CAN SOMALIA HOLD ITS GROUND

On July 22, 2019, a report by the New York Times published a stunning new revelation of  two rival Gulf states trading guns, cash, and profit in Puntland. United Arab Emirates and Qatar each supply "weapons and military training to favored factions...competing for contracts to manage ports or exploit natural resources, per the report," [1]. The report also warns of conflict escalation and potential destabilization of Northern Somalia as these two rival Gulf states employ Cold War tactics, largely viewing Somalia from the narrow lens of a client state.

Qatar did not dismiss the veracity of the secret recording that implicates a Qatari official in the alleged bombing of the Bossaso port and the assassination of the Emirati employee, rather it frames the recording as a private communication that does not reflect the official position of Qatar’s foreign policy toward Somalia. Qatar’s actions only served to embolden UAE’s dubious tactics to achieve its short-term hegemonic position at the expense of the fragile peace in Northern Somalia and by pitting one community against another.

Under the current model of federalism, semi-autonomous Somali regions have emerged to establish some formal ties with foreign governments without the knowledge of the Somali Federal Government. In juridical terms, this is a clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Somalia. 

UAE, for instance,  provides a systematic aid in the form of cash, weapons and military training to a paramilitary force in Bander Ziada (Qaw), a small coastal town. UAE contracted with the founder of the now defunct Blackwater company, Mr. Prince, using South African mercenaries. The paramilitary force was initially trained as coast guard to fight pirates and was stationed near the resource rich Dalan and Majihan area of Western Bari. It receives millions of USD from UAE to conduct various clandestine security operations under the pretext of fighting piracy; however, active piracy was at the time concentrated in the Nogal and parts of Mudug regions and have since either subsided or largely ceased following a concerted international response to protect the region’s vital shipping lanes.

Historically, the motives or strategic interest of foreign powers in the area  dates back to 1948.  Per a declassified report, British Proposal for Rectification of the Anglo-Italian Somaliland Boundary at Bender Ziada, both Britain and Italy considered this area, which includes Majihan and Dallan,  a “potential mineral belt". The Italians were the first to mine Mijihan (Magio Yihan), per the report. The British, then, desired to subsume the area in its old Protectorate and build a road and landing point for military consideration and a port as a "potential outlet for developments in mining and fishing industry". The report describes the Northeastern coast of the Protectorate as a territory largely "inhabited by the Warsangeli."

The Motives of UAE

After meeting with the director of Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ADCCI), Mr. Deni, Puntland’s president, gave an interview to a local media. He declared to defeat the militant group in Galgala mountains to “attract investors”, according to Bloomberg. Details of the meeting seem sparse and opaque but the ADCCI deputy director tweeted that they had discussed investment opportunities. UAE is aiming to achieve its several key objectives at the expense of peace in the region. First it wants Somalia to: (a) reconsider and reverse its policy of neutrality in the Saudi-led fight against the Hauthis of Yemen, (b) build military bases to possibly contain the spread of political Islam on the Gulf of Aden,  and (c) safeguard its commercial interest. Northern Somalia’s relatively stable political environment is hanging on the balance. 

Somali people have suffered under these policies  as UAE continues to apply various economic levers at its disposal (aid, sanctions, restricted visa travels). UAE has also backed Puntland and other member sub-states to coalesce and suspend any form of collaborative relationship aimed at state-building goals. This systematically undermines the confidence  and legitimacy of the Federal Government. The crisis in Jubaland has only exacerbated the current political turmoil and security challenges the country is in. The Federal Government attempted to create a balanced and less corrupt electoral process for Jubaland, but that plan failed due to the incumbent’s drive to run for another term in office against the insistence of other underrepresented communities who called for an inclusive political space  to secure their fundamental rights under a free and democratic process.  

A policy paper by a group of intelligentsia and former politicians from Puntland have even called for the abrogation of the Federal charter - the provisional constitution--in exchange of confederation—a system that parallels or subordinates the powers of the Federal Government to the States. Confederation is defined as a union of states. Under this model, the central government derives its legitimate authority from the States; essentially, it has no direct authority over the people. 

By contrast, in a system of federation as that of the United States, the model government is a system of union—both states and the federal government exercise and receive direct authority over the people[2]  with federal laws taking precedence over state laws. Others argue that a government that reaches the people is more important, irrespective of which system Somalis adopt to govern their affairs. A system of confederation, however, is a return to the state of nature as expounded by John Locke. Prior to the onset of collective Somali resistance against imperial powers, the concept of nation-state governed by a social contract between the people and the state was virtually nonexistent. Each Somali clan was sovereign and maintained a defined territory, defined population, and defined history to run its own affairs independent of external force.

We ask outside governments to respect Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; Systematic aid (humanitarian or otherwise) cannot substitute for the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; any contractual agreement, therefore, between a foreign state and Somali region should not be allowed to bypass constitutionally mandated national government agencies, in line with the president’s proclamation. Foreign policy is vested with the national government. Anytime the sovereignty of the country is on the line, Somalis are duty bound to defend the Nation from domestic and foreign enemies.

By Mohamed Elmi 

References

---

[1] Bergman, Ronen., Kirkpatrick, David. (2019, July 22). With Guns, Cash and Terrorism, Gulf States Vie for Power

 in Somalia. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/world/africa/somalia-qatar-uae.html

[2] Burns, J. M., & Peltason, W. j. (1972). Government by the people . New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. .

3. Central Intelligence Agency. (1948). British Proposal for Rectification of the Anglo-Italian Somaliland Boundary at Bender Ziada.