On Sunday, 2 March, 2009, Somali hardliners rejected a truce offer, a day after the new President, Sherif Ahmed, made it in a Press Conference he held in Villa Somalia, the Presidential palace in Mogadishu. It is reported that the President had accommodated demands that the Islamists had made as a condition that they would stop the fighting that had started in Mogadishu over the last week. The President, Sherif Ahmed, promised he would adopt Shari’ah law as demanded by the Islamists. But he did not specify if he would ask for the removal of AMNISOM Forces as is also demanded by the Islamists. But, the AFP reported: ‘(Islamic Party), a group of hard line Islamists who claimed the bloody attacks in the capital, last week, rejected the proposals. Although implementing the measure is in itself a controversial step, which is easier said than done, as it requires the confirmation by the 550-member Parliament, the hardliners have, themselves, rejected the offer. Thus, a spokesman to the Islamic Party (Hizbul-Islam), Muse Abdi Arale, said:

"The information regarding a ceasefire plan between our group and the government is baseless. We will attack the enemy and their stooges anytime we want."

 It has been reported that both Al-Shabab and the Islamic Party welcomed the new President with fire in Mogadishu—acts which have been fatal for tens of persons and resulted in injuries for a lot more. Nevertheless, President Sherif Ahmed made the pledge to apply Shari’ah law—perhaps to appease his opposition— only a little more than a week after he had assured the AU representatives in Mogadishu that he would seek to establish a secular State in the country.  This would not be very different from what he would tell the Western diplomats while in Djibouti, Ethiopia or Nairobi in order to reassure the western world that he will stay away from espousing the Islamists’ ideas or maintaining good relations with them. It was astonishing to many that he resorted to requesting pardon from the US for some individuals they consider dangerous. Indeed, it seemed brazen to some, at best, to make such a demand. This time, it seems, he got confused between the two sides of his mouth—which he uses at the same time with the gullible and uncritical people of Somalia, perhaps out of naiveté or charlatanry on his part. But Sherif Ahmed’s rhetoric against the west is very well known. After all, He was the former Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) when they were in Control of the southern regions of Somalia! At the time, he, at least, condoned everything his opposition does and says about him now, which at the time; they used to say about President Yusuf.

The Asmara wing of the ARS and the Islamist groups in Somalia do not trust him. By seeking to become the President of a Secular government (the TFG), which they all fought to fail under his leadership since June 2006, may have discredited him incalculably. Actually, Aweys and his cohorts consider him deceitful or devious for obvious reasons. Even, Jandayi Frazer, the former Assistant Secretary of the US State Department for Africa, once in an interview with the VOA, accused him of betrayal, or something to the effect of untrustworthiness. In addition to have their presence felt in Mogadishu, the Islamists are in full control of all the southern regions of the country. “Somaliland” remains shaky in its relations with Mogadishu, despite the appointment of a person borne and bred in Hargeisa as the Foreign Minister for Somalia, once Sherif Ahmed has become the President on 31 December, 2008. Puntland, although still assertive that it exists as an autonomous, federal region of Somalia, the government there has some qualms about the modalities in which the Serif’s government was constituted in Djibouti, at the end of last year. Notwithstanding all these issues regarding the stumpy local support and the dubious legitimacy of the swollen TFG—its Parliament increased from a 275-member to 550-meber in the name of accommodating the demands of the opposition—the international community seems to be drumming up support for what is now called a National Unity Government, and seems to be hopeful that it will make a difference to previous governments that Somalia could produce, since the collapse of Barre’s regime in January 1991. However, Mr Mbitiru, a freelance journalist, in the Daily Nation wrote on Sunday, 2 March, 2009

“…  Mr Ahmed’s governance owns an inauspicious start. It will remain just that though, if he doesn’t, and successfully, persuade Islamists, he knows so well to stop shouting about establishing by force Shari a all the way to Alaska, et cetera. The world isn’t Somalia.

Mr. Mbitiru has summed it right. Yes, Sherif Ahmed indeed has a debacle in his hands. On the one hand, he either has to convince the Islamists of the world that he is serious about applying Islamic Shari’ah. These include Al-Shabab, the Islamic Party, the Ras Camboni force, the Asmara wing of the ARS and others; then face the wrath of the West. Or, on the other hand, he has to assure the West including the US, the EU and the AU that he will abide by the Charter f the TFG to ensure the resumption of the secular leaning of the TFG which he inherited from PresidentYusuf and face the excommunication (takfir, in their language) by the radicals. But, in either case, it seems he has his task cut out for him. The question remains, though, if “Yusuf’s departure opened the door for progress towards the implementation of the Djibouti agreement and the broad-based coalition government”, as argued by Menkhaus and others, how much of a coalition do we have after his departure? What “other important rallying point has it also robbed of the Shabab”? We might wish to ask Ken Menkhaus: indeed, as discussed earlier, Al-Shabab, and others allied to them, is now in control of most of the southern regions and they are very well rallied against Sherif Ahmed. But if President Yusuf was as divisive as to be an impediment to peace, as Menkhaus asserts, how soon shall we wait for peace to return, under Sherif Ahmed’s stewardship, now that President Yusuf has resigned? Or, has obsequiousness become a sophisticated form of diplomacy? For, it seems the only unique trade mark of President Ahmed—a man who wishes to please anybody a shred more powerful than himself, for personal gain—it seems—so much so that there is a pattern to this behavior of his in the short period he remained engaged in politics.

Given these personality traits and the fact that he lacks the experience or qualification to restore Statehood in a country as problematic as Somalia, it is enigmatic that the international community is putting its weight singularly behind Mr. Ahmed. Or, is it really about Somalia’s statehood and stability? One should wonder! In fact,  given the way things are in Somalia, the international community ought to forget about it, come what may—Islamists or none, which is tantamount to allowing Mr. Ahmed to introduce Shari’ah law to appease his opposition, which most consider more radical than him. The other choice which one can read between the lines may involve the military support of Sherif Ahmed to free the southern regions from the grip of the Islamists. While both options may turn out to be futile, the former may only make him akin to the radicals; the latter may make him similar to the warlords of old or President Yusuf at his worst. Thus, President Sherif Ahmed may not succeed either in terms of policy or in terms of politics—given the position of the western world.

And yet, in a Communiqué was released on 27 February, 2009, after the 14th Meeting of the International Contact Group (ICG) in Brussels, on Somalia, which coincided with the shelling and suicidal acts in Mogadishu, after the arrival of the President in Mogadishu. The first paragraph of the ICG reads as follows:

“The ICG welcomes the progress made since its meeting in New York in December 2008, specifically the creation of an enlarged and more inclusive Parliament, the extension of the transitional period, the election of Sheikh Sherif Sheikh Ahmed as the President and the appointment of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. The ICG acknowledges and supports this new Somali-owned and led peace and reconciliation process
 The ICG supports the link between political, security and recovery programmes as mutually reinforcing pillars of the strategy that are vital in this new phase for the continuation of the process. The ICG recognizes the important role that the Diaspora can play in the positive development of Somalia and expresses concern about certain elements of the Diaspora that support spoilers to the peace process.”

.
It has been reported that representatives from the following were present at the Meeting: The African Union, European Commission, European Union Council Secretariat, Presidency of European Union (Czech Republic),  IGAD, League of Arab States, Organization of Islamic Conference, United Nations, World Bank, Canada, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Yemen.

Does the world trust that a servile person as menial in his past livelihood as Sheikh Sherif will be able to reconstruct Somalia? By the power of flattery alone, will he win over his protagonists? By the potency of his willingness to work for or with the more powerful world officials—for personal gain—will he be able to solve the problems of the international community in Somalia? But, despite this high regard for the Sheikh, the ICG has been as agile and swift as to forewarn the Somali public not to antagonize Sherif Ahmed—and especially, the Diaspora community. Thus the communiqué carries a sentence which reads as follows:” The ICG recognizes the important role that the Diaspora can play in the positive development of Somalia and expresses concern about certain elements of the Diaspora that support spoilers to the peace process.” The writers of this article cannot fathom who exactly the statement calls spoilers in this case, but one thing is clear. The ICG is attempting to deny the Somali people their God given right to freely criticize or reject a government imposed upon them from overseas. This threat is not far off the mark of Ould Abdallah’s earlier suggestion to put a moratorium for a month on the media. Nevertheless, Ahmedou Ould Abdallah and the like who have developed the tenacity to write as arrogant a paragraphs as the above  should come to appreciate that the Somali people will not be cow-toed to accept ventures they are not themselves totally agreeable to.

Whether you call them spoilers or not, there were people who disagreed with such government initiatives as have been crafted outside the homeland over the last two decades. They did so, because these governments had always had some pitfalls which, in the end, brought them to their knees. This latest Djibouti agreement and government does not fare any better, according to some. Indeed, everything the ICG appreciates in the process and the product of the Djibouti scheme is detested by some.  We are sure it will face the same fate as those others before it; because, as the maxim says:” what is good for the goose is good for the gander”.  For example, the plot against President Yusuf was a most abhorrent, unconstitutional and illegal event. We may have not agreed with President Yusuf on a lot of things, but we do not agree with the way he was removed from power. In this case Ken Menkhaus writes:

 “Under sustained pressure from Ethiopia, Kenya, and Western countries, TFG President Abdullahi Yusuf resigned in December 2008.  Yusuf was a deeply polarizing figure in Somalia, a hardliner who actively sought to block implementation of the Djibouti Agreement and who specialized in a particularly divisive style of clan politics. He was widely viewed as a major impediment to peace in Somalia, a conclusion eventually reached by his former patron, Ethiopia. Yusuf’s departure opened the door for progress toward implementation of the Djibouti Agreement and the building of a broad-based coalition government. It also robs the Shabab of another important rallying point.”

 
 But we beg to disagree with Ken Menkhaus on this. President Yusuf did not disagree with inclusiveness but he disagreed with radicalism and with a distended form of Parliament for a country as small as Somalia. Now it seems we have one of the elements—a bloated Parliament—and may soon have the other one (Islamic Shari’ah), if the Islamists have their way by fiat or military means. In either case or both, the Shari’ah law will not stay only in the southern regions, but it will have to be imposed on the people of “Somaliland” and Puntland, the consequence of which may become very dire. On the other hand, if we have a unity government that includes every one and all sectors of the population represented, as is often claimed by the supporters of the Djibouti edifice, how come we still have an opposition to Sherif Ahmed’s government? But, by looking at the other side of the coin, we might find it even more alarming. The incident that Ken Menkhaus seems to conjure so proudly in the above quotation may have negative consequences for all. It may set a precedent for all governments where a conflict arises between the top leaders—particularly in Africa.

Abdalla A. Hirad & Dr. Ali I. Bahar

Menkhaus, Ken, “Somalia after the Ethiopian Occupation” http://www.wardheernews.com/Articles_09/Feb/14_somalia_ken.html

We welcome the submission of all articles for possible publication on MaanHadal.com .
please email your article to Webmaster@Maanhadal.com
Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of MaanHdadal.com