Kenya’s Undisputed Intent to Steal Somali Seas

 0  0 Google +0  0

by Heikal I. Kenneded
Friday, October 14, 2016

Now that the preliminary hearings of maritime delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya) at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague were wrapped up, it is clearly evident the Kenyan government’s malicious intent to blindly steal the vast Somali seas. The Kenyan government cognizant of its meritless dispute with Somalia over its maritime border, requested from the ICJ to basically adjudicate the case brought by Somalia against Kenya because it is irrelevant and not within the jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore should accordingly be dismissed. But Somalia has utterly exhausted in resolving its maritime dispute with Kenya amicably through diplomatic channels and it has completely lost faith with its counterpart that it decided to take its case to the highest Court in the land. Kenya’s duplicity is deliberately illustrated on its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to determine the case and feebly relying on concocted Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has no bearing with maritime boundary delimitation, instead of arguing the primary substance of its case

The current Somali government led by Hassan Sheikh Mahmoud should be highly commended for spending so much political and economic capital to hire prominent international lawyers and other technical maritime experts in order to defend Somalia’s case at the Court. Unlike its predecessor administration whose ministers nonchalantly signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) currently in contention that Kenya gave such leverage to base its entire argument that the Court should not hear Somalia’s case over the dispute of maritime borders. This case goes back to the year of 2009, when Kenya and Somalia allegedly reached a deal signed as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which granted each country “no-objection” in regards of being compliant on the outer limits of the continental shelf outside of 200 nautical miles. This was then deposited to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UNCLOS) in 2011.

Nonetheless, the MOU was merely based on the international conventions, which allows countries sharing disputed maritime boundaries to create Joint Development Zones (JDZ) rather than a solid agreement that the border would run east along the line of latitude. The two countries also agreed that they should continue to work together to find a solution so that the matter would not have to go to court, until the Kenyan government became facetious and uncooperative. Under the circumstances, the Somali federal government became frustrated over Kenya’s dishonesty over its maritime borders and by parliamentary vote disowned the 2009 MOU between the two countries, dismissing it as an attempt by Kenya to merely protract the process, which was already deadlocked and eventually filed an Application with the ICJ against the Republic of Kenya. Somalia is basing its arguments on Articles 15, 74 and 83 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which both countries ratified in 1989.

Conversely, during the recent Court hearings, Kenya very well aware of its losing case has raised certain preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the Application, accusing Somalia of filing an “inaccurate” report to the court, alleging that there were ongoing negotiations between the two nations and the surprise court application was nothing short of backstabbing. Moreover, Kenya’s blatant disregard for conventional maritime delimitation boundaries with Somalia makes a series of concern for all Somalis who interpreted it as a malicious tactic of how much Kenya is trying to take advantage of their country’s moment of weakness and turmoil.

What’s more, during the recent Court hearings, Kenya has repeatedly referenced how unstable Somalia is and the security threat that terrorist group like Al-Shabab poses to the Horn of Africa. In fact, the Kenyan Attorney General, Githu Muigai’s bone of contention over the maritime disputes between his country and Somalia was based on the threat his country constantly faces a clear and present danger posed by Al Shabab in regards of security threat related to weapons smuggling and infiltration by sea, instead of the . Further, he concluded of his portentous picture of depicting Somalia, as a lawless country that there was no maritime enforcement capacity whatsoever, and therefore it should not have any additional legitimacy over this disputed maritime boundaries in the Indian Ocean. This clearly shows how far Kenya will go in stealing the Somali Seas.

The other unfathomable issue that baffles most Somalis is Kenya’s cheeky accusations of Somalia as “disrespectful” and ungrateful country because Kenya has “sacrificed” so much for Somalia since the collapse of the Somali nation-state in providing humanitarian aid to refugees resettled in their country and how the Kenyan military forces played major role in defeating Al Shabab terrorists. On this twisted premise, Kenya made its case before the recent ICJ court hearings that the maritime boundary dispute between the two countries should only be solved once Somalia achieves stability. This is another wicked sign of Kenya trying to trade favors done in the past for illegitimate territorial gain, which is nothing short of highway robbery.

The other major contentious issue is Kenya’s flagrant concessions of these disputed waters to other foreign companies to expl0re oil and gas, which is another clear sign of its resolve to disregard any legal means of ownership before exploiting it for riches, while paradoxically claiming ongoing negotiations with Somalia. These potentially lucrative vast waters are estimated to be 100,000 square kilometers of offshore territory and they are believed to contain large oil and natural gas deposits. Nonetheless, it is illegal for Kenya to award oil and natural gas exploration rights to multinational foreign oil companies, such as Eni and Total because the concessions lie in in disputed waters owned by Somalia, which completely undermines the sovereignty of Somalia.

Given the Court’s historical adjudications, it should be noted that Kenya is miserably following another failed precedent case in which Nigeria filed eight "preliminary objections" challenging the Court's jurisdiction and the admissibility of Cameroon's Application, back in 1995. However, the ICJ by 14 votes to 3 rejected Nigeria's objection that the Court has no jurisdiction to rule Cameroon's Application. According to the Court, Cameroon did not violate the principle of good faith by not informing Nigeria of its intention and decision to bring a case against Nigeria.

Indeed, the Court is expected to follow suit and rule that Somalia is eligible to proceed with its case to challenge Kenya overtaking its maritime borders. Because the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations, which is the only court of a “universal character” with general jurisdiction that resolves, in accordance with international law, legal disputes deferred to it by different countries. Thus, its judgments have binding power and are without appeal for all the parties concerned. In other words, the maritime borders between Somali and Kenyan should be fair and square, because Somalia wants the ICJ to delineate the maritime boundary and to govern the precise geographical coordinates as latitude of its southeastern land borders. Conversely, Kenya would like to see its maritime boundary to go in a straight line parallel to the line of latitude on its eastern border. This apparently gives Kenya the larger share of the maritime area in dispute.

Finally, Somalia is in a much better position than Kenya with respect to international maritime laws and once a final decision is reached as early as of next year and if the court should decide in favor of Somalia, the Kenyan border is expected dramatically shift southward. This could further lead to a dispute over the maritime boundary with Kenya's southern neighbor Tanzania, which could in turn have a cascading effect on other African countries, including Mozambique, Madagascar and South Africa. Since both Somalia and Kenya have ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they will have to abide the outcome because the tribunal’s ruling will be an authoritative statement of just how egregiously Kenya is violating international law in the Indian Ocean. In the meantime, if nothing else happens, the case that was heard over last month threatens illegal exploration rights that Kenya has superciliously granted to oil and gas companies already working in the disputed maritime borders.

---

Heikal I. Kenneded
heikalk@yahoo.com
Washington D.C. 

Somali Siman: A Transformational Movement

By Heikal I. Kenneded

September 6, 2016

Last weekend, Somalis in the state of Northern Virginia wholeheartedly hosted a major convention of the Somali Siman movement that’s lately gaining moment across the Somali diaspora in Northern America. This movement that’s led by a group of Somali scholars who are committed bringing to the fore the core issues that fueled the civil war and the perpetual failure of a lasting peace. In an attempt to tackle the profound inequities among the Somali society, these scholars are determined to speaking truth to power by discussing taboo issues that held back our society in the dark ages. It is a powerful nonviolent challenge to injustice and unrestrained authoritarian forces, often perpetuated by the so called “majority” clans against minority clans, when it comes to power and resource sharing. There does seem to be at least one common denominator in regards to inequality or injustice in Somalia – and that’s tribalism. Thus, the Somali Siman movement is committed to comforting the afflicted, while afflicting the contented with the power of the truth: to work for justice and equality, or else we all go down, as one people. 

Close to a quarter of century after the collapse of the Somali nation state, most Somalis are divided what exactly ails the nation and how peace and prosperity could be restored, once again. Nonetheless, what’s missing is the courage to stand up against egregious injustices, which has been replaced by pusillanimity to throw conviction out the window for personal or political expediency. There has neither been egalitarianism “instant” in our country’s history, nor instances when people who recognized that harsh reality and refused to accept it anymore and dared to start a social movement to force the “powerful” to see themselves for whom exactly they are: oppressors. In that sense, the Somali Siman movement represents a groundbreaking campaign to be rallied around wherever Somalis are – in the country or in the diaspora.

Unless we’re honest about our society’s beginnings, both good and bad and therefore see our history as a series of flaws between the different clans, and the oppressed. We must embrace our Islamic religion, for all of its justice, equality and respect of the minority. We must level with ourselves about the notion that equality and justice have to be restored before we delude ourselves about nation building. We must do this out of honesty and show deference for the millions of our brothers and sisters who were neither counted, nor protected by justice from the beginning. We must practice reflecting ourselves as part of a long arch of society who has revised the inequality of our history in order to amend our notions of everyone counts.

Since the realms of power lie on those who decide, we must acknowledge how the “powerful” have operated in our country with impunity and the price the powerless have paid. As such, those of us who’ve been spared from this corrupting power must dare to concede what it has done: witness of massive economic inequities, warlordism, piracy, radical extremism and violent competition for resources that’s manifested ongoing drought and to the increasing of famine throughout the country. In effect, if we are not one of those people who do not commit these egregious sins; we must challenge the people who carry out such injustices. If we don’t, then we are nothing more than their accomplices and will go down in history, as such.

Because the Somali problem is much deeper than mere ragtag terrorist groups blowing themselves up, or unhelpful foreign interventions, but rather internal problems that go to the core of our society’s conscience that needs to be dealt with heads on. We need to recognize the consequence of centuries of clan rivalry that was predicated on a throwaway class of people who would be passed over so that the others could thrive and feel entitled to more resources and power than the rest. We must recognize that equality is not an institution; nonetheless it is a practice of radical fairness, moral, and collaboration among different communities or societies, if done right, fundamentally impacts our institutions. In this sense, equality has never been invented, but rather it has been born whenever people collectively have made a choice and stood up for a belief against the wishes of the powerful and corrupt.

Finally, Somalis as a collective ethnicity face an existential threat if its people do not adequately address the inequality and injustice that permeate across its society. This is, however, an impossible task for the weak regional state governments, and as it is of equal importance to every segment of its society, extensive involvement is required that goes beyond lip service and empty speeches but rather a deep awakening of the conscience at individual level across every segment of our society.

Heikal I. Kenneded

heikalk@yahoo.com

Washington DC

Who Lost Somalia, Yet Again?

 By Heikal I. Kenneded

March 16, 2016

For a brief, happy — and misguided — moment, most Somalis thought the government and its AMISOM allies were winning the war against the terrorist group of Al-Shabab, who were on the path of a terrible defeat as they were driven out most of their military bases and major towns that they once ruled with iron grip. As a new hope was dawning, most Somali families in the Diaspora were either gearing up for spending their summer vacations in their native country, or gradually relocating there permanently while businesses were sprouting up all over the capital. However, such dreams were appallingly dashed by the recent events of series violent suicide bombings in the capital and the rest of the country, which seems as though the terrorist group is from the dead.  This is hardly surprising, given the fact that there’s neither an effective Somali national army capable of fighting against the terrorist group, nor are AMISOM troops willing to fight off the enemy face to face. With this new reality, many people question who failed Somalia and how to reverse the tide again before Somalia risks going back to its archetypal failed state. Nonetheless, the main threat to an effective Somali state security lies in the hands of the UN Security Council that recklessly extends its arms embargo imposed on the country since 1992, which egregiously undermines Somalia’s sovereignty.

Somalia seems to be plunging back into chaos as the country experiences the precarious resurgence of the terrorist group Al-Shabab. For instance, the recent atrocity visited upon Mogadishu’s Lido beach and many other landmark locations in the capital, throughout the country are all bloody reminders the callousness of the Al-Shabab terrorist group and how they do not discriminate innocent civilians from armed forces.  Though Al-Shabab’s incredulous capability to strike at any time at any place is not a sign of strength but rather speaks volumes of the fledgling government in the country’s ineptitude to use the national security apparatuses in place, instead of playing “Duck and Cover.” True, the government seems to have lost touch with reality and therefore neither is interested in bringing peace to the country, nor capable of doing so, even if it had the will. In fact, the Somali government’s ineptitude and downright incompetence is highlighted how they failed to prepare the country for the 2016 elections for a one-man one-vote that resulted in the protraction of the contentious 4.5 system. Given the chronic corruption within the government and all of its ineptness to safeguard the county’s security, the UN’s vacillating army embargo has become a major contributor to the worsening insecurity in the country.

Despite its many shortcomings, the Somali government is desperate enough that it unceasingly blames the UN’s Monitoring Group for recommending the extension of the unbearable arms embargo on Somalia. As a result, Somalia’s government has to cope with being safeguarded by the AMISOM troops while the country’s army languishes in a state of despair. Up until now, there’s not a set date that AMISOM peacekeeping troops will leave the country so that a standing Somali army to take their place as a permanent replacement. Nor is the Somali army likely to get any relevance and proper support to stand on its own and take full ownership of the country’s fledgling security, as long as the AMISOM forces are the focal point of being responsible for the country’s security and stability. Somalia to move beyond the so called failed state, UN Security Council needs to reconsider its arms embargo on Somalia.

The Challenges of the UN Army Embargo

An intense drone campaign has recently decimated several Al-Shabab military bases and killed their core leadership, despite all of these bombings against the terrorist organization, it hasn’t weakened them the least but rather brought them back from the grave to continue their ruthless killings of the innocent. In fact, they’re continuously reconstituting their dark forces by retreating to parts of the interior they see as safe. In fact, with the death of Al-Shabab’s intransigent leader Abdi Godane two years ago, most Somalis hoped to see the terrorist group pushed into either ragtag army that might desperately. However, the recent military raids on AMISOM bases are a proof that Al-Shabab is anything but defeated. The most dismaying aspect of Al-Shabab’s most recent resurgence is their vengeful penchant to target most peaceful landmarks in the capital that represent a sense of normalcy and statehood.  On the other hand, while drone attacks on targeted Al-Shabab terrorist bases are lethal and serve as significant deterrent, however, they also function as a central source of jihadist inspirations and recruiting purposes. Moreover, most terrorist experts have long made the link that drone strikes only fuel militancy in most countries because of their tendency to mistakenly hit on the innocent. Thus, seeing from that point of view, the United Nations needs to lift its debilitating arms embargo on the Somali government, which over the years has become a major obstacle to the formation of a professional and strong national army to effectively fight against these terrorists. There are no shortages of arms inside Somalia and therefore the irrational thinking that the embargo is an effective deterrent that armaments do not fall into the wrong hands, no longer holds water.

Moreover, the partial easing of the arms embargo in the past for the Somali government to buy some weapons and ammunition has helped past governments. It has enabled the Somali government to equip the Somali national army, as part of the overall effort to build a national army capable of taking full control of Somalia's security. No wonder, all Somali citizens across the board now agree the need to effectively rebuild the Somali army as the panacea of safeguarding the country’s lack of security. It is quite delusional in part of the international community and the UN to continuously peddle the unsustainable mandate that Somalia’s security will be guaranteed by the AMISOM forces. It is rather preposterous to spend much needed resources and funding for peacekeeping forces while the Somali National Army (SNA) does not get paid for months, not to mention lacking much needed military equipment, vehicles, communications technologies, barracks and medical facilities, which tremendously contributes the Somali army’s low morale.

There’s no doubt that the UN and the international community are more sympathetic to the dubious agenda of the neighboring countries, such as Ethiopia and Kenya who are bent on keeping Somalia in its status quo of chaos and weak state. Nevertheless, if history is any indication, no neighboring country in the Horn will be in peace, unless Somalia itself is at peace and that’s where the true challenge lies. In the meantime, the Somali government needs to put in place the necessary apparatuses to efficiently keep its arms safe in storage while averting any of them vanishing from the army by simply pay them regular wages and any other benefits in due course. Since the UN’s unrelenting decades-old arms embargo on Somalia is justified as either lack of accountability or diversion of weapons blamed on the government's weak public sector accountability systems, which is likely to encourage illegal arms dealing with a potential of ending up in the hands of terrorist groups.  In the long term, though, a radical shift is needed to rebuild both the country’s national army and police forces in order to abate the increasing insecurity throughout the country. Yet, without lifting the arms embargo from Somalia, it is most likely the terrorist group will continue to wage their war against the innocent with impunity. It is therefore unconscionable that the international community and the UN watch the Somali people suffer in the hands of these ruthless killers, as they disempower the country’s army by denying them the necessary resources to defend their motherland.  

In the end, Somalia’s serious and recurrent security lapses definitely do not lie in fear of guns which might fall into the wrong hands but rather a country without a standing army and lack of effective weapons to fight against the enemy. It would be wise before the international community facilitates another bogus election to take place in the country with another toothless government, they must urge the UN Security Council to take concrete steps of lifting the arms embargo that necessitates the Somali army to become an effective institution that defends the country’s security and dignity.

Heikal I. Kenneded

Washington D.C

heikalk@yahoo.com

Dogs of War: Meles Zinawi’s Wild Hegemonic Ambitions 

By Heikal Kenneded

December 28, 2006    

                        

The heavy fighting that is simmering throughout the Southern region of Somalia sheds a light on the true color of the Ethiopian Premier, Meles Zenawi – a wicked tyrant.

Meles is as cunning as they come in the despotic and dictatorial politics of Africa.  According to the World Bank, Ethiopia is one of the world’s poorest countries, a poverty which has been exacerbated by natural disasters and internal political tensions.  Since the early 1990s, when Meles Zinawi’s rugged Tigrinya militia forces toppled the Derg regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam with great success and some cunning rhetoric, he has duped the Western aid donor countries.  He convinced these donor countries that he was the democratically elected Premier of Ethiopia and that he supported sustainable development and was firmly committed to eradicating poverty and disease from his country.  However, as soon as aid from donor countries poured in Ethiopia, Meles was quick to build his military might, while the majority of the masses in his country starved to death.  When Ethiopia was supposedly on the road to recovery from decades’ long of protracted war and poverty, Meles perpetrated a border dispute with Eritrea, which eventually thrust the two-sister countries into a long catastrophic war that resulted in high number of deaths, as well as destruction, in both countries.

Meles Zinawi demonstrated his callous and brazen autocratic tactics once again, in last year's Ethiopian parliamentary elections.  According to human rights monitors, hundreds of civilian and student demonstrators were ruthlessly shot in the middle of the city, while thousands of other dissident intellectuals were sent to jail en masse for their political believes, during non-violent political demonstrations in Addis Ababa.  The opposition parties who were forecasted to win the parliamentarian elections by a landslide did not gain a majority, except few seats in several major cities.  International election monitors, as a result, accused Zinawi’s government of rigging the elections. 

The cobwebs of lies were finally catching up with Meles as he constantly found himself having to explain his actions.  Meles, thus, immediately knew that he was running out cards and he was unable to disentangle himself from the convoluted web of lies and charade he has cleverly concocted to the rest of the world.  Most donor countries began withdrawing their generous aid from Meles’s oppressive government. However, he boldly dared to play his last card of invading the vulnerable neighboring country Somalia, which had no effective government for the last 16 years, in the name of terrorism.  Meles was quick to seize this opportunity as he prepared to challenge the rising Islamic Union Courts (IUC) authority in the region. 

The Union of Islamic Courts (IUC) who six months ago gained control most of the Southern region of Somalia, have brought an unprecedented stability and of peace to the country, and naturally became “enemy” number one of Meles’s authoritarian regime, simply because they were incorruptible.  Despite the IUC’s success in getting rid of Somalia the warlords that “sucked the blood” of their society in rebuilding the country from scratch, the rest of the world, especially the West became wary of their covert actions.  Instead of supporting their progressive actions, Western governments, especially the Bush administration extended its unfettered support to Meles Zinawi’s campaign to root out the supposed Islamic “terrorists” from the Horn of Africa.

Meles’s government in Addis Ababa is well known throughout the Horn of African region as a repressive Tigrinya regime that long lost its public support and was soon to lose the international one.  In an effort to distract both domestic and international attentions from his autocratic rule and draw out his regime, on late last November, following the modus operandi of his Western allies, Meles convened his spurious parliament to sanction a “declaration of war” on Somalia.  In an overtly provocative way, Meles was quick to denounce Somali’s Union of Islamic Courts (IUC) and immediately declared war against Somalia in effort to defend the Ethiopian “sovereignty,” as he boasted to “crash them” in a matter of weeks. 

In other words, Meles Zinawi’s recent aggression against Somalia by sending his forces in support of the TFG's fledgling interim government, he single handedly escalated the stakes of chaos, poverty, and death in the Horn of Africa.  As the first “phase” of the war comes to an end, the whole region of Horn of Africa is bracing for a full blown-out war that will only compound the suffering of the people in the region. However, military hubris has never proved to be an effective approach to winning a war – maybe few skirmishes.  In fact, Ethiopia by recapturing several stronghold cities from the IUC by deploying copious weapons and warplanes, with the reckless backing of both the African Union (AU) and Western countries, in order to thwart “Taliban-like” regime that is taking root in the Horn of Africa, does not prove that it is winning the war.  Israeli comes to mind, for instance, when last summer its military forces deployed its army “first-class” forces into Lebanon, in order to destroy the relatively weak army of the Hezbollah militia.  Israel found otherwise when Hezbollah militia inflicted enormous casualties on the highly trained and well equipped Israeli forces.  This war has put to rest the “old” theory that military might based on sophisticated technology is the only means to win wars.  Another example is the American involvement in Iraq.  Both conflicts have demonstrated that public support is the means to military success in guerrilla wars, not conventional military muscle alone.

While there might have been some misgivings among the Somali people in the country and in the Diasporas, with regards to the future plans of the UIC, as most people have feared about the Islamic Courts’ public executions as an omen of ruling the country in a Taliban-style.  Nevertheless, in general, in all of the regions in Somalia under their control, people were consensus that the UICs have restored the basic rule of law and brought back order and civility for the people since the Siad Barre era.  In the contrary, neither Meles’s “Dogs of War” nor the feeble government of President Yusuf have enough public support to restore peace and security in the country.  The UIC, on the other hand, still retains enough support from the grassroots to support their struggle against what they regard of a puppet government Meles Zinawi and his wild hegemonic ambitions in the region. Finally, the interim Somali government led by President Abdullahi Yusuf and his Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Ghedi will be committing a historical blunder if they believe that they will rule, let alone unite the country through the barrel of the gun, while relying the aid of foreign forces, instead of creating a consensus among the various groups who have a stake in the country.

Heikal I. Kenneded

Washington, D.C.

heikalk@yahoo.com

“What's in it for me?”

 By Heikal Kenneded

Friday, July 20, 2012

In 2011, President, Speaker of Parliament and PM offices spent more than US$12.6 million, representing almost quarter of total TFG expenditure

With barely a month to go before Somalia exits the transitional federal government system, set to expire on August 20^th is plagued by embarrassment and uncertainty due to the recently leaked report by the UN Monitoring Group. The report alleges that funds allocated for development and reconstruction are unaccounted for and most likely disappeared into the deep pockets of the highest echelons of the government officials in which “out of every US$10 received by the TFG in 2009-10, US$7 never made it into state coffers.  In 2011, almost one quarter of total TFG expenditure (over US$12 million) was absorbed by the offices of the three top leaders -- the President, Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament.”  This is really a startling report that further complicates things, not to mention dampening the morale of many Somalis who finally thought the country was turning a corner and better days were ahead. For Somalia, the main challenges can be broken down into security, poverty alleviation and governance. Though some headways have been made on the security front lately, but the last two interlinked challenges have proven to be so intractable that they threaten the very existence of the country.

This damning UN report follows on the heels of last year’s World Bank report that also alleged President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed and the Parliamentary Speaker, Sharif Hassan Sheikh Aden “misplaced $120m in aid money from 2009 to 2010.” The pattern is eerily familiar, abundant cash money donated by Middle Eastern Gulf States are diverted into personal accounts, while unscrupulous business deals are cut with shady characters. To illustrate the pervasiveness of the corruption in the country, the UN Monitoring Group’s report coins a new phrase “What's in it for me?” This rare slip quoted from a senior Somali government official involved in the transitional government's finances who was describing the blatant corruptive attitude of most of these fraudulent officials by saying, “Nothing gets done in this government without someone asking the question: “What's in it for me?” As usual, the TFG leadership tried to counteract the damaging report as "unsubstantiated allegations"and full of conspiracy concocted by Matt Bryden, coordinator of the Monitoring Group, whose sole intention is to “divide the country.” Despite the categorical repudiation of the alleged corruption charges detailed in the UN report by the President, the Prime Minister and the PM Speaker, however, it is no longer enough to claim innocence but necessary to prove themselves above suspicion with “robust rebuttal,” as counseled them by the UN's special representative to Somalia, Mr. AugustineMahiga.

Further, the report alleges, “The principal impediments to security and stabilization in southern Somalia are the Transitional Federal Government leadership’s lack of vision or cohesion, its endemic corruption and its failure to advance the political process.” The striking thing about this report is how widespread is the corruption in all government levels. It is particularly unfortunate that the most educated and enlightened Somalis from the Diaspora who promised transparency and good governance, but their legacy now turns out anything but. Reading the report makes one cringe and lose all hope on future Somali leadership. In some ways, the timing of this report is crucial for the ongoingcomplex process of adopting a new constitution and electing a new government in Somalia. In other words, all parties involved in electing a new parliament and a new president may very well need to treat the MP and eventually presidential selection very differently from the past elections. Since the solution to the problem of corruption is closely tied to bad leadership could only be resolved through conscious efforts in regards of the government and the governed. Thus, the upcoming MP and presidential elections should not be guided as much by nepotism as by bribery but rather qualifications and clear vision that entail a genuine presidential job description. It is important for instance, that the bubbling number of presidential candidates is cut down to no more than ten candidates worthy of the country’s colossal challenges. In fact, most of these candidates lack a clear agenda to lead the country out of the current quagmire. Despite much boasting of higher education qualifications, most of these candidates lack the necessary skills for presidential caliber. Each candidate should be required to provide unequivocal vision for the top job.

More strikingly is how the UN Monitoring Group’s report shines a light on the lack of trust between Somalia’s war weary populace and the alleged lords of corruption whose debauchery defies all morals of leadership especially in the feeble economy of the country. Fixing that slipping trust will require genuine efforts of confidence building in the next government. But this does not mean it is unfeasible.

---

Heikal I. Kennededheikalk@yahoo.com
Washington D.C.

The Music Stops

By Heikal I. Kenneded
Wednesday, November 20, 2013

The troubling revelations about the recent disagreement brewing between the Somali President and the Prime Minister provide further evidence, if any were needed, that political stability is as far from a reality in Villa Somalia, as many supporters professed in the recent past. This latest political discord between the President and his Prime minister comes against the backdrop of increasing attacks of Al-Shabab forces in the capital and around the country. Not to mention new allegations of corruption by the recently resigned Central Bank Governor, Ms. Yusur Abrar who resigned only after seven weeks in the job because she was overwhelmed with the amount of corruption that’s still going on in the country, and “feared for her life” ensuing threats from businessmen associated with the President. This has demoralized the minds of every Somali who had hoped this time around the country was turning a corner and the blaming-game politics were no longer the norm. Now that the music has stopped and much of the innuendo has been debunked that all’s well and dandy in the working relations among the highest echelons of government, they need to come clean and show some contrite for their failures, instead of censuring each other like schoolchildren.

President Hassan Sheikh’s first months in office were a time of vaulting grandiose, laden with high hopes that he might heal the country as he captured the hearts and minds of the rest of the world with his wide smile. They were soon dashed, however, with the debacle of mishandling the affairs of the Jubaland state, where the President squandered much needed political capital to rebuild and reunite the country. In his first year, President Hassan Sheikh made two inept blunders vis-à-vis of forming his new government. Despite of choosing the most experienced man for the Prime Minister position - acritical job in a country suffering from all sorts of malaise, the President instead selected the least likely experienced candidate for the job from a pool of over-qualified Somali professionals from all over the world. Apparently, he made this choice in his scheme to undermine the Prime Ministerial position so that he could run the country willy-nilly, without any interference from neither his prime minister nor from the parliament. Second, the President squandered his political capital by forming a ministerial government based on the notorious 4.5 system, a complete disregard to a rigorous meritocratic system.

Ever since Prime Minister Said Shirdon was nominated by President Hassan Sheikh, things have not gone right for him and his role seemed suspicious, not to mention few accomplishments. Having afforded little leverage to deal with the myriad of problems facing his new federal government, he comfortably took a backseat and peaked the chips fall where they may from the reading glasses anchored on the bridge of his nose. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister should have taken the opportunity to get all the leverage the constitution allowed him to serve in his capacity to move the country in the right direction, instead of kowtowing to every whim of the President, as though he was his secretary. In an effort to quell a swelling tide of alarming pessimism, Prime Minister Said last week commented on his disagreement with the President was not a “political” one but rather a “constitutional” one. As if that weren’t enough, the media revealed that both these heads of government were competing to court as many MPs as possible to side with either one of them in the hope that things will eventually be settled in front of the parliament.

Most Somalis have long worried that this new administration might end up like its predecessors and soon enough become dominated by personal disagreements, resentments and political paralysis among its top leaders, which might ruin the chances for the country to put its house in order. Nonetheless, the parliament has a huge role to play in this latest disagreement between the government’s two highest states and not wait until things get out of hand that might imperil the sheer existence of this government. Apparently, the Constitution has not clearly delineated when it comes to crisis-management of this type for who has the last-say of sacking the government. In my opinion, it only makes sense that if the Constitution in the first place empowered the President to freely elect the Prime Minister, he should have the supreme power to dismiss him, at will.

Going forward

In truth, the President might have felt compelled to replace his Prime Minister only after one year in the job, but in the first place he should have given him a free reign to run his administration, instead of overshadowing him and acting as the “One-Man” government like most African dictators. And then he could have had legitimately blamed him for insufficient performance that warranted his removal. Apart from allowing him to pay visit to some of the inconsequential posts as though he was his vice-President because all along the Prime Minister looked like the odd man out. Maybe, the coupling of these two heads of state was doomed from the get go because it was based on assumed friendship and mutual backing of each other against all calamities.  This is because the President seemed to relish the job of the Prime Minster and vice versa. But, the shocking reaction to their political disagreement by all sides should give the President an impetus to bring about a speedy resolution without risking any remaining political capital, if any is left.

In the short run, the President faces two stark choices, he could either make a deal with the current Prime Minister in which he gives him a face-saving limited time to improve his performance to regain of his confidence, otherwise resign, or insist on his first decision that the Prime Minister resigns immediately and submit his new candidate to the parliament pending to form a new government. In fact, the first choice would be unappealing to the President because of the possibility of coming out as a weak leader who couldn’t stand on his ground when it came to house cleaning, while the second choice would be as well a risky one by selecting another Prime Minister who could stir things up for the President and might not remain as docile as the current one, which at the end could back fire.

History’s verdict is quite often hard to predict when it comes to those who dropped the ball and failed the nation in its most critical moment. The most fundamental is that President Hassan Sheikh and Prime Minister Said must put their differences aside and put the country’s welfare first and foremost. However, if these leaders fail to resolve their differences for the sake of saving the nation, history will judge them both harshly and will never forgive them for botching the best opportunity the nation received for the last two decades. In other words, both critics of President Hassan Sheikh and many of his admirers would like to see greater political engagement and resolve in handling this latest rift between him and his Prime Minister in order to save the country from the perils of political chaos. Finally, there are duties, often stemming from promises the President made when he initially came to the office a year ago, including smooth governing, fighting corruption to the bone and enduring peace. These have been shirked until now. 

---

Heikal I. KennededWashington D.C.heikalk@yahoo.com

The Miseducation of Edna Adan

By Heikal Kenneded

June 22, 2012

For the first time in over two decades highest level of political envoys from Somalia and its breakaway republic of Somaliland have met in London, UK to discuss some of the most substantive and politically nettlesome issues facing the two states, in the hope of forging a new vision of coexistence and peace. Though this latest round of talks failed to produce any tangible results that could be hailed as groundbreaking, but the return to the table of both parties apparently marks a sharp change of events on both sides. Progressive meetings like this one in the future, however, could be hijacked by hardcore secessionist advocates, such as the firebrand speeches of Edna Adan who at last month’s Somaliland Conference in Brussels, Belgium reiterated some of the most divisive discourse that could drive a further wedge between the southern and northern Somalis.

Ms. Edna Adan who’s lionized by many human rights advocates around the world could have pointed out several of her personal achievements in the north of Somalia, such as her various profit charities, including her celebrated
Maternity and Teaching Hospital in Hargeisa that provides quality medical services for women in the north. Instead, in her self-serving speech in Brussels, she portrayed Somaliland as the only “true” nation-state of Somalia worthy of a self-rule, while the Somalia proper is no more than a dangerous pond full of “pirates, warlords and terrorists.” Parading Somaliland as a beacon of democracy and intolerance, Edna further resorted to using a mix of victimization and scary tactics catered to bamboozle and miseducate her uninformed young audience and the few Western diplomats present in the conference.

In her fiery speech, Ms. Edna Adan indulged in the melodrama about a whole generation of young Somali Northerners is on the edge of being recruited as pirates and as suicide bombers by Al-Shabab, unless the International community recognized Somaliland’s independence from the rest of Somalia proper. Courting the International community this way, however, would be a grave mistake due to the different reality on the ground. In addition, to resolve terrorism and piracy problems in the Horn of Africa do not lie in the recognition of secessionist states like the so called Somaliland but rather empowering and supporting all civic societies in different regions and clans who are working towards good governance and democracy.

Contrary to the way Ms. Edna Adan portrayed Somalia in her recent invective speech to demonize her brethren in the South; Somalia is not a nation that can be solely defined by pirates, terrorism and warlords. Somalia, like many other African nations in the continent has gone through a severe postcolonial identification crisis that went deep in the heart of its very existence. Indeed, Somali’s current rigorous reconciliation process speaks volumes about its incremental evolution towards peace, especially to some of these complexities -- particularly the parallel challenge of adopting a new constitution and electing a new government.  In contrast, the key to understanding Ms. Edna Adan’s illusions about Somalia’s fledgling status quo lies with her colonial mentality of being stuck in a political and territorial demarcations concocted by the Western colonizers in Africa. No wonder she still prefers to call the north and south of Somalia respectively – British Somaliland and Somalia-Italiana. In fact, the so called “Somaliland” was nothing but the unfortunate product of Europe's imperial expansion into Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the “Scramble for Africa.”

In her tirade, Edna complained, “who in their right mind would want to unite with Al-Shabab, pirates or terrorists?!’ In other words, it’s easier to gloat and deride your brothers when they are downtroden and misfortune has collapsed on them, instead of working to find a common ground of understanding. But we shouldn’t be surprised to hear such cheap shots from the likes of Edna Adan who made a career out of playing the victimization card to her international sympathizers while tirelessly working to hoist flame between the peoples of the north and south of Somalia. The irony in all of this is that northern Somalia’s relative peace could be argued was achieved at the cost of neglecting and destroying southern Somalia.

Sadly, the merits of Edna’s argument are not even worth disentangling them here since they’re preposterously obvious to the elementary grade level. Thanks to the information age, it’s impossible to lie about history and fabricate baseless allegations against those people that you do not like. On all accounts, Ms. Edna Adan assumes by discrediting the unstable status quo in Somalia and by denigrating the rest of the Somali people as a bunch of uncivilized terrorists scrambling in a failed state will win her the hearts and minds of the West. Yet taking a compassionate stance towards southern Somalia’s current destabilized state due to the logical consequence of toppling the dictatorship regime might bring the required affect.

Finally, there’s no question that the Isaq clans in the north of Somalia, as well as most other clans in the south suffered terribly under the Siyad Barre dictatorship regime. But strangely, Ms. Edna Adan would have preferred to be recolonized by the “Old” British Empire than to remain united with the rest of Somalia proper. This sort of outdated colonial thinking is what exactly perplexes most Somalis who are more or less warmed up to the reality or fantasy of Northern Somalia seceding from the rest of Somalia.  Most question whether it’s so debasing to be Somali that one would wish to be rather “enslaved” by White colonists who look down on all Africans as uncivilized savages. In fact, Edna Adan and those who think alike must still live in another era and another century that none of us would wish to visit for one day.

Heikal I. Kenneded

heikalk@yahoo.com

Washington D.C.

Government of Laws not Men

By Heikal I. Kenneded

November 23, 2004

The great maxim goes on to say “the truth that is suppressed by friends is the deadliest weapon of the enemy.”  A just country can support only a just society; therefore, the rule of law must come before anything else that comes out of the peace process. Much lip service has been paid to the "rule of law" early in the Mbagathi peace process, spearheaded primarily by Professor Abdi Samatar and like-minded civic society with the intent to instill some civility in the dark minds of the warlords.  However, the rule of law should be the very core of any new government formed in the process.  Its principle should dictate that we have a government of laws, not men.  This means that no man is above the law and that the law restrains government itself.  The law is not an end in itself, but a necessary means to preserve our liberties.  For instance, if the president happens to be a man of lesser virtue, then the rule of law has to restrain him so that he has no authority to wield his executive power arbitrarily and capriciously.  However, laws don't work, “unless they merely codify generally accepted behavior,” in which case they are probably unnecessary.  Thus experience should teach us the rule of law alone could save our society from any decree by utter brute power however disguised.  Unless we wish to prolong our notorious “failed state” status that we have been depicted all around the world, we need to start governing by the rule of law. 

The current Somali peace process underway in Mbagathi, Nairobi, is finally moving ahead with some tangible developments.  Despite the expectations brought by this long-overdue peace process, the warlords are trying to undermine every chance of a successful outcome.  Equipped with their plundered wealth and with the backing of over-drugged gangster soldiers, they are dedicated to the persistence of the anarchy and the lack of the rule of law in Somalia.  In effect, throughout our country, human rights violations remain endemic, including murder, looting, destruction of property, child soldiering, kidnapping, oppression of minorities, and denial of due process by local authorities.  The only solution to such dire and rampant violations of human rights and the hope of restoring law and order to our country, where the AK-47 remains the ultimate authority, is the implementation of the rule of law.

The basic idea of the rule of law is rather multifaceted and comprehensive.  First, the rule of law is the course by which human activities can be governed and is indispensable to a secular and democratic society like ours.  Second, under the rule of law, the principal driving force of the legal system is to direct and restrict the actions of government officials. There must be laws regulating the authority of the government, and its officials’ behavior must comply with legal rules.  Moreover, these laws should clearly outline the constitutional functions of the government.  Third, the rule of law inevitably assumes the existence of rights.  The law should sustain the diverse rights that modern concepts of citizenship demand.  When the government violates its power, citizens should have the right to bring suit against the government.  Since the standing of the individual citizen is weak in comparison to the power of the state, citizens require legal protection against government infringement and disenfranchisement.  Fourth, judicial independence is critical to the rule of law.  Under the rule of law, judges should recognize that the courts are the forums of last remedy to which the citizens turn to resolve their disagreements with each other or with the government.  Judges are the final guardians of the rights of citizens.  If this final remedy of judicial recourse fails to execute its task, or if these forums of last remedy are abused, the country deteriorates into anarchy.  Because of their enormous significance, society should not uncomplainingly bear the blunders or indiscretion of its judges.  In other words, the rule of law is actually the rule of the courts.

Gangster State

Because of our ethnic, religious and cultural homogeneity, Somalia is the only political entity on the African continent that is a “nation” in the real sense of the word.  Yet we are “atomized across the fault line of clan.” Contrary to this situation, throughout the world Somalia has been depicted as a textbook example of a “Gangster State.” There is no doubt that the political and social failures of our state stem mainly from the lack of a proper constitution that maintains the responsibilities of civic duty among all men.  Since our country’s independence, our governments were mainly made up of men, virtually at every level; in effect, we have collectively witnessed the dreads of tyranny and various degrees of chaos.  Since the overthrow of the brutal regime of Siad Barre by the USC militia, our country has been in turmoil due to civil war, chaos, anarchy, bloodshed, horror, barbarism and devastation in the highest degree.  All of these have proven to the rest of the world that in Somalia the rule of law is not worth the paper that it is printed on because tribalism and warlordism prevails over all else. 

It is understandable that our tribal society has never instituted or implemented any governing constitution relevant throughout the country because we could never protest our leaders' subversion of the law. We have lived all along not under the rule of legitimate authority, but under the rule of clans.  The habit we have fallen into of allowing some tribal leaders to single-handedly create chaos, in deliberate violation of international human rights, undermines the rule of law, which is the fundamental keystone of any civilized society.  The intriguing question that anyone in his/her right mind might ask is: why would anyone put up with machine guns and roadblocks laid by unrepresentative warlords supported by a bunch of gangsters?  The fact of the matter is the shameless motives of these warlords for obstructing the peace process, simply stem from the fact that they do not wish to see their rampant acquisition of wealth and power be proscribed by a Somali government presiding over the rule of law.  Because in the presence of a firm rule of law, these warlords will no longer be allowed to dictate to our country, to regional authorities, and to the majority of peace-loving Somalis.  And if so clearly understood by all, then peace and restoration of nationhood to Somalia is not that far off.  But can we never do anything of the status quo? That which we have done for decades is also inaction.  Once we realize that the status quo is stagnant, we can then compare its discernable advantages and disadvantages with the predicted outcome of inaction.  On the basis of such analysis, we can then make the rational decision of choosing the path for a just and democratic society. 

Instituting the rule of law will entail a two-step process, regarding: (1) bringing to justice those implicated in human rights abuses throughout the country and (2) reestablishing the justice system to institute law and order and protect the rights of all citizens.  It will first be crucial to dismantle and disband the various warlord territorial systems that have been used to control the country, while dissolving or otherwise administering their forces to ensure they do not become "spoilers" to the transition.  The Islamic courts should also be immediately abolished.  Implementing an effective rule of law strategy will also require close collaboration with the local authorities, religious leaders and citizens. It is has been argued in some circles that any clan-based societies like ours are "incapable of enforcing its laws;" therefore, they claim, "the state is no longer adequate to all, and therefore ceases to exist."  Nevertheless, while this theory appeals to some, legally or otherwise, it holds no water.  Under the law, lack of proper enforcement of existing laws does not constitute that they shouldn't be followed; it doesn't mean that anyone or any entity, which neither likes nor cares about the existing laws, can randomly enact new laws.  In fact and in spirit, it is given and negotiated among law-abiding citizens that laws will always be on the books, until they are properly appealed or amended by the proper authorities with the proper jurisdiction. All reasonable men empathize that the rule of law is what distinguishes civilized men from the uncivilized, law-abiding citizens from criminals.

Unfortunately, the course of action that is being pursued in the current Mbagathi peace process is mainly focused on choosing the right number of seats for every tribe, instead of trying to install a concrete rule of law, which is impregnable to corruption and chaos.  It may be true that we need more honest men in the seat of the presidency and the parliament, but it may also be true that we need stricter laws and additional enforcement of all civic duties.  It is now obvious the solution of our dilemma is rooted in the implementation of the rule of law.  It is essential that the civic society desist from the obstructionist attitude of the warlords of undermining the efforts to achieve peace.  It would be absolutely unacceptable to allow the success of reconciliation to depend on the caprices of these warlords. The first step for the new government should be to break the cycle of impunity for those who commit criminal acts of violence.  Thus, it must provide our long suffering society with security, stability, personal safety, and the undertaking that transparent law enforcement and judicial processes present the same protections and penalties for all citizens.  Such new government will need the help of the international community in undertaking this task. The international community has to make instant advancement in this area; without it, the success of any new government will be endangered by a loss of credibility and an entrenchment of wanton crimes, extra-judicial processes, and terrorist activities.

It is evident in the recent dramatic arrest of faction leader Hussein Aideed in Nairobi on charges of reneging on a business deal with a Kenyan businessman how perishable is the bubble power of these warlords against an effective rule of law.  Hussein Aideed who never stood before a court of law for the crimes committed by his militia’s wanton human rights abuses of deliberately and arbitrarily killing women and children throughout the Bay regions, seemed very vulnerable and panicky during his arraignment.  He has been under the illusion of being above the rule of law, but this recent incident was a major blow to his grand delusion of being immune to future criminal charges committed against humanity.

Separation of Religion from State

By the fall of the Siad Barre regime, no civil courts were functioning in Somalia because the three-tier national judicial system based on the 1962 Criminal Code could not be implemented in effect of the pervasive chaos throughout the country. Although local authorities have attempted to oversee some type of justice, few Somalis felt secure from retaliation based on clan loyalties.  Thus the void created by the lack of a functioning government aided the development of the role of Islamic courts. In the past, many of these Islamic courts were used to settle property disputes; however, they are now increasingly adjudicating criminal cases.  Currently, the Islamic courts are applying a very strict interpretation of the Shari'a law and rendering verdicts.  In fact, these unceremonious courts are not uniform and do not provide for procedural safeguards, which comply with accepted international standards for a fair trial.  For instance, the right to appeal the verdict of the Islamic courts does not exist and defendants often do not get proper legal counsel.

As a result, both national and international human rights organizations have observed serious violations of human rights principles and international law during the implementation of the extension of Sharia law to specific criminal cases. Thus, it is imperative that our constitution should be based in the separation of the State from Religion. Many religious people will argue that such an idea is anathema to our Islamic religion, but I tend to differ and believe that religion has no place in the circles of politics.  In a democratic and secular society, it is crucial to break away from domination by religion and religious leaders.  The fact that a practical separation of politics and religion in Islam is reasonable is based on the idea that no human being can rightly judge another as being a "sinner."  Such judgement is made exclusive to God, because only God has the knowledge of what lies in the deepest of one’s soul.  Since society has no place on judging a person like that, this means that they also cannot judge a political leader like that, thus leading to the principle that the community of believers should accept the authority of any leader, even if he appears unjust.

The values of our religion should definitely be included in making the rules of law.  Certain restrictions, however, should be made to the Sharia law, such as the stoning of adulterers and the amputation of the limbs of those who steal.  These laws should be regarded as sheer laws of the society at a certain time, so that there would be no reason to institute by such dated laws today because of their inherent cruelty.  In fact, by allowing such strict Sharia laws to coexist within our secular constitutional framework, we will be shortchanging our basic human rights and marching self-crippled into the 21st century.  Thus, a separation of State and Religion should be a prerequisite for ending the pervasive human rights violations in our country.

While there have been numerous debates on the issue of the separation of the State and Islam, there has never been a comprehensive case-by-case critique of the Somali State.  Hence, all of the gritty details must be exposed and articulated in a way that is accessible and intelligible to the average citizen before the religious fanatics impose their will on society.  If at the end we cannot succeed in determining what role religion should play in our constitution, at least we can attempt to deter any future abuses of interpretation of religion by the religious leaders. State laws from Hammurabi’s Code to contemporary international establishments have all been designed for the governing of nations and the decentralization of power among institutions. Distraction from the rule of law will only perpetuate social failures, tyranny, and a failed state such as ours.  Finally, the international community has the important role of supporting the peace process, and fostering the establishment of the rule of law and the creation of independent national, political and judicial institutions in Somalia.

Godspeed to form a viable, legitimate and representative Somali government.

Heikal I. Kenneded

Washington, D.C.

KennededH@state.gov