| Deal
with Somali Opposition:
An idealistic boundless exigency
By
Faysal Gabanow
The European Union has been
pressuring the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia to establish
a broad-based government by sitting down with the opposition,
in order to bring a lasting solution to the Somali crisis. The
initiative is remarkably acceptable, as any method to solve the
protracted Somali conflict is prioritized, whatever it may cost
for the people, the government and its neighboring adherents.
But isn’t it common courtesy to weigh up the argument of
all sides on which their differences are based, and isn’t
it the commitment of all sides to arrive at an appropriate solution
to the problems that befall the country? The determination and
objectives of the various parties in Somalia are diametrically
opposed. Some are only power-hungry with no clear political programs
to emancipate their people from the post-civil-war turmoil. Others
believe in an undesirable ideology - religious extremism - that
would only tear the nation apart and bring about regional instability
that will ultimately destabilize the conflict-prone Horn of Africa.
Any dialogue with those power-hungry individuals can end in a
successful power-sharing that wouldn’t benefit the average
Somali but would consequently inspire the emergence of more greedy
politicians who resort to violence to force power-sharing that
never ends.
Also, conferring with the
extremists won’t be productive, as they will not accept
any compromises in their religious thoughts and understandings,
whereas the incumbent party cannot be expected to abandon its
governmental obligations and commitments in international conventions
and treaties.
It is not only in Somalia that we see opposing and conflicting
parties. Even the European continent has standing issues of this
kind. Turkey, a European nation and a NATO member has for a long
time been engaged in fighting Kuridish guerrillas known as the
PKK, who killed 37,000 people since the rebel group launched an
armed independence campaign in southeast Turkey in 1984. Spain,
another European nation, faces the same conflict with Euskadi
ta Askatasuna (ETA) the Basque separatist group that sometimes
resorts to terrorism, typically using car bombs or shootings,
having killed nearly 850 people, including one Prime Minister,
since 1968.
Therefore, reaching out
to the opposition by launching inclusive talks with an open-ended
ultimatum lacks clarity and invites misperception. Defining who
is the opposition and what are their agendas should be looked
into first.
Yes, we can simply define the opposition as those who are not
linked to terrorism and aspire to take positions in the interim
government. Then what defines terrorism, or more importantly,
are those non-terror groups united to engage with the government
and finally take up posts?
The term “terrorism”
is by its nature globally controversial. However, I am convinced
by the definition given to it by humble language dictionaries
like Encarta, which defines it as “violence or the threat
of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination,
carried out for political purposes.” Taking this into account,
I can hardly say that there is a moderate opposition party in
Somalia . The prominent “Asmara Group,” the one mostly
referred to as the moderates, has never denounced the use of violence
and the persistent assassinations against innocent civilians who
speak out against the insurgency or call for a peaceful solution
to Somalia’s conflict or the journalists that cover the
conflict impartially. One resident in Mogadishu said the goverment
arrests the journalists when they think they are partial, but
the insurgents assassinate journalists if they think they are
favoring the government. Therefore, they should avoid covering
the insurgency attacks negatively.
But contrary to any denouncement,
they would have been very happy to see the president or the prime
minister killed, as they consider them to be “traitors.”
The distinction that divides the Asmara Alliance and the Al-shabab
Militants is that the former wants to negotiate with burdensome
demands (though it’s not clear whether they’ll accept
the outcome), while the later consider any dialogue as a compromise
in faith, which religiously is unacceptable. Therefore, perpetuating
the hostility, bombing and shelling, is an approach to Allah’s
will and forgiveness!
The other important issue is also whether the opposition seen
as moderate is united to take posts in the government. Although
they have reiterated their unity many times, the division and
split among them is apparent. The only bonds that connect them
to one another is Eritrea’s desire to bring the interim
government of Somalia to its knees as part of its campaign to
destabilize Ethiopia .
The conflict in Somalia
has never involved religion, but rather has been the outcome of
clan marginalization and rivalry. The conflict however did not
start in the 1990s; the pastoral Somali have been fighting each
other since the 18th century over pasture and other land. Clan-based
revenge and retaliations continued up to the post-independence
era, as broad-based grassroots reconciliation was not launched
by civil governments after the durable clan animosity was not
addressed. Rather, the politicians’ campaigns for power
reverberated with clannish principles, and then the country edged
towards a Marxist-Leninist system that had nothing to do with
nomadic pastoral Somalis. After marginalized clans took arms to
fight against Siyad Barre’s government, which was weakened
by its 1977 war with Ethiopia, the country relapsed to tribalism
that tore the nation apart.
Whether the country needs
political or clan-based reconciliation is yet a blank space for
arguments. But the origin of the conflict can determine the kind
of reconciliation needed. Implementing a system that suits and
satisfies all clans and genuine grass-roots reconciliation, and
the employment of United Nations peacekeepers to observe the agreements
and to empower the Federal institutions until the country fully
establishes its security forces, are very important factors for
addressing the protracted Somali conflict. Nothing can amuse the
power-hungry groups or the uncompromising elements in Somalia
.
Negotiating and power-brokering with the current opposition will
never end the conflict until the root of the conflict is addressed.
* The
writer has long reported for the Sub-Saharan Informer on Somali
issues and can be reached at fcgabanow@hotmail.com.
Mudugonline.com
|