FIKRAD /OPINION

August 26, 2010 - QOL - Forward: Since the publication of part 1 – 4 of this article, I have been receiving substantial threats and mugs, yet my caravan of criticism is still ongoing. Today, before I proceed to the 5^th part of the article, I would like to clarify my aim of writing this article. My article does intend neither to create envy nor animosity. Neither also it intends to create confusion nor disintegration as some opined. Basically, what I am intending is to convey message of guidance to the young generation of Somaliland. The message is to indicate for them the practicality in their contemporary world so that they may focus on their interests collectively and individually, instead of living with hallucinations and mirages fabricated by the old SNM fascists.[1]      

Continued from Part 4.

Part 5:

            Unrealistic goals such as: emotional politics, inadequate evaluations, premature promotions or demotions, etc tend to produce both political failures and public disillusionments. Setting and promoting unrealistic political goals does not only confuse the young generation, but also leaves negative impacts on their mental health. It could directly or indirectly affect their future performances. They will keep asking themselves how they can turn the promise into political reality, despite the practical system in place, and reality in front of them. In this theme, I should be frank, critical and unemotional, because in the political arguments, one needs to involve in both synergistic and antagonistic characteristics.

            My experience in the Somali politics (including Somaliland) led me to the conclusion that unless we speak assertively and accept our shortcomings, we may never come into compromise. And if we never reach at consensus and compromise on our conflicts, we may not remain as a nation on the Horn of Africa. No doubt, lack of assertiveness[2]played a significant role in prolonging our civil war and anarchy. Now, let’s introduce to ourselves such a new behaviour of adopting assertiveness, acceptance and moderateness based on discretionary calculations. Blatantly speaking, our divergent clans[3]had never been sharing the cake of the politics fairly, but under super-ego versus low self-steam that led us to domination versus docility and, finally, theatricalised the big bang of confusions and conflicts. Now, let’s be realistic and come onto the carpet in equal base all together.[4] 

            Speaking from the international politics’ perspective, in the 21^st century, the whole world is working for reunion, amalgamation and assimilation. In fact, for the betterment of our modern civilization, we need to dissolve several existing states, and not to establish anymore states. Historically, it happened that the majority of the world’s communities had fallen under one rule at least twice: Othmania’s Islamic empire, and then, the Great Britain. During the last two centuries, we tested segmented states that increased as many as close to 200 states. Now the international politicians think about globalization which opts to reduce the statehood system and authority by shrinking governments and their powers, while motivating civilized civic societies. One of the reasons necessitating this idea is that scientists have recently realized that almost all domestic predicaments, natural and manmade, ultimately transform their effects to global echelon.

            Secondly, an apparent question is whether all the current states can independently survive without relying on any assistance. It is my finding that many states cannot survive by their own way. They need political, financial, technical, material, and moral assistances from others. Besides that, their citizens frequently or constantly need humanitarian aids from A to Z. As a result, many neo-politicians struggle for power just to have an access to the assistances extended by donors to the poor civilians. Moreover, some greedy men (women are rarely included) endeavour to associate an independent state of their own so that they will be able to receive assistances from donors of rich states and international organizations. Somaliland founders are nothing, but the best example of this category.   

            As politicians we should construct our political points of view on theoretical, hypothetical and in practice concurrently, without relying on merely one of the three. Being stick to only one – say hypothetical calculation - could mislead us and our future generations too. Practically, if we are enough smart we can assume of the kinds of changes we expect, but we don’t have the knowledge and mental capacity of understanding to say whether, when and how it will exactly happen. Thus, the key of our political analysis should be based on the views of our society collectively and not our personal greed and ego, or at least our emotional way of sketchy thinking. Our thinking must be based on analysis that is free from bias, personal interest and group interest as well. In other words, it should not be emerged out of animosity, clanism and nepotism. Only when a given politician is free from these disparaging concepts he or she can diagnose the norms of politics or at least can comprehend a significant part of its definition.

   It is not uncommon that self-styled politicians impinge qualified politicians, but the case of those of Somaliland has been extremely beyond limit. Yet they cannot convince even one of the world’s 196 countries for recognition. In breakdown, Somaliland cannot convince any of the African Union countries, any of the Non-Permanent Security Council states, any of the Permanent Members, or any of the General Assemblies. She cannot even compromise with her parent-state, Somalia, to give recognition so that she can easily obtain universal recognition unanimously.[5]

            According to Afyare Elmi[6] Somaliland cannot mobilise the lobbying efforts needed to deliver state recognition, due to lack of financial resources. Afyare highlighted only one factor of Somaliland’s obstacles to recognition (financial), but the encumbrance is not limited to it. There are political, financial, social, cultural, behavioural, historical, geographical, strategic, and characteristic phenomena that impair their unwanted efforts. There is no single country that has any interest in Somaliland in whatsoever; politically, economically, socially, strategically, and so on and so forth. A nation that can get recognition as a sovereign state is that enables to challenge with others by punishing the oppositions of her recognition, and at the same time, enables to reward those who fight for her recognition. The best practical example is that you cannot force anybody to become your friend unless he or she has an interest in you. In contrary to that, Somaliland seeks recognition just to increase the problem of Africa which is “begging the donors” (dawarsiga dunida deeqda bixisa).

            Some Somaliland self-styled politicians believe that the Western world have an interest in them due to their geographical strategy. However, it sounds necessary to remind them that the world has changed about 180 degrees. We are not in the era of the cold war, in which two powers were tussling over geographical strategies, political philosophies, military ideologies, and land and marine resources. One should realize that, today, the United States of America does not need any of military, political, economical, or social strategies from Somaliland. Even if we take into consideration that America has an interest in the Gulf of Aden, Djibouti is the right and ready state to covenant with.

            In short, Somaliland has no sufficient natural resources, manpower, mind assets, raw material, inherited capital, production, special skills, historical tributes, or market opportunities to attract any of the developed countries. Thus, there is no way of thinking it becoming an independent state. Dream is another issue.

To be continued... in the next Part – part 6, I will discuss the matter in depth, despite further threats are going on. I will focus on politico-economy sector.

Qasim Hirsi Farah

www.qasimhersi.com  Email:  qaasim@mail.com

 

Qasim Hirsi Farah

Former Presidential Candidate for Somalia, 2004.

www.qasimhersi.com  Email:  qaasim@mail.com