For those who do not know Mr. Matt Bryden, he is, the director of a Nairobi-based United Nations funded-project for the Horn of Africa which is being implemented by his organization, the International Crisis Group (ICG) The stated objective of the project is to undertake analytical reports that are supposed to address the problems of a failed state like Somalia and the challenges of state building. Such reports are supposed to contribute towards the peace and reconciliation process in the strive-torn country. Alas, that is not what is happening on the ground and this is what this article is all about.
If the project-related activities were all that Mr. Bryden was doing, we would have had little reason to question his goings-on. In reality, we have much to worry about as his other activities go much beyond those prescribed in the project- which is already over ten-years old without making any dent on its declared objectives. Rather than being guided by the project objectives, Mr. Bryden has gone out of his way to hinder Somalia’s recovery, unity and stability by pursing non-project, anti-Somalia agendas. The fact of the matter is that the project merely serves Mr. Bryden as a cover-up for engaging in wider, anti-Somalia, covert and overt activities According to his résumé, as published in the internet, his field of interest and activities includes following:
- Somaliland’s struggle for independent statehood;
- Terrorism and counter terrorism in the Horn of Africa; and
- Islam in the Horn of Africa
Of the three areas listed above, the two bottom ones, namely terrorism and Islam, would have been considered in a normal world as non issues in the case of Somalia. Despite baseless and self-serving allegations by Ethiopia, there are no known terrorists of whatever political or religious hue in Somalia in the way it’s universally now understood. All the same, any allegations, whether false or not, that are made these days against a Muslim country, especially a failed one like Somalia, that is so close to the Arab World and strategically bordering the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, is for the Americans like a red rag to a bull. Ethiopia has exploited to the full the prevailing American psyche and its war on terrorism and like other countries fighting Muslim dissidents has made the most of it while the going is good. It has tarred as all those anti Ethiopian Islamists in Somalia as terrorist supporters of Al-Qaeda as well as all those who resist its colonization of the Somali territory, historically known as the Ogaden. With the help of outsiders like Mr. Bryden, Ethiopia has presented its fight against Somalis whether in its territory or in Somalia as part of the wider international war on terrorism. Its client, puppet neighbour, Somaliland, never one to lose an opportunity to please Ethiopia and the West, has also jumped on the bandwagon hoping to reap some political and financial dividends by joining a phantom war on terrorism. As evidence of its commitment, it has arrested some hapless Ogadeni residents in Hargeisa and handed them to Ethiopia while detaining others alleged to be members of ONLF. As a director of a UN funded project, he is technically a UN staff member who should confine himself to his strictly defined project functions. But his tentacles now go well beyond the project and his stake holders now include the USA, Ethiopia and all those who are bonded together under the war on terrorism. The victim is Somalia- the very country that Mr. Bryden was supposed to help.
Of all the three areas listed above, it is the third area which is the most worrisome, namely his support for the independence of Somaliland. Mr. Bryden, whose wife hails from the secessionist enclave, has become more catholic than the Pope in his attachment to the breakaway region. He and the secessionists share the view that the longer the rest of Somalia persist in its lawless, stateless turmoil, the better are the prospects for Somaliland’s recognition. Those who wish to keep Somalia in its failed state have pursued their aims on a number of fronts:
- Denying Somalia by whatever means the emergence of a government; or if one does emerge, to render it defenseless so that it withers away like the one of Abdulkasim Salaad Hassan;
- Derailing it by abetting and intensifying the internal divisive conflict between the warring functions;
- Opposing the deployment of foreign forces; and
- Blocking the lifting of the arms embargo against Somalia.
Mr Bryden has been active on all these fronts.
- He sided with the warlords and their hangers-on in Mogadishu against the president and prime minister;
- He has advised, in the name of ICG, against lifting of the United Nations arms embargo against Somalia that would have allowed the government to defend itself against the well-armed warlords or to progressively maintain law and order in the regions;
- He has also opposed the deployment of peacekeeping forces from neighboring countries in Southern Somalia.
All these actions, separately or together, amount to denying Somalia a functioning government and translate into perpetuating its crisis and stateless condition. Such actions could ultimately lead to the end of Somalia as a country to the benefit of the secessionists and Ethiopia. While this might be a prospect too horrible for most patriotic Somalis to contemplate, it would be seen as a blessing by others. It would not only guarantee ICG a permanent role in a perennially malfunctioning Somalia, but it could also help Somaliland gain recognition on the assumption that an international community giving up on Somalia could become more favourable to Somaliland.
Mr. Bryden's discreet support for the recognition of Somaliland’s independence is now something of the past. Lately he has stridently gone public. In his latest public statement, he was interviewed by the Voice of America (VOA) few days ago in which he stated, referring to Somaliland, that the “breakaway republic’s claim to recognition is “consistent with the AU charter.” He added: “Having once been an independent state, Somaliland’s claim to independence is probably stronger than that of territories such as Eritrea and Western Sahara that are already members of the AU.”
Unless Mr. Bryden is talking through his hat, there is no article in the AU charter that would sanction the secession of one or two clans from the rest of an AU member country. The fact that the secessionist enclave used to be at one time a British colony and had enjoyed independence for a couple of days as Mr. Bryden argues have no bearing whatsoever on the conditions required for recognition. What counts is the act of union that superceded that brief independence that henceforth made it a region of Somalia as now internationally recognized. Somaliland’s independence could be open to consideration by the AU if it had, firstly, the concurrence of the Federal government and parliament; secondly the approval of the population in a referendum held throughout the country; and thirdly, and no less importantly, if the clans/regions in former British Somaliland all subscribe to the secession It goes without saying that no dissenting region, such as Sool. Eastern Sanaag and Cayn, would be forced to be part of Somaliland even if most Somalis in the rest of Somalia endorse its separation. In other words, those who want to break from Somalia are free to do so and those who want to remain in Somalia have their inalienable right to do so. But these are all moot points since Somalia will never agree to the secession.
Mr. Bryden's argument that “Somaliland’s claim to independence is probably stronger than that of territories such as Eritrea and Western Sahara that are already members of the AU” does not hold water. Eritrea used to be an Italian colony and was entitled, like Somalia and Libya, to its independence after the defeat of Italy in the Second World War. Instead, it was forced against its will to be part of the Ethiopian empire. Its right to struggle against enforced Ethiopian rule was recognized by many countries. After the fall of Mengestu Haile Marian, the ensuing Ethiopia government headed by Meles Zenewi acceded to the independence of Eritrea. The case of Western Sahara is not much different. It too was a Spanish colony who were ready to grant its independence but was instead occupied by Morocco whose claim to the territory was rejected by the International Court in The Hague As a defiance of the Moroccan occupation and in recognition of the right of the territory to self determination, most African countries and the former Organization of African Unity recognized the sovereignty of the Sahrawi State. By contrast, former British Somaliland joined former Italian Somaliland not through occupation but through free will and choice. Only now is one dissenting clan has declared secession in the name of the people of former British Somaliland, a travesty of the reality.
Mr. Bryden can not be oblivious to the fact that the international community, ranging from the AU, UN, League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Conference, all recognize Somalia’s unity and territorial integrity. Somaliland’s independence for few days in June1960 is only of historical interest. On the other hand, if Somalia ceased to exist as a country, as a result of outside conspiracies and through our own self-inflicted wounds, then you can expect Somaliand, Puntland, Hiiraanland, Issaland, Darwiishland, Isaaqland, Awdalland, Hawiyeland, Raxanweynalnd, no man’s land, etc. to all go their different ways and seek statehood and recognition. A Pandora Box would have been opened whose repercussions will touch many fragile countries in Africa and particularly in the Horn. In his desire to promote Somaliland’s independence by destroying Somalia, Mr. Bryden is clearly playing with fire. He is an enemy in disguise. Beware Somalia.
Mohamoud Oogle
Email:Mohamoud_oogle@yahoo.co.uk |
|
 |