Somalia: IGAD, UN, and EU demoted President Hassan
Mohamud M Uluso
2014-07-04
Who actually rules Somalia? The simple answer is, foreigners with vested
interests. And as long as these external actors continue their meddling,
regardless of the rhetoric, the Somali state-building project will stagnate
On 5 May, more than 100 parliamentarians signed a
<
http://waagacusub.info/articles/252/Topnews-Dukumiinti-Saxiixa-iyo-magacyad
a-Xildhibaanada-saxiixay-baaqa-iscasilaada-Madaxweyne-Garguurte> letter
calling on President Hassan to resign immediately. Then, on 27 May, 2014,
the Intern-Governmental Authority on Development (Ethiopia and Kenya), the
United Nations (UN), and the European Union (EU) issued a follow up
<
http://unsom.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=6254&ctl=Details&mid=9770&It
emID=27717&language=en-US> Joint Statement that demoted Hassan and promoted
Prime Minister Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed as their designated local partner. They
required the Prime Minister 'to take timely and decisive action to create
national unity, improve security, and expedite progress on federalism, the
constitution and elections.' Some believe that this is the beginning of the
end of the UN-created federal government of Somalia in 2012. Inexplicably,
the African Union did not join the statement.
IGAD, EU, UN JOINT STATEMENT
Without a doubt, the Joint Statement will accelerate the deterioration of
the Somali political, security, and humanitarian situation - in downturn
since the beginning of this year 2014. The major factors responsible for the
downturn are: (1) the relentless machinations of Ethiopia and Kenya aided
and abated by the European Union against Somalia's rebirth; and (2) the
incomplete but candid
<
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/140129/clapper.pdf> assessment of the
Director of US National Intelligence Mr. James R. Clapper who outlined four
major problems that eroded the credibility and effectiveness of the Federal
government, but left out other three critical factors: (I) the hegemonic
strategy of Kenya and Ethiopia over Somalia; (II) the major blame of donors
in the persistent political infighting; (III) the fragmented authority or
control of the country divided into UN blessed parts.
True, the Somali Cabinet, and not the appointed prime minister, has the
collective responsibility to formulate and implement national policies on
unity and security but the elected president retains the constitutional
responsibility to assent the civil and political appointments as well as
policy and legislative priorities of the Cabinet as president and
Commander-In-Chief for subsequent issuance of legal decrees. More
importantly, the parliament has the legislative and oversight responsibility
over the executive. If the federal government has become irredeemable, the
solution is not to empower a Prime Minister accused of fomenting civil wars
in Gedo and Jubba regions, of divisive clan politics in other regions, and
of capricious leadership.
The Joint Statement did not address the failure of the African Union Forces
in Somalia (AMISOM) in protecting the federal government institutions from
Al Shabab attacks as their primary duty for receiving billions of dollars in
the past seven years. Alas, the international community bypassed the
establishment of an effective Somali National Forces capable of defending
their government, people, and country from internal and external enemies.
The lifting of an arms embargo has been an important but insufficient
gesture for the absence of direct and effective support of international
donors to the federal government.
The tone and direction of the Joint Statement is a serious setback for
Somalia's state-building and peacebuilding. The threat directed to those who
oppose the transformation of Somalia into clan fiefdoms 'under mayors,'
ultimately inescapable perpetual insecurity, poverty, disunity, and lack of
state sovereignty is wrong.
The fact remains that the issues of federalism, constitution, and elections
are beyond the exclusive responsibilities of the executive, parliament, and
presidency of the federal government and less of the international actors.
These national issues belong to the realm of dialogue and negotiations among
Somali stakeholders, legitimate representatives of all segments of the
Somali society with authority and accountability.
In the final analysis, the Joint Statement responds to the lingering
question raised long time ago by Mary Harper, BBC reporter, 'Who runs
Somalia?' The simple answer is 'IGAD, EU, and UN' are running Somalia.
REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT HASSAN FROM OFFICE-ABDULLAHI WAY OR SHIRDON WAY
The letter signed by more than 100 members of the federal parliament lists
14 charges against President Hassan. Both the Speaker of the federal
parliament and the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG)
and Head of United Nations Mission for Somalia (UNSOM) Ambassador Nicholas
Kay met with representatives of the group and received copies of the letter.
The Prime Minister Abdiweli Sh. Ahmed remained indifferent to the crisis
that threatens the survival of the federal government.
The president rebuffed the call for his resignation but welcomed an
opportunity to meet the MPs. As of today, the MPs did not proceed with the
parliamentary motion probably because of the difficulty to obtain the 183
threshold votes required to remove the president from office. It is not
clear whether the crisis will end with the way former President Abdullahi
Yusuf or former Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdon has been removed from
office. The move of the parliamentarians has elicited different
interpretations.
The public has low regard for the parliamentarians satirized as 'call boxes
or telephone cabins' for their notorious mercenary behavior and hypocrisy.
The institutional failure of the parliament representing the collective will
of the people is not less detrimental to the national peace, unity,
sovereignty, reconciliation, independence, and statebuilding of Somalia
compare to other federal institutions. Nevertheless, the action of the MPs
has damaged President Hassan's leadership.
VISION 2016 AGENDA V. NEW DEAL STRATEGY
>From different a perspective, it seems that the action of the MPs has been
instigated by the tension between the Vision 2016 Agenda and the New Deal
Strategy cum six pillars strategy of President Hassan. In his trimester
briefing on May 22, SRSG Nicholas Kay informed the UN Security Council that
'the political crisis in Mogadishu could herald a return to the cycle of
deadlock and infighting between Somalia's political institutions that has
paralyzed governments since 2000.' In the same breath, he affirmed that the
president, the speaker, and the prime minister are united and working
together for a solution, which indicates political harmony among federal
leaders and contradicts the preceding statement.
Then heatedly, he added that 'the critical plan on Vision 2016' drafted by
his office has not been approved by the federal government. As a matter of
fact, the plan which has far reaching impacts on Somalia's political unity,
security, stability and credibility, needs extensive debate and discussion
among Somalis inside and outside the federal government institutions before
being discussed with international donors.
The review of the provisional constitution approved in 2012 after seven
years and the cost of more than $60 million resets the rules of the
political game in Somalia. Thus, all political forces must have the
transparency, opportunity, space and sufficient time to participate in the
process for renegotiating the fundamental principles of the Somali state.
The hijacking of the process by the international actors will backfire.
A recently published study by Life and Peace Institute in Sweden titled
<
http://www.life-peace.org/wp-content/uploads/The-ACTS-Report.pdf>
'Alternatives for conflict transformation in Somalia' pointed out that 'the
federal government's silence on this issue [federalism] is important and
demonstrates a key issue of contention.' The study proves that Puntland's
position on federalism challenges the internationally supported approach on
statebuilding in Somalia. Puntland disputes the existence and supreme
leadership role of the federal government as legitimate representative
government of Somalia in foreign and domestic affairs. IGAD, UN and EU fuel
the Puntland dispute.
One possible outcome of the foreign led 'Vision 2016' exercise is to force
the citizens of Somalia to commit another political suicide of fragmentation
and long term instability. The international community continues to write
strategies and policies good for reading, while behind the scenes imposes
the implementation of abusive and controversial policies on weak and corrupt
local leaders.
As an example, the 'Vision 2016 Framework for Action' states that the
completion of federal system should be achieved through dialogue and
reasonable consensus and not by imposition or coercion. But IGAD, EU, and UN
ignored the popular revolt against Addis Ababa Agreement for the creation of
Jubba Interim Administration. They also falsely claim that the federal
government supports the southwest state of the three regions to cover up
their coercive tactics and antagonism against the Southwest State of the six
regions overwhelmingly supported by the communities in the area. If these
are not blatant coercion, what else coercion would be?
IGAD, EU, and UN have no sight 'on real Somalia.' They claim to focus on
terrorism and they deal with six separate entities as virtual Somalia -
Mogadishu Federal Government, Jubba Interim Administration, Somaliland,
Puntland, Galmudug, and Ahlu-Sunna-Wal-Jama. Areas under Al Shabab are
no-go-zones. Last week, during a New Deal Conference held in Garowe,
Puntland, the representative of the African Union asked donors to support
Puntland state as separate territory while a federal government delegation
attended as a 'local guest.' In the context of the New Deal framework for
state-building, this is a major reversal.
The UN led constitution making process which produced the provisional
constitution in 2012 has put Somalia into constitutional and statebuilding
conundrum. The same mistake should not be repeated. Clear understanding
about the integration of the country is a precondition for a constitutional
review.
THE FUTURE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The end of the transition period followed immediately by the adoption of the
New Deal Strategy for Somalia and US diplomatic recognition, all reaffirming
the unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of
Somalia did not go well with the promoters of clan building blocks or hybrid
governance. Initially, the Federal Government started to claim its
sovereignty and pushed back aggressive foreign interferences. But it failed
to practice a proactive planning and implementation of coherent foreign and
domestic policies to be carried out consistently and effectively. The
anti-Somali statebuilding forces have mobilized to attack the Federal
government on issues like clan federalism, corruption, Kenya initiative in
Jubba regions, and the lifting of the arms embargo.
In reaction, President Hassan and his inner circle changed positions without
deliberative political process within the cabinet and decided to surrender
to the opponents of Somalia's state-building. However, the change of
position did not improve the political fortune of the federal government and
President Hassan's team.
The missteps and flip-flops of President Hassan did not square with his
political platform, public statements, and long term experience as a civil
society activist. He had fair understanding of the enormous problems and
powerful forces plotting against Somalia domestically and externally. There
are those who initially believed that President Hassan genuinely wanted to
restore a democratic sovereign state of Somalia based on political
independence, fairness, equality, unity, rule of law, and shared burden;
while others believed from the beginning that he was an accidental leader
who did not have presidential leadership qualities and vision but was
elected after paying parliamentarians huge sums of money provided by backers
who wanted to gain power through allegiances and corruption. The skeptics
were elated by James R. Clapper's assessment on President Hassan's weak
leadership.
However, the perception tends to be that President Hassan chose to trade
major political goals and leadership legacy with short term interests and
now his strategy of survival could ruin the future of Somalia. Such
eventuality could engender new political dynamics that will halt the
statebuilding and peacebuilding efforts in Somalia and open space for
multiple negative forces. The future of the federal government is doubtful.
CONCLUSION
Do the following maxims ring bells to all Somali Leaders and Elite?
First, President Museveni of Uganda said to his people, 'I have never called
the United Nations to guard your security. Me, Yoweri Museveni to say that I
have failed to protect my people and I call in the UN. I would rather hang
myself..It would be a vote of no confidence to our country and citizens if
we can't guarantee our security, what kind of persons would we be?'
Second, President Obama said 'We have to recognize Afghanistan will not be a
perfect place and it is not America's responsibility to make it one. The
future of Afghanistan must be decided by Afghans.'
Received on Fri Jul 04 2014 - 16:11:58 EDT