4000 Years of Illustrious History of Somalia and a Somali Renegade

In four earlier articles, entitled ‘The Nile, Egypt, Abyssinia, Somalia, and Somaliland’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/57815), ‘Nile Politics, Egypt, Sudan, Abyssinia, and the Horn of Africa’
(http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/58054), ‘Futureless Somaliland, Somalia, Abyssinia, and Egypt’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/58173), and ‘Somalia, Renegade Somaliland, and the Abyssinian Fear of Egypt’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/58297), I refuted Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse´s response to my earlier article ‘Kosova and Somaliland: the Impossible Equation’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53122).

Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse´s response seems to be a series of articles. Following his first response (entitled ‘Kosovo and Somaliland: the Impossible Equation – The Egyptian Position ‘), he came back with a second part that - like the first - was published in several East African portals; it seems he will go on, and I must admit that I find this juxtaposition as a very good opportunity for many East African readers (and not only) to seriously mull over the subject discussed.

Mr. Sabeyse´s second article, entitled ‘The Somali Irredentism and Regional Politics’ (http://www.somalilandtalk.com/node/3229), consists in an effort to present what was not delivered in the first diatribe, and more specifically to demonstrate that Egypt’s position against a formal recognition of the breakaway state of Somaliland is due to an Egyptian – Abyssinian rivalry. In this regard, Mr. Sabeyse fails again to provide any solid proof for his assumptions that resonate Abyssinian racist aberrations, historical forgery, and political trickery.

In the present article, I will complete my criticism of, and comments on, Mr. Sabeyse’s second article; I will first re-publish the uncommented part, and then comment extensively. Numbers encrusted in the text refer to my comments.

The Somali Irredentism and Regional Politics

By Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse

…………………………………………………..

The Somali creed is culturally, socially, ethnically, linguistically, and religiously a homogeneous society is a misnomer that no is longer applicable. 31 The same thing applies to the outdated misconception that "the unity, the sovereignty, the territorial integrity, and the national independence of Somalia is sacrosanct." 32 May I draw to the attention of the distinguished professor that the nations of the Arab League are homogeneous if culture, religion, language, and ethnicity 33 are the only criteria determining the characteristics of a unitary state? 34 The Somalis do not fit into that category. 35

The withdrawal of Somaliland from an ill-fated union 36 with Somalia is one of the latent symptoms of a much deadlier epidemic that fragmented and eventually consumed the Somali polity. 37 As a minimum, the Somali crisis merits an objective analysis of the causes in order to postulate a realistic conflict resolution programme. 38 The Egyptian government views 39 the unity of the old Somali Republic as a bulwark against any Ethiopian efforts 40 to divert the waters of the River Nile. This adds an unsettling new dimension 41 to an already volatile region. 42

For the benefit of the professor, the chronicles of the unitary Somali State will shed some light on this issue.

To be continued...

Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse

Comments

31. As misnomer is meant the national name of Mr. Sabeyse’s country! To carry out the disreputable work demanded by his Abyssinian boss, Mr. Sabeyse insults the name of his own country! What a brilliant achievement! And what an inane exploit! Mr. Sabeyse forgets that what is important in (the temporary state of) Somaliland’s name is Somalia itself. The second component or part added (-land) helps only differentiate the name of the unlawful state from the authentic name of the historical mainland of the Horn of Africa, Somalia. At the colonial times, the British introduced the term in order to distinguish their colonial territory, and make the name more familiar at the international level. As term, Somaliland has no historicity, except the British colonial occupation; nothing more!

It would be preferable to name the country Awdal, as this would reflect a far greater historicity.

However, if the intention is to renounce and forget History, then this proves by itself that the Somaliland dictatorial regime is an outlaw fabrication that must be eliminated from Somalia’s territory.

The effort to build a non-Somali state on Somali territory is an inimical act against the entire Somali Nation, and demonstrates clearly that the treacherous Hargeysa regime consists in an illegal occupation of Somali territory.

However, if Mr. Sabeyse represents a case of extreme modernism and wants just to obliterate the past, I have for him an easier task; considering that he is Somali native, I would like to suggest him to consider how to obliterate the Amhara / Tigray Abyssinian past first. With the Abyssinians forced to renounce their past and the racist and discriminatory ideas that they retrace in the forgery of Kebra Negast, the Somalis would be free to forget their past too!

32. The unity, the sovereignty, the territorial integrity, and the national independence of every nation, not Somalia’s, is ‘sacrosanct’; as long as a nation forms a state without comprising in it inhabitants belonging to another nation, the unity is sacrosanct. However, Mr. Sabeyse, in his Abyssinian method of utter paranoia, says that all the aforementioned is "outdated misconception". If it is so, then Abyssinia should be broken down first so that the oppressed nations and ethno-religious groups get liberated. Then, Somaliland should also be decomposed so that various ethno-religious groups cease to be oppressed and terrorized.

If Mr. Sabeyse imagines that the oppressed religious minorities of Somaliland will not take their case to the international bodies, he must be daydreaming.

33. Mr. Sabeyse’s parallel is totally irrelevant; no one can compare a group of nations with just one nation; the pertinent way of comparing is a nation with a nation, an organization with an organization, an international body with an international body, and a group of nations with a group of nations. Not only Somalia but any single, independent country cannot be compared with an organization!

Worse than this, it is completely erroneous to assume that the member-states of the Arab League are homogeneous; I already expanded on this in an earlier refutation of Mr. Sabeyse’s erroneous assumptions, in my article entitled ‘Futureless Somaliland, Somalia, Abyssinia, and Egypt’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/58173). There, I published the links of several articles of mine whereby I refuted Pan-Arabism; Mr. Sabeyse has to study them extensively before attempting to portray me as Pan-Arabist.

All the states of the Arab League are not Arabic but Arabic-speaking; Pan-Arabism has been instrumental in viciously transforming the Khammitic – Berberic face of Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, the Khammitic – Egyptian and Kushitic face of Egypt and Sudan, the Yemenite face of Yemen and Oman, and the Aramaean face of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and the Emirates to a confused pseudo-Arab appearance. Berberic, Coptic, Mehri & Soqotri, and Aramaic are the authentic languages for the aforementioned countries whereby Classical Arabic was only the religious language that gradually turned out to be a dead language with the creation of various mixed idioms that were all oppressed by the rise of the Pan-Arabist, colonial elites and the (made in France and England) arabization policies that imposed a fabricated version of pseudo-Arabic on all these - different from one another - nations.

For Mr. Sabeyse and readers who may have an interest, I mention here the links again: ‘The Secret Reasons of the Darfur Genocide: fake Arabic imposed on Non-Arabs’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/17560); ’End the Darfur Genocide – 21st Century´s Most Outrageous Crime Against Mankind’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/17925); ‘Modern Arabic: the Anglo-French Tool of Islamic Terrorism Promotion’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/17075); ‘Yemen and the fabrication of a bogus-Arabic nation’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/24981); ‘Pan-Arabism: the Inhuman Progenitor of Islamic Terrorism’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/41610). Useless to add, I never considered Somalia as an Arabic country, and I never wrote anything of the sort.

34. Language, origin (historical heritage - ethnicity), culture and religion are certainly the basic criteria to determine the identity of a nation. They are so either accepted and implemented among the Arab League member-states or not. Of course, these criteria are not properly perceived within the colonial Anglo-French fabrication named Arab League, but this is irrelevant of our discussion. The same criteria are accepted worldwide, and certainly apply to Somalia as well.

Even worse, Mr. Sabeyse seems not to understand what consists in the original fact. States do not matter; peoples do; nations do. The aforementioned criteria apply to nations; they are the criteria that determine the characteristics of an independent (and certainly unitary) nation. States come after; first a people exists as such, and then the people is organized into a state with a particular administration. States exist because nations exist. And those nations that have not yet formed an organized state, being oppressed by others, have the right to secede – like the Albanian Kosovars from Serbia – and form an independent state. An entire nation is entitled to a state, and on the contrary, there is no point that a group of people from a certain nation secede and form a secessionist state. This is the basic reason Somaliland has no right to independence. Of course, the Anti-Somali and Un-Somali character of the Hargeysa elite adds a lot to the aforementioned.

35. Of course, the Somalis fit the aforementioned criteria and are considered by all, academia and world political and diplomatic class, as one distinct and undivided nation.

36. Another meaningless aberration; why the ‘union’ was ill-fated? Mr. Sabeyse has nothing to say, and ultimately says nothing, because simply there is nothing to be said in support of this irrelevant statement! Except, we make of the personal rancor and hatred of some failed politicians the focus and the reason of a political decision making.

Even worse, there was never a ‘union’ between (inexistent before 1990) Somaliland and Somalia; following the termination of the colonial rule, the parts of Somalia that became free (Ogaden was not included) contributed to the inception of Independent and Free Somalia.

No one can pretend that a colonized and divided nation becomes ‘magically’ two parts, just because the two colonizing powers divided it among them. The nations are defined according to their historical heritage that reveals their unity. There was no union of two parts in 1960; there was an inception of a rightful and historically justified state - contrarily to the ailing colonial relic of Abyssinia the existence of which is not historically justified, and will soon be broken down to ten pieces.

37. Another, unconvincing Abyssinian composition; no deadly epidemic consumed the Somali polity. And because Mr. Sabeyse is unable to name the ‘epidemic’, he simply does not say anything, sticking to his unsubstantiated and hollow rhetoric. In fact, at the origin of Somalia’s misfortunate troubles there is only one reason: a heinous, rancorous and deeply inhuman enmity, a venom of discrimination and intentional mass extermination that emanated from the criminal minds of the Neo-Nazi Amhara and Tigray Abyssinian elites, who made of the Anti-Somali Hatred the epicenter of their concern for survival. This is what we have seen implemented over the past 17 years in Somalia. There are certainly many other, internal and external, factors but the original fact is the revengeful anti-Somali poison that fluctuates in the hearts of the Neo-Nazi Amhara and Tigary Abyssinian elites.

38. I have no doubt about this, but it was not my topic. I was writing about the incompatibility of the Kosova model with the Somaliland case.

39. Again the double aberration, namely the hypothetical association made between me and the Egyptian government, and the misinterpretation of the Egyptian foreign policy’s targets. Everything is said with no proof, justification, analysis or explanation.

40. Abyssinian efforts to divert the waters of the River Nile? This suggest automatically an intention to violate an international agreement. In other words, Mr. Sabeyse suggests that Abyssinia is a terrorist state that attempts to violate international agreements. His Abyssinian boss will probably slap him in his face for this terrible oversight! However, personally, I don’t agree with the idea that the Abyssinians deploy efforts to divert the waters of the River Nile; I believe they don’t plan to do so even in the wildest dreams!

When it comes to daylight reality, I must admit that the Abyssinians never attempted to do so either; I never saw thousands of Amharas ready to divert the waters of the River Nile … with their spoons!

Do they have any other means for the job that it takes?

This is up to Mr. Sabeyse to answer!

41. This starts another erratic approach; if Egypt pursued always this policy, why is this dimension ‘new’? It makes no sense.

42. ‘Volatile region’? Certainly when nations are oppressed like the tyrannized Oromos, Ogadenis, Sidamas, Afars, Kambatas, Shekachos, Kaffas, Agaws, Anuak, Wolayitas and others, when Somalia is exposed to genocidal practices carried out by the Abyssinian thugs of Meles Zenawi, when Somaliland tries to betray 4000 years of Somali History, then certainly the region is very volatile – but certainly not because of the outright majority of Somalis who passionately want to find themselves in a peaceful, free, and re-united Somalia.

Note
Picture: Ancient Egyptian descriptions of Punt highlight the 4 millennia long History of Somalia