The Nile, Egypt, Abyssinia, Somalia, and Somaliland

It is strange how an earlier article of mine on the impossibility of an equation between Kosovo and Somaliland gave birth to an incredible reaction and article from the part of (a supposedly Somali of the breakaway and unrecognized state of Somaliland) Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse.

His attack, which is going to take the form of a series of articles, is not personal, but although phrased in civil terms, attempts to make a link between my subject and an imaginative array of issues that first, do not concern me, and second, are irrelevant to the topic of my aforementioned article.

I find therefore the reason to reply analytically, as this would help many realize that there is actually no apparent reason for the existence of Somaliland, except secret plans machinated among disastrous circles in America, and sheer expansionism of the Neo-Nazi regime of Abyssinia.

As I am going to republish the entire article in order to analytically comment various points therein included, I want only to state beforehand that things are certainly clear. There is no parallel between Kosovo and Somaliland.

No parallel between Kosovo and Somaliland

Kosovo is inhabited by another nation than Serbia, where it had belonged to, and has therefore right to national independence. Albanian Kosovars differ from the Serbs in terms of origin, language, culture and religion; Albanian Kosovars were oppressed and tyrannized for almost a century, ever since the Serbian army invaded their territory in the First Balkan War (1912).

Even worse, Albanian Kosovars were mercilessly persecuted in the winter 1998 – 99, as the masterminded Serbian plan aimed at bringing about the Albanian Kosovars’ forced expulsion or physical extermination in what can be called the 20th century’s last genocide.

Somaliland is not a separate, independent nation, as all the inhabitants of the breakaway and unrecognized state are Somalis. They speak absolutely the same language, and they worship the same religion; there is no cultural, social, behavioural difference among people in Kismayu, Mogadishu, Ras Hafun, Garowe, Laasqoray, Bossasso, Berbera, and Hargeysa.

Certainly the prevailing social infrastructure – due to lack of development – allowed the persistence of tribal traits, but this is meaningless; there are more differences between an Italian from Catania and an Italian from Milano than dissimilarities between a Somali from Berbera and a Somali from Mogadishu.

Needless to say it, in striking difference with what occurred in Kosovo, whereby a nation invaded and subjugated another nation, in Somalia we never attested a situation like that, precisely because the Somalis are all one nation – along with the Ogadenis.

Of course, the entire country was invaded by colonial empires, mainly Italy and Britain (and to a minimal extent France) in the beginning, and then Abyssinia (through the illegal transfer of the political authority in Ogaden from the departing British to the monarchical tyranny of Haile Selassie between 1948 and 1955). For the largest part of Somalia, 1960 signaled independence and unity. During the period of the Somali unity, an attempt was made to bring Ogaden out of the clutches of the murderous tyrants of the pro-Communist regime of Mengistu, but failed.

As one can imagine, despite tribal rivalries, we never attested in Somaliland the Albanian Kosovars’ drama; certainly localisms exist in every country, and there is a rivalry between the Turks of Istanbul and those of Ankara, between the Greeks of Athens and those of Salonica, between the Germans of Munich and those of Berlin, etc. but the story ends there.

And it must end there, if we do not want to see the paradox of integral nations splitting unreasonably to 10 or 20 pieces. This was the basic concept developed in my aforementioned article. The Somalis of the so-called Somaliland cannot present a single reason for which they should be apart from Somalia, and worse, to be recognized as such. One must not read me mistakenly; it is understandable that, when a part of a country is plunged into a civil strife, another stays in peace. There is nothing wrong with it. But,…

The part that remains in peace has the national and the moral obligation to deploy all efforts to solve the prevailing problems among the warring sides of the other part of the country, to help peace prevail there too, and to merge with them as before.

The great majority of the Somalis of Somaliland want passionately peace to prevail in the Somali South, and then an agreement for reunification to be made with all the political parties and groups, leaders and fronts that would bring all, the Somalia South, Puntland, Maakhir and Somaliland, under one umbrella.

The only exception is made by the current regime of Somaliland that turned out to be a band of high traitors sold out to the Neo-Nazi Abyssinian dictator Meles Zenawi. Now, if we take into consideration that the Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians have been the traditional enemy of Somalia, and are currently working on malignant, criminal, and racist projects against Somalia, what sort of legitimacy may the puppet regime of Hargeysa claim to?

An unrepresentative, Anti-Somali regime must not exist on any part of Somalia’s territory.

This said, one can easily realize that the Somaliland predicament concerns exclusively the Somalis and their enemies, the Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians. So foolish the Hargeysa regime people are that they fail to understand the precarious nature of the ailing Abyssinian state that will be decomposed and broken down to pieces.

Assuming that Hargeysa is now recognized by a few states, which is not likely of course, what future can tiny Somaliland have with an Oromo government at Finfinne, and Ogaden achieving independence? Nothing!

However, Somaliland does not concern other states in the area, even nearby Eritrea. How could Somaliland possibly be a matter of interest for Sudan, Egypt or Turkey? The question hints at the contents of the article – attack against my position about Somaliland; this odd argumentation tries to establish a link where there is no link.

At this point, I will publish integrally Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse’s article, encrusting numbers that refer to the comments that are presented after this diatribe. As the text was published in several websites, I don’t know which one was the original, as there is no mention in this regard. Probably, the article was sent to many recipients at the same time, so the links below are just indicative:
http://www.somalilandtalk.com/node/3181, and http://radiohadhwanaag.com/index.php?news=426.

Kosovo and Somaliland: the Impossible Equation – The Egyptian Position

The impetus of the Greek professor’s analysis is anchored on "Somaliland’s insubstantial demand for international recognition." The complexity of issue requires a more holistic and objective approach addressing the dynamics of the creation of the Somali Republic in 1960 as well as the immediate and the latent causes of the failure of the state. At a minimum, the professor should have asked: What went wrong and why? 1 What would have been done differently to avert the failure of the Somali state? 2 A nation that does not meet its full potential 3 is an evolutionary failure 4, and by any stretch of the imagination, Somaliland’s withdrawal from a disastrous union 5 should not and can not be portrayed as the nucleus of all things that went wrong in Somalia.

The subject of recognition of Somaliland is solidly based on indubitable legal and constitutional ground according to international law [law of international treaties, succession of states etc.]. For example, from April 29th to May 5th 2005, a fact finding mission of the African Union, headed by the Right Honourable Mr. Patrick Mazimhaka, 6 Deputy-Chairperson of the Commission of the African Union, visited Somaliland, and among its findings and conclusions is the following excerpt:

"The fact that the union between Somaliland and Somalia was never ratified and also malfunctioned when it went into action from 1960 to 1990, makes Somaliland’s search for recognition historically unique and self-justified in African political history. 7 Objectively viewed, the case should not be linked to the notion of ‘opening a Pandora’s Box’. As such, the AU should find a special method of dealing with this outstanding case". 8

Having said that, the histrionics of professor Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis is an extension of the cloak-and-dagger politics of the Egyptian government. 9 From Butrous-Butrous Ghali to Amar Mousa and in between, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry has been the standard bearer of a futile unholy crusade against Somaliland's quest for recognition. 10 This diplomatic offensive is aimed at forestalling Somaliland's efforts to present to the international community its legitimate right to reclaim its sovereignty. 11 This diplomacy has ended in utter fiasco.12 For example, during his heydays at the helm of the United Nations Organisation, Mr. Butrous-Butrous Ghali made one of the most embarrassing and undiplomatic statements during a live interview with the Arabic Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation. 13 This career Diplomat said, "Doul mush Bani Adam" in response to a question about the Somali crisis. Roughly translated, this short statement means: "They are not human beings." Imagine the bigotry of the Secretary-General of the United Nations! This is the same Butrous Ghali who engineered the United Nations' disastrous intervention in Somalia- a mission without a clear mandate and objectives. 14

The common thread between the professor Megalommatis and the Egyptian diplomatic corps is intolerance towards any real or perceived threats towards the national interest of Egypt 15 : The River Nile is Egypt 16 and Egypt is the Nile. 17 The livelihood of 100 million Egyptians 18 takes precedence over the very existence of over 180 million inhabitants in the River Nile Basin. 19 The population of the riparian states is expected to double in the coming twenty years. The imbalance between a diminishing natural resource coupled with the consumption demands of exploding populations, is a sure recipe for an armed conflict in the region.

The Nile Water Agreement of 1929 guarantees Egypt about 56 Billion cubic meters out of about 74 Billion cubic meters of the total water flow- that is roughly 76% of the total water volume. 20 This outdated formula gives the Egyptian government almost exclusive monopoly and right of usage of the River Nile waters. For example, one of the clauses of the agreement states:

"Without the consent of the Egyptian Government, no irrigation or hydroelectric works can be established on the tributaries of the Nile or their lakes if such works can cause a drop in water level harmful to Egypt". 21

Times have changed 22 and the littoral states [Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, and Ethiopia are under tremendous pressure 23 to renegotiate the terms of water allocation and usage. The Egyptian demands on the waters of the River Nile are simply unsustainable. Sooner or later, the needs of other nations should be addressed. However, the Egyptian regime is not even prepared to address the issue, let alone renegotiate the terms of the old agreement. The Egyptian foreign ministry views any diversion of the Nile water as an act of war. 24 With exploding populations of their own, the countries at the source of the Nile are vying to tap this resource within their boundaries for their domestic agricultural and industrial development needs. Ignoring the belligerent stand of Egypt, the Tanzanian government embarked on 170 mile long pipe-line to deliver water to about 400,000 people at an estimated total cost of US$85.10 million. The rest of the East African nations question the legitimacy of this eighty year old agreement and it is a matter of time before they follow the Tanzanian example. 25

To be continued

Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse

Comments

1. What went wrong in Somalia was not the subject of my article.

2. With so many factors - internal and external – involved, it would be the matter of a treatise of book. However, it is essential to state at this point that I personally believe that the current division and strife in Somalia is preponderantly an external affair, a matter of multi-faceted foreign involvement, mainly American, Abyssinian, British and Chinese. If the Somalis were left alone, peace would prevail soon. But again this issue was not my article’s subject.

3. This is quite a statement! "A nation that does not meet its full potential is an evolutionary failure"! My goodness! This can be said about Russia, Germany, China, etc. What was the nation that throughout History "met its full potential"? This cannot be said even for the Roman Empire or the vast state of Alexander the Great! Evolutionary failure? Somalia? When? In 1960? In 1977? I believe in this case the evolutionary failure in the area of Eastern Africa is Abyssinia. Under monarchical, communist and pseudo-republican regime, Abyssinia (fallaciously re-baptized as Ethiopia) failed to mark an evolution, remaining a loathsome tyranny, mostly detested by the outright majority of its inhabitants, the various subjugated nations.

4. To estimate whether a state was a failure or not is the task of a Historian, and it takes a greater span of time in order to be truly and correctly evaluated; Somalia has not failed. Somalia crosses a tumultuous period of its 4 millennia long History. Those who are urged to say that Somalia failed are conspirators who want to spread discord and fear in order to achieve the perverted goals of their racist, Anti-Somali plan.

5. I would not accuse Somaliland’s leadership for what happened in 1990, but I would certainly do so for their recent policies (since 2000). One could even understand a certain animosity or bad memories. One however cannot accept the national humiliation of Somaliland’s Somalis who – because of their regime’s options – are turned to become the puppets of their worst enemy. Everything would be different, if Somaliland closed its border with Abyssinia, and denied Abyssinians any access to Berbera.

6. Quite unfortunately, the African Union is not a respectable authority and an international body able to inspire high esteem; it’s the realm of tyrants, postcolonial gangsters kept at the helm through Anglo-French interference and preserved in their unelected positions in order to perpetuate Africa’s underdevelopment. This is not a credible source therefore, to say the least.

7. Irrelevant; so he was told to say, and so he said. His Master’s Voice – nothing more.

8. The AU had nothing to say for – and still has nothing to do in – Darfur, Kabylia, Ogaden, etc. Shall we give it some credit when talking about Somaliland? Probably, this was one more case of bribery…

9. This is not personal, but incredible! There is no proof in support of the allegation that I express positions of the Egyptian government. Useless to add, I totally deny these allegations, I never had a contact with the Egyptian government, and I have not got Egyptian citizenship. I have only lived in Egypt over the past 7 years, that is all! I never attempted to contact mass media that voice official positions of the Egyptian government, and I am not concerned with Egyptian politics. Certainly, I studied hieroglyphics in France, England, Belgium and Germany, certainly I became an Egyptologist, certainly I published books and conducted university courses on Ancient Egypt, but I have never been involved in Egyptian politics, either in Egypt or abroad.

10. I am unrelated to the diplomats mentioned, and I have no positive opinion about them. I certainly understand why they took a position against the recognition of Somaliland; they acted within the frame of the Arab League, and insisted on protecting the integrity of a member nation. Beyond that, I do not see a specific and concrete Horn of Africa policy developed and pursued by Egypt.

11. There is no legitimate right of the Somaliland gang to reclaim sovereignty; there is no nation called Somaliland; the breakaway state controls part of the national Somali territory without any particular reason other than the preservation of peace at a moment of strife in the Somali South. This does not consist in any right to sovereignty.

12. The only fiasco in this regard is Somaliland, as its efforts for formal recognition have been contested by the Abyssinian dictator himself, who certainly does not want to miss servile puppets like the Hargeysa rulers.

13. I never had a positive idea about this diplomat, so I will not desist from denouncing a political discourse like that; however, to get substantial credibility, the author should provide us with a link to the BBC webpage, particularly when allegations of this sort are made.

14. This is a self-contradiction; if the Egyptian origin UN Secretary General was purportedly against Somaliland, why did he not bother to set clear targets for the UN intervention in Somalia? It makes no sense.

15. What on earth can drive us mad enough to make a link between Nile politics and the Egyptian rejection of Somaliland’s claim to sovereignty? And again what have I do to with the policies of a state of which I am not citizen and for which I never worked? Either Egypt had a positive or negative stance towards Somaliland, nothing would change in Egypt’s Nile policy. Recognition of Somaliland or isolation of Hargeysa are two issues that do not influence the sphere of Nile politics at all. The approach does not even reflect Abyssinian viewpoints; it only highlights assumptions believed by the few isolated guys at Hargeysa that Somaliland can possibly influence African politics. It is an aberration.

We will complete the criticism in a forthcoming article.

Note
Picture: the Somalis of Somaliland want unity with Somalia, as they know very well that the traditional enemies of Somalia, the Abyssinians, plan to destroy Somalia, and there are no traitors among the Somali people.