Home  |  Islam  |  Suugaan  |  Qoraalo   |   Contact Us  

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

contact: webmaster@mudugonline.com