-speaking” minorities. But they are Somali territories illegally given to Ethiopia and Kenya by the former European colonial powers.
For Your Excellency’s information, there has never been tension between Somalia and Djibouti, as Djibouti itself has been one of the Somali territories under French colonial rule since 1862. It was known as Cote Francaise de Somalie or French Somali Coast. Following the age-old policy of “Divide and Rule” of all colonial powers, France changed territory’s name in 1967 to the “French Territory of Afars and Issas”, just to eliminate the name Somali. Contrary to what Your Excellency said in the Letter, each and every subsequent Somali Government and the people, as a whole, have given total support to the freedom and self-determination of the territory until it gained independence on 27 June 1977and jointed the United Nations as the Republic of Djibouti.
As far as the territory under Ethiopian colonisation is concerned, known as “Ogaden”, it is not just a territory with a “Somali-speaking minority”. It is a territory, well known to the world, which even Ethiopian government recognises it as the SOMALI region (I attach here copies of the maps I printed out from Google (Map of Ethiopia).
This region used to be called in the British map “Abyssinian Somaliland” (see Sketch map of Somaliland – War Office, July 1909. This is a Somali territory given to Ethiopia (Abyssinia) by the Envoy of Queen Victoria, Rennell Rodd to Emperor Menelek II on May 14th, 1897 and ratified by the Queen, on July 28th, 1897. Later Britain gave to Ethiopia the Haud and Reserved Area in 1954.
Until now, the border of the two countries is known as “artificial boundary” and the region is referred to as “disputed” territory.
Your Excellency’s Letter also mentions about “Somali-speaking minority” in Kenya. It should have been correct and the duty of the Editor of the ANC TODAY, or the Press Secretary of the Presidency, or even Historians at the many Universities in South Africa, to verify the historical facts, before publishing such an important Letter dealing with a very sensitive subject, carrying the name and the signature of the President.
Your Excellency mentions tension also between Somalia and Kenya. Between Somalia and Kenya there is, as with Ethiopia, a dispute over the territory called the Northern Frontier District (NFD), which is a Somali territory given to Kenya, again by the Britain, in 1963, just when Kenya obtained independence, despite the fact that the majority of the people chose to join Somalia in a referendum organised by the British Government in 1962. It is not a question of, as your letter describes, “Somali-speaking minority”.
Prior to Kenya’s independence in 1963, the NFD, has been separately administered by the British and even to travel to Kenya proper, the citizen in the area were obliged to have, what they called, “Entry Permit”.
Before granting independence to Kenya, British Government decided to arrange a referendum to ascertain the wish of the people in the region. A commission led by two prominent personalities was sent to the area. They were G.C.M. Onyuke, a Nigerian Judge, and a Canadian Officer, M.P. Bogert. There is an official document published by the British Government on the referendum dated December 7, 1962.
Prof. I.M. Lewis, a British Anthropologist wrote at that time the following:
“The Commission found that the Somalis who they estimated made up 62 per cent of the NFD’s population ‘almost unanimously’ favoured secession from Kenya with the object of ultimately joining the Somali Republic. At last, in March 1963, it fell to Mr. Duncan Sandys, the new British Colonial Secretary, to announce his Government’s decision. To the satisfaction of the Nairobi and Addis Ababa governments, but to the chagrin of the Somalis, this was that the NFD to be brought into Kenya’s regional constitution. A new, predominantly Somali Northern-Eastern Region was to be created in which Somalis would enjoy the same degree of local autonomy as had already been accorded elsewhere in Kenya’s other six Regions”.
With due respect, as a Somali, I expected only justice, unbiased statement and no favour from Your Excellency, a highly respected leader in the beloved continent of Africa. These are the territorial problems that the colonial powers left behind so that Africa would keep fighting after their departure. As Eritrea became free from Ethiopia’s Black colonialism, others too, I have doubt, sooner or later, would be free. Such distortion of historical facts will not change, in anyway, the reality of the situation in the continent.
Again for Your Excellency’s information, among other things, Ethiopia’s forefather Emperor Menelek said in a circular letter to Heads of European States dated, Adis Ababa the 14th Mazir, 1883 (10 April, 1891):
“If Powers at a distance come forward to partition Africa between them, I do not intend to be an indifferent spectator.” Afterward, Ethiopia was handed over the Somali territories by the former colonial powers and it gratefully accepted.
The disastrous situation in which Somalia finds itself today could happen to any other country in Africa as the continent is vulnerable to such a state of affairs.
Because of these difficulties, Somalis see their rights, their sovereignty and territorial integrity violated and those who are under black colonial rules feel their right undermined when they hear statements or read articles written by Presidents, such as the President of South Africa, esteemed statesman, whose opinion is more important than a resolution of UN Security Council.
I apologize for taking so much of your valuable time. I assure your Excellency my highest consideration.
MOHAMED OSMAN OMAR
Somalia needs African solidarity
In June 1974, a few of us spent some days in Mogadishu, Somalia, as members of an ANC delegation. We had come to the capital of Somalia to attend the annual Organisation of African Unity (OAU) Assembly of Heads of State and Government. As was the practice then, the Assembly had elected the President of Somalia, Major General Siad Barre, as its Chairperson and Chair of the OAU until the next Assembly. Siad Barre therefore presided over the proceedings of the Mogadishu Summit.
During that month of June, as it hosted the Assembly, Mogadishu served as the venue for a great African celebration. The reason for the celebration was the then impending collapse of Portuguese colonialism and the liberation of the African Portuguese colonies. Unquestionably, the star of the day, who attended the Assembly, was the late Samora Machel, who was to become the first President of liberated Mozambique.
In its 24 June 1974 edition the US “Time” magazine carried an article entitled “Sinking the Lusitanian”. Among other things it said: “When President Antonio de Spinola inaugurated new governors for Angola and Mozambique…for the first time ever in a public speech about the territories, (he) used the word that Africans had been waiting for him to speak: independence. ‘Self-determination cannot be dissociated from democracy,’ he said, adding: ‘Neither can we dissociate self-determination from independence.’
“The declaration suggested that Spinola was willing to let sink his pet idea of a ‘Lusitanian Federation’ – a close alliance of Portugal with semi-autonomous African territories. As the general’s speech went on, however, a chill set in. In an apparent volte-face from his earlier tone, he outlined four gradual stages of decolonisation, only at the end of which would the possibility of independence be broached.
“All this may merely have been Spinola’s way of asserting his determination not to see white settler interests sold down the river in the territories. However it was meant, liberation movement leaders at the annual meeting in Mogadishu, Somalia, of the Organisation of African Unity…read neo-colonialism into every word. Declared Frelimo Vice President Marcelino dos Santos: ‘Our attacks will be maintained and even increased until independence is conceded under the sole leadership of Frelimo.'”
If others might have had doubts about the certainty of the liberation of the Portuguese colonies, the ANC had none. In a letter of congratulations to the new Secretary General of the OAU elected in Mogadishu, William Eteki Mboumoua, Oliver Tambo said:
“Throughout the world, the forces of reaction are suffering successive defeats. The peoples of Africa and the world struggling for national liberation, social progress and peace are scoring impressive victories.
“Of particular relevance to us and to the great peoples of Africa is, of course, the heroic victory scored by our brother peoples and combatants of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde in helping to bring about the downfall of the hated Portuguese colonial and fascist regime of Caetano.
“This decisive victory has not only opened up the prospects for the rapid accession to independence of the Portuguese colonies in Africa, it has also greatly strengthened the liberation forces of our own country…”
As part of a cultural programme put together for the benefit of the delegates, a Somali drama group performed a play that sought to denounce the neo-colonialism mentioned by “Time” magazine, and which severely compromised the independence of African countries. The play had scenes of delegates visiting Western embassies on their way to OAU meetings.
Here they would be given briefcases full of cash. They would then be given instructions on the resolutions they should propose at these OAU meetings and how they should vote. The sketches included instructions on the need for these delegates to do everything possible to frustrate the struggles against colonialism and apartheid.
This was the first and last time I visited Mogadishu. For many years afterwards Mogadishu and Somalia remained in our memories as African places of hope for us, a reliable rear base for the total liberation of Africa, including our liberation from apartheid. Indeed, in later years, others of our comrades returned to Mogadishu, this time to work with the Somali government to prepare for the clandestine infiltration into South Africa of cadres of Umkhonto we Sizwe, who would travel to apartheid South Africa by sea, secretly departing from the Somali ports!
The fact of the matter however is that in time Somalia fell apart and ceased to exist as a viable state. This has led to the eventuality that, as the year 2007 began, Somalia put itself firmly at the top of the African Agenda. Whereas in 1974 all our liberation movements and independent Africa counted on Somali support to achieve the goals of the African Revolution, in 2007 Somalia needs the support of the rest of the African Continent, again to achieve the goals of the African Revolution.
It is true that Somalia remains an independent state. However, for 15 years it has been victim to a protracted internal conflict that resulted in the collapse of the state, the death of an estimated one million Somalis, the emigration of thousands as refugees, and the impoverishment of millions as a result of severe and sustained socio-economic regression.
Further to complicate the situation, giving it a global dimension, allegations have now been made that international terrorist groups have established themselves in Somalia, taking advantage of the situation created by the collapse of the Somali state.
Earlier, in the context of the conflict that ensued after the overthrow of Siad Barre, the United Nations (UN) had authorised a US-led military mission to intervene in Somalia, among other things to create the conditions for the distribution of humanitarian assistance. In 1993 Somali combat groups in Mogadishu killed 18 US soldiers, after shooting down a US helicopter. This incident came to be known as “Black Hawk Down”, and led to the withdrawal of the US troops and the termination of the UN mission, which failed to achieve its objectives.
Somalia has also turned into a source of regional instability, even as the African Continent through the African Union (AU) has intensified its efforts to ensure that ours becomes a Continent of peace, focused on responding to the challenge of eradicating poverty and underdevelopment.
For the sake both of Somalia and our Continent as a whole, Africa has no choice but to come to the aid of this sister African country. In many respects the deeply entrenched Somali crisis demonstrates what can happen to many of our countries if they are not governed and managed in a manner that addresses the interests of all citizens, bearing in mind the national specifics of each country.
As a state entity Somalia came into being as recently as 1960. In that year the two colonies, British and Italian Somaliland, gained their independence. To end the fragmentation of the Somali population brought about by colonialism, they then decided to merge and form the United Republic of Somalia.
This process of the unification of the Somali-speaking people however also led to tensions with neighbouring countries, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya, each one of which has a Somali-speaking minority. The worst manifestation of these tensions was, of course, the 1977 war with Ethiopia, when Somalia tried to annex the Somali-speaking Ogaden region of Ethiopia. (Feudal Ethiopia had managed to seize part of Ogaden during the 1880s, and later succeeded to get the whole of it through an agreement with colonial Britain.)
We mention these events because today there are Ethiopian troops in Somalia. Not surprisingly, the media reports that many Somalis consider this Ethiopian presence as a humiliation. One businessman, Abdulahi Mohamed Mohamud, was reported as saying, “We are afraid of a long war, and people are angry at the Ethiopian troops.”
As the Somali state collapsed after the overthrow of Siad Barre in 1991, it became a conglomeration of different enclaves. North-west Somalia proclaimed itself the independent Republic of Somaliland. The Puntland region declared its autonomy. Various parts especially of southern Somalia fell under the control of different clan leaders, or “warlords”.
The question that must arise is whether, in fact, during the years of independence, the different traditional “clan” areas and sections of the Somali population had developed a strong enough sense of national cohesion and identity to ensure the survival of the United Republic of Somalia proclaimed in 1960!
The importance of this question is highlighted by the role played by the issue of clan divisions in the uprising that overthrew Siad Barre in 1991, who evidently had discriminated against some clans, specifically the Mijertyn and Isaq clans, in favour of his own Marehan clan. In this regard, a BBC correspondent, Peter Biles, has reported that: “When Somalia’s president was overthrown in 1991, much of the country fell under the control of warlords and clan-based factions.”
Another report spoke of “the oppressive, capricious, and clan-based autocracy of the late dictator, Siyad Barre, who used his interpretation of clan institutions for his own ends, to oppress political opponents, create inequality, and promote conflict and violence. So great was his malevolence and abuse of power that virtually all Somalis now hold a deep-seated fear and distrust of any centralized authority.”
Another important element of the story of Somalia is that, as had happened in many African countries at the time, General Siad Barre had acceded to power in 1969 by coup d’etat. He seized power after Abdi Rashid Ali Shermarke, elected President in 1967, had been assassinated. Inevitably, the absence of democratic institutions would make it extremely difficult for the different Somali clans, regions and interest groups to negotiate among themselves to define a national compact that would ensure the cohesion of the nation.
Somalia now has an Interim Government that is recognised by the AU and the rest of the world, born in 2004 after protracted negotiations held in Kenya, involving the warring Somali factions. As a result of the Ethiopian intervention, which ousted the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) that had fought itself into a position of power in Mogadishu and other parts of southern Somalia, this Government is now operating from Mogadishu.
As the military conflict continued after the ouster of the UIC, the US decided to launch air strikes against the retreating UIC adherents, claiming that it was striking at terrorists who had bombed the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in 1998 and then taken refuge in Somalia. The majority of the world, including the AU and the UN, has been forthright in opposing this action, correctly asserting that this will not help to resolve the crisis in Somalia and would add oil to the fires that are burning in the Middle East. In addition, some Somalis have been quoted as saying that these air strikes were carried out as an act of vengeance for the death of 18 US soldiers in Mogadishu in 1993 and the shooting down of the US ‘Black Hawk’ helicopter.
Responding to the events in Somalia, including these US air strikes, the Foreign Minister of neighbouring Yemen, Abu Bakr al-Qirbi, said:
“Yemen was hoping that the Islamic Courts and the interim government would have settled their differences through the negotiating table. Unfortunately this did not happen.
“Now we have to deal with the situation as it is, and we will have to work on getting everybody concerned in Somalia to negotiate the future management of Somalia, to restore peace and security, and to put the interests of Somalia above the interests of clans or political parties or ideologies.”
In these words, Abu Bakr al-Qirbi set the agenda for Somalia that the AU must address during this year, 2007. Supported by the UN Security Council, the AU is engaged in an urgent process that should result in the deployment of AU peace-keeping troops in Somalia, to help this sister country to extricate itself from its protracted crisis.
In this regard, the January 2007 President of the Security Council, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, announced that the Council regards Somalia as “a high priority matter” and is concerned about instability, security, and the humanitarian situation. The Council strongly supports an inclusive political dialogue among various political forces in Somalia and favours the speedy deployment of IGASOM, the new force that would be set up by the African Union and a seven-nation East African regional group of nations.
Time will tell when the next Assembly of Heads of State and Government, this time of the AU, will convene in Mogadishu. For that to happen, as Africans we will have to do everything necessary to overcome the old and new historic problems that have placed Somalia on our agenda as an unresolved problem of the African Revolution, as the liberation of the Portuguese colonies was an unresolved problem of the African Revolution in 1974.
Beyond this, perhaps, as Africans, we should seriously consider whether we should not take up the call originally made by former President Khatami of Iran for a “dialogue of civilisations” – a dialogue that would lead to a peaceful resolution of conflicts between clans, within nation states, between states, and between coalitions of states, to ensure that the Somali example of anarchy and death is not visited on our countries and the rest of humanity. Might this not serve as a fitting tribute to the 50th anniversary of the historic independence of Ghana of Kwame Nkrumah, which we will celebrate this year, 2007!
President of the Republic of South Africa