Courtship and Marriage: The Somali Experience in America (Introduction)

Eight years ago, at a traffic light in a California city, I sensed that someone was staring at me from the next car on the right. When I glanced over, I saw “Firdowsa” (not her real name) smiling and waving at me. I waved back and opened my car window. “Hassan, I am so fortunate!  I finally married the right man,” she said in jubilation. “Nin baa igu dhacay” (What a man I have found!), she added. I knew exactly who Firdowsa was talking about. It was “Adan,” also a friend of mine. In fact, I had known Firdowsa and Adan for many years. She was then in her mid-thirties, tall, pretty with an attractive figure, and a vibrant, bubbly personality.  Adan was in his late forties, educated, modest, and a social magnet. Before coming to the United States, he had been politically active back home against the Siad Barre regime.

The couple’s marriage was unique. They seemed happy and sincere, and spent a lot of time together. Theirs was either a second or third marriage, depending on whom you asked. After they tied the knot, Adan changed: He dressed better, stopped smoking, and gained needed extra pounds. Firdowsa was the same person, except she never missed an opportunity to brag about her husband. Many members of the community were pleased about their marriage because the couple was very popular.

About three years later, Firdowsa and Adan decided to split. It was shocking news to many of us who knew them and genuinely rooted for them to succeed. That can’t be, many people thought. However, it was true. Indeed, the way the divorce happened was so acrimonious that community members could do nothing but roll their eyes in bewilderment. Firdowsa’s complaints about Adan were so detailed they bordered on the salacious and even the absurd. Somalis normally do not talk about bedroom woes but Firdowsa did. Adan did not defend himself against the serious charges levelled against him but instead went on the offensive. He accused his former wife of being mentally unbalanced.

 “She takes medication for her mental illness,” he explained calmly and quite vindictively.  

Because of my friendship with the couple, I chose to be neutral during their war of words and said nothing. Secretly though, I was stupefied and had a hard time understanding the reasons for the split. This couple was unique, I thought. They would go out of their way to brag about their supposed happiness. What had gone wrong? In time, the couple moved on and met other people.  Adan married twice more, but none of his marriages panned out.

I have always asked myself what makes a good spouse. My biased view is that we men are generally responsible for most divorces. In my humble research of the literature on relationships, I have concluded there are three major ingredients for a successful marriage. The absence of any one of these components is testimony to a flawed marriage. The ingredients of a good marriage are communication, affection, and respect. 

Communication: Couples are always communicating to each other, but many are unaware they are. Many spouses frequently complain, “We are no longer communicating,” which usually means the wrong vibes are being exchanged. Communication is both verbal and non-verbal, with the latter comprising 93% of all communication. Body language, such as gestures, posture, eye contact, facial expressions, and hand and feet movements, are true expressions of one’s moods and attitudes.

Positive ways of communicating verbally with your spouse include telling her you love her, appreciate her, and think about her when you are at work and away. There is an anecdote about a wife who reprimanded her husband for not telling her he loved her. The husband protested and said, “Honey, but I told you that last month.” The good mate is one who avoids saying hurtful things or raises his voice. There are some words a man should never utter in anger such as “never” and “always.” For instance, phrases such as “always late” or “never helpful” are likely to make the wife feel both defensive and angry. It is also better to avoid any name calling. As the well-known American talk show host, Dr. Phil, advises, “Make sure your sentences have verbs.”

Non-verbal communication is crucial too because it involves certain body language that can turn off your spouse. One of the biggest complaints many women have about their husbands is that they just don’t listen. Men are often engrossed in reading a newspaper or playing with their cell phones when their wives talk to them. Giving your wife full attention when she talks to you is important because she would not tell you something if it was not important to her. “Before marriage,” the late humorist Helen Rowland once wrote while addressing women, “a man declares that he would lay down his life to serve you; after marriage, he won’t even lay down his newspaper to talk to you.” By listening to your wife, you are giving her what she wants most—a sympathetic ear. She is seeking someone who will listen to her, not a problem solver who is only too quick to dispense advice.

Affection: A good husband is one who demonstrates that he loves his wife through his actions. This aspect is perhaps one of the biggest challenges for many men because it requires self-discipline and commitment. Touching is very important in a relationship because it brings a couple closer and cements their bond. Non-sexual touches such as holding hands, hugging, and back rubbing will tell your spouse you care.

Many marriages become stale because the couples settle for the unchanging routines of their daily lives. Couples who make special time for each other by organizing weekend getaways or taking vacations, strengthen their bond. Courting does not begin and end before marriage; it should be continuous. Furthermore, doing little things for your spouse makes her appreciate you more.

Respect: Respect encompasses several important areas of a marriage. Respect means understanding that your spouse is different to you and has different interests, needs, and ways of doing things. Accepting your spouse for who she is and not trying to change her is a hallmark of respect.  Respect means understanding that your wife is as smart as you are, and there is no need to insist she does everything your way. Respect means not being a tyrant, but being a team player who is gentle and kind, a man who consults with his wife, keeps his promises, does not lie or cheat, and apologizes for his mistakes. Respect means sharing responsibilities and becoming an asset at home, not a liability. Respect means when you are home, you are there both physically and mentally. You do not bring your work woes home nor make home a place for your sole entertainment. Many men, when at home, just watch sports on TV and never bother to acknowledge their wives or children.

What follows this introduction is a ten-part series that addresses courtship, marriage, and the Somali experience in the United States. These articles are neither an indictment of Somalis nor a generalization of the Somali community. They are true stories reflecting only the characters involved in them. 

 

Dad in the Delivery Room: A Help or a Hindrance

Should a father be allowed in the delivery room against the mother’s wishes?

A New Jersey court recently ruled that the mother has every right not to let the father in the delivery room during the birth of their child. Judge Suhail Mohammed wrote, “Any interest a father has before the child’s birth is subordinate to the mother’s interest.”

Perhaps, a bit of background is in order here. Rebecca DeLuccia and Steven Plotnick were engaged when Rebecca got pregnant. The couple then planned that Steven would be actively involved in the baby’s birth. However, as DeLuccia’s pregnancy advanced, the couple split, and Plotnick became convinced he would not be able to witness the birth of his child. Accordingly, he filed a lawsuit claiming DeLuccia was planning not to let him sign the child’s birth certificate, inform him when she went into labor, and allow him to be present during delivery.  DeLuccia denied the first two claims but stated she would “request her privacy in the delivery room.” DeLuccia promised that Plotnick could visit the child after delivery. Plotnick was furious and insisted on being present during the delivery.

Judge Mohammed sided with DeLuccia citing New Jersey and federal laws that protect the rights of a hospital patient. Mohammed further added that Plotnick’s presence in the delivery room could “add to an already stressful situation,” in a manner that “could endanger both the mother and the fetus.”

I must admit Plotnick is an intriguing character. He had the audacity to sue his former fiancé so he could be in the delivery room. Many men would steer clear of the birth chamber; others would beg their insistent wives to be excused from attending the delivery. I have a personal story about this subject. 

In the 1980s my then wife and I started attending a pregnancy class called “Lamaze.” The class was conducted by a nurse named Pamela, a no-nonsense woman in her forties who grew up in Ohio. My wife, a native of Michigan, got along well with Pam, who seemed a bit cool toward me. Perhaps it had a lot to do with her difficulty understanding my English accent. She knew I was an international student attending Ohio University. Her aloofness could also have been because she sensed something odd about me, namely, my subtle indifference to her class and its purpose. She was absolutely right.  Frankly, I was not a believer in the class or the Lamaze method.

The Lamaze technique originated in France, developed by the French obstetrician Ferdinand Lamaze. It is a set of techniques that help women cope with pain during labor and delivery instead of resorting to medical intervention. It involves breathing and relaxation techniques and other natural ways to relieve pain. My wife read about Lamaze and became a fan. When she told me about it, I thought the whole idea was bizarre but decided to support her. I went along with the idea of attending the class twice a week. My view was that when the time came for the delivery, all these pain-relieving techniques would go out the window.  Four or five couples were in our class, so each couple worked as a team during practice and, of course, during delivery.  The class, which cost a few hundred dollars, was helpful in learning the process of labor and delivery and assuaged our fears about the new adventure of giving birth.

We attended the class religiously for a few weeks. Pam was an excellent instructor and motivator. After several weeks of instruction, we graduated and decided to hold an appreciation dinner for Pam at Pizza Hut. I was happy that the class was over and felt relieved, but I also knew that the baby was due soon.

D-Day arrived one or two months later. It was December 3 when my wife and I headed to O’Bleness Hospital in Athens, Ohio. The labor was intense, slow, and plodding. It was the middle of the night when it came time to deliver.  Nurses, assistant nurses, a physician and I were in the delivery room. The environment seemed chaotic, loud with too many beaming lights. In the midst of all the clamor, I panicked. I started to sweat profusely and felt faint. It seemed I was experiencing a panic attack. The doctor noticed my discomfort and came to my aid. He gently told me it was okay to go outside if I wanted. It was obvious I was a liability in the delivery room; perhaps he did not want to have a second patient on his hands. I went outside but stayed near the delivery suite. All my efforts to learn and master breathing techniques in our Lamaze class had come to naught. Shortly, my baby daughter Sarah arrived in the world crying and screaming. “Sururi” (My Joy)—as I have since called her— suddenly made me forget all about my stress, anxiety, and—most of all—cracking under pressure.

Many years later, I read an article in the British newspaper, The Mail, in which Michel Odent, a leading French obstetrician, expressed his disapproval of men being in the delivery room. After 50 years of experience as a medical doctor and having overseen 15,000 deliveries, Odent finally came out and advised men to stay away from the delivery suite. In the 1950s, it was unheard of for men to be part of the delivery. However, since the 1970s, it has become acceptable for men to participate in the childbirth process. It is now common in the West for men to be next to their wives as they deliver. Odent, interestingly, viewed this as a bad idea. “The presence of men in the delivery room is not always a positive thing,” he argued. “[The husband’s] presence is a hindrance, and a significant factor [for] why labors are longer, more painful and more likely to result in intervention than ever.”   It is impossible for a woman to feel relaxed when her husband, as tense and stressed as he can be, stands next to her and attempts to soothe her. Moreover, there are some men, Odent added, who are “at risk of being unwell or depressed due to having seen their partners labor.”

Perhaps, Dr. Odent spoke up a tad late for men like me who naturally preferred to steer clear of the delivery room. I could have used his recommendation during the birth of my first child. I come from a culture that views the presence of men in the room as taboo. While it is a personal choice, of course, I find myself agreeing with Dr. Odent. It is much better for men to wait outside the delivery room and express their loving support before and after delivery. There are certain things women do better when they do them alone.  

Finally, Kenya Arrests Radical Cleric Shaikh Hassaan

Two days ago, Kenyan security officers raided the house of Shaikh Hassaan Hussein Adam “Abu Salman,” a radical cleric known for his support of Al-Shabaab. The cleric and his wife were interrogated in Nairobi’s Eastleigh neighborhood before being taken into custody.

Prior to his detention, the Kenyan authorities were aware of the cleric’s influential role among Somali jihadists. Shaikh Hassaan has been the informal mufti of Al-Shabaab, issuing fatwas that justified the terror group’s killings and carnage in Somalia. Last year, the cleric issued his famous fatwa in which he propagated the killing of jihadists who sowed discord among the mujahidin in Somalia. Ahmed Abdi Godane, the Emir of Al-Shabaab, used that same fatwa as a pretext to terminate his rivals in the radical group. Two founders of the militant group—Ibrahim Al-Afghani and Abdihamid Olhaye ‘Moalim Burhan—were killed in the coastal town of Baraawe in Somalia last June.

 

Shaikh Hassaan has been on the United Nations sanctions list for providing material support to Al-Shabaab by raising funds for the group and recruiting new members. In 2011, a UN Security Council report accused the cleric of orchestrating “acts that threaten the peace and security of Somalia.” Over the years, Shaikh Hassaan has been arrested, but was detained for a short period and then released thanks to powerful interlocutors who made sure he was not kept in custody. Shaikh Hassaan belongs to a powerful Somali-Kenyan clan, the Ogaden, which has highly influential political supporters in Kenya. Amongst these were some prominent Somali politicians, including Farah Moalim who, until a year ago, was deputy speaker of the Kenyan parliament.

The detention of Shaikh Hassaan raises serious questions about the timing. Why now and not before?

Several factors are at interplay here that can shed some light on the government’s new move against the cleric.

First, Kenya has been experiencing increasing terrorist attacks from Al-Shabaab; ranging from bombings of churches to the targeted kidnapping and killing of police officers. Last year’s Westgate Mall terrorist attack has emboldened the militant Somali group to rattle the Kenyan populace. But it seems the tide has turned swiftly against Al-Shabaab: on the same day Shaikh Hassaan was arrested, Shaikh Abu-Bakr Sharif Makaburi—another cleric on the UN sanctions list for aiding Al-Shabaab—was publicly killed in Mombasa. The obvious question is whether, in light of Al-Shabaab’s escalating terror attacks, the Kenyan government has had enough and is changing its strategy in dealing with the militant group’s supporters. Are more arrests likely in Nairobi and are further extrajudicial killings a possibility in Mombasa? Although it is not conspicuous, it appears that the Kenyan authorities have a dual approach in dealing with Al-Shabaab sympathizers. In Nairobi, the authorities are targeting Al-Shabaab supporters with arrests and detentions. On the other hand, the liberal use of extrajudicial tactics is being applied to supporters in the coastal areas. Most of the jihadi sympathizers in Nairobi are Somalis, a segment of the population that has a presence among the country’s political elite. The coastal Muslims lack strong political pillars in the government.

Second, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy, William Ruto, for the first time, have started engaging Somali community leaders in the war against Al-Shabaab. On March 29, President Uhuru and Ruto met with Somali businessmen in Eastleigh and with Somali-Kenyan politicians to discuss what needed to be done about Al-Shabaab’s intensifying terror attacks. Uhuru told these leaders the terror attacks must stop. An agreement was reached between the government and the Somali community leaders to cooperate. The Somali leaders promised to form a team among themselves that included businessmen, youth, women, and clerics to identify those in their midst who are involved in terror activities. Is Shaikh Hassan’s arrest, just four days after this historic meeting, an early result of the tentative pact between President Uhuru and the Somali leaders?

Third, the cleric’s arrest might be part of a wider government policy to get rid of Somali refugees. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), there are more than 630,000 Somali refugees in Kenya. The Dadaab camp alone has nearly half a million refugees. Kenyan government officials have repeatedly said they want to expel Somali refugees from their country for security reasons. “Some of these refugees,” stated interior minister Joseph Ole Lenku, “have abused our hospitality and kindness to plan and launch terror attacks from the safety of the refugee camps.” Though Shaikh Hassaan is a Somali-Kenyan, his supporters in Nairobi are overwhelmingly Somalis. Removing a popular cleric from the Somali community in Eastleigh might be part of the government’s pressure to encourage more Somalis to leave the country.

It is possible that Al-Shabaab will retaliate against Kenya for Shaikh Hassaan’s arrest. After all, the cleric has been the fatwa machine for the terror group because he has issued edicts that provided the religious justification for the radical group’s criminal activities. Several Al-Shabaab figures opposed to Godane have confirmed the special affinity that exists between the terror leader and the Somali-Kenyan cleric. For instance, Godane “built” Shaikh Hassaan’s personal library. This does not mean the wanted and elusive Al-Shabaab leader sent Islamic reference books from Somalia to Shaikh Hassaan in Nairobi, but rather Al-Shabaab has provided funds to the cleric to purchase books. Some captured Al-Shabaab fighters have claimed Shaikh Hassaan is a member of the radical group.

(Reprinted with permission from African Arguments, April 3, 2014).

 

Shaikh Mohamed Idris: His Diagnosis for the Somali Crisis

Since 1991, when the Somali state crumpled and the country became engulfed in civil war, many pundits have pontificated about what led to the crisis. Questions abound regarding why the government collapsed and anarchy ensued. Thousands of Somalis were killed; others fled their country and became refugees all over the world. Every day, hundreds of Somalis leave home and venture into the high seas looking for better opportunities. In Kenya alone, close to a half-million Somalis are refugees in Dadaab Camp.

Shaikh Mohamed Idris is a renowned Somali-American cleric who has published a dozen books and, given thousands of lectures that are available on cassettes, CD, DVDs and widely viewed on Somali TVs. He is a globetrotter, always on the move. “I have visited all the Somali communities in the diaspora except the ones in New Zealand and Australia,” he said, smiling. He helps emerging Somali communities in Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and North America to build their own mosques and Islamic schools. He is hotly pursued by various Somali communities as a guest speaker.

Shaikh Idris is articulate, soft-spoken, and widely read. He is at ease talking about Qur’anic exegesis and modern theories of organizational leadership. He speaks Arabic and English fluently and peppers his language with Somali anecdotes. His wry sense of humor is palpable. When he gives lectures, he has a way of connecting with his audience. One recurring topic in his frequent lectures is the current situation in Somalia.

 

Two years ago, as a guest speaker, Idris generated minor controversy in the Abubakar Islamic Center in Minneapolis—the same mosque the FBI investigated for allegedly recruiting missing Somali youths, which turned out to be untrue—when he told the Somali parents present to forget about Somalia’s problems and focus on their children here in the United States. A young man known for his jihadi sympathies protested and became engaged in a scuffle with a mosque administrator. Afterward, the incident went viral in some jihadi websites, condemning Idris as a sell-out and a scholar who had forsaken his own people and country. The radical youths missed the point of Idris’ message, as will be explained later.

What Went Wrong in Somalia

As an Islamic scholar and activist, Shaikh Mohamed Idris views the current situation in Somalia as a result of God’s fate, or what he calls “Qadar-u-Allah” (Allah’s fate). Anything that happens on this planet, whether good or bad, says Idris, is ordained by God. However, God does not change people until they themselves change. While it is God’s fate, Idris makes it clear that the Somali debacle is all the doing of Somalis themselves. “They have destroyed their country in their own hands because of crimes they have done,” explains Idris. Somalis have disobeyed God, became divisive, and performed wrongdoing against each other, he adds. Idris uses the Qur’anic term “Tafarruq” (disunity) as one of the major causes of the Somali crisis. Somalis became divided--clan against clan, group against group, and region against region. What followed was, according to Idris, “Tanaazuc” (to dispute). Somalis became divided and engaged in chronic disputation. Idris mentions this Qur’anic verse as guidance: “…And obey Allah and His Messenger and do not dispute with one another lest you falter, and your strength departs from you; but be steadfast; surely Allah is with the steadfast” (8:24).  Somalis have committed “dulmi” (wrongdoing) against God and each other. They have treated each other despicably, discriminated against each other, fought against one another, and failed to maintain order and civility. According to Idris, God does not punish nations just because they are disbelievers; instead, He targets nations that are unjust.

The major crime of wrongdoing in Somalia is not limited to its people. Idris mentions what happened in 1975 when 10 religious scholars opposed a new family law about inheritance, which was contrary to Qur’anic teachings. These clerics spoke against the law and were killed publicly. Interestingly, according to Idris, that day the ‘sky cried’ when it heavily rained, but the Somali people were silent and fearful, and they did not shed tears for the unjust killing of these clerics. Some even attended their public executions by firing squad. That horrible crime by the Somali government, according to Idris, was followed by systematic government targeting of one clan after another through killings, mass arrests, the poisoning of wells, starvation, and uprooting.

Shaikh Idris is critical of the natural reflex of Somali politicians and intellectuals who always blame foreigners—especially Ethiopians—for the Somali debacle. When Somalis became divided, he asserted, they started seeking help from their enemies, such as the various Ethiopian regimes. Somali politicians seeking support from Ethiopia did not begin in the early 1990s, maintains Idris; rather it began earlier, in 1978. “We have appealed to former Ethiopian leaders like Mengistu Haile Marian and Meles Zenawi,” Idris says. “Ethiopia did not dare to invade Somalia in 1975, or 1980, or 1985 simply because we were united and strong.” In addition, more Somalis died at the hands of their fellow Somali brethren than at the hands of the Ethiopians.

Shaikh Idris would rather have a bad government than no government. Despite his fierce criticism of the Barre regime, Idris saw the semblance of statehood, order, and a functioning government. For example, “In 1972, I was a youngster in Qandala, a town 2000 km away from Mogadishu,” says Idris. That small town of 10,000 residents had a hospital, school, water services, a police station, and postal services. “I used to receive regularly letters from my brother who was in Europe,” he adds. That was a basic service from a functioning government that anyone must appreciate. “Now, in 2014, you can’t even have a letter delivered in Hargeisa or Mogadishu, the capital.”

 

While the problems in Somalia should be seen in the context of what is going on in many Third World countries, Idris sees Somalia as a unique country that has constantly failed to use its God-given resources. The country has the longest coastline in Africa with a length of 3,300 km, yet it is not utilized. “Our people are hungry, unskilled, and unable to live off such a vast resource alone,” explains Idris. “The real pirates in Somalia are the foreign ships illegally fishing in Somalia’s coast,” he says. “According to a Time magazine report, European ships alone are illegally netting 300 million euros per year from Somali coasts.” It is ridiculous that European countries are attesting that they want to provide foreign assistance to Somalia when some of these states are stealing our resources.

The Way Out

Every problem, of course, has a solution. Shaikh Idris proposes key solutions that can help Somalia extricate itself from its abyss. He is averse to the petty talks about federalism, 4.5 clan power sharing, and these endless—mind you, fruitless—attempts at peace conferences and reconciliation. Idris wants first and foremost for the Somali people to make “tawbah” (repentance) and return to God. Part of the repentance process, he expounds, is to redress the wrongdoing that Somalis have inflicted upon each other. For instance, people who have killed their fellow brothers must confess and address such heinous crimes, and all stolen or confiscated properties should be returned to their rightful owners. “We can’t just shrug off and let bygones be bygones,” he says. “Unfortunately, those leaders who shed blood, forced many of their people to perish in the high seas while seeking refugee status in the Middle East and Europe, and uprooted hundreds of thousands are still around and have the audacity to even ask for more power,” he adds.

The repentance process must be followed by the application of the sharia. Any dispute that may arise must be returned to the Qur’an and the “sunnah” (tradition), says Idris, on the basis of the Qur’anic verse: “...And if you quarrel over anything, refer it back to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day…” (4:59). Sincere and clean leaders devoid of corruption should take the helm of the country. Idris calls for a genuine reconciliation among Somali groups based on equality, fairness, and justice. Unlike other Islamists who seek a monopoly of power for their groups, Idris is adamant about not letting any group, Islamic or secular, take ownership of the political power. “Somalia is for all,” he states, “and is not beholden to any group.”  

Shaikh Mohamed Idris is not your normal cleric who sermonizes and sticks to spiritual guidance. He has been, not long ago, the president and chief operating officer of the North American Council of Somali Imams, a non-profit umbrella organization for Somali-owned Islamic centers. He has been to all cities and towns in which Somalis congregate in the United States. His message to Somalis is rather unconventional: Give priority to your families, children, work, and education here in America. He has constantly warned Somali-Americans not to concern themselves with the politics and the shenanigans of politicians back home who are welcomed here and treated like heroes. “Instead of engaging in ‘fadhi-ku-dirir’ (chatter) in cafes talking nonsense about politics and who became a cabinet minister and who did not,” he admonishes Somalis, “take care of your children who are joining gangs every day.”  Idris has told Somalis in this country to become better citizens, engage as active members of their communities, and be united for a common cause and not by clannish grouping. “Somalia should be your fourth or fifth priority,” he tells his audience, “not the first.” He has actively warned young Somalis not to travel to Somalia to join groups that use religion for their devious goals and twisted understanding of Islam. Idris, who does not advocate violence in his speeches or activities, sees saving Somali children from drugs, gangs, and the loss of their religion and culture as the utmost priority of his mission.

Somali Phoenix: A Book Review

         

Jama Mohamed Ghalib “Jama Yare” is a Somali politician and writer. He held important posts in Somalia’s civilian government in the 1960s, and later in Siad Barre’s regime. He was the head of the national police under Barre and served, among other important posts, as interior, labor, local government and transport minister. After 1991, he served as a special adviser to General Mohamed Farah Aideed and later became an active participant in various Somali peace conferences held in Kenya, Ethiopia, Egypt and Djibouti. Jama published his first book, The Cost of Dictatorship, in 1995. The book under review, Somali Phoenix, is his latest.

This book is a continuation of unfinished business that the author did not address in his first book. It begins with the significance of the Arta Conference which was held in Djibouti in 2000. That important gathering, just 10 years after the beginning of the Somali civil war, was historic—it was the first time a Somali peace conference run by Somalis produced the first transitional government in the country. A Somali government came to existence that was internationally recognized, with a national charter and a clearly defined structure of power: executive, legislative, and judiciary branches. Unfortunately, Arta’s success was not capitalized upon because powerful and sinister forces made sure that it did not succeed. First and foremost, Ethiopia—Somalia’s longtime neighbor and rival— was inimical to the Somali-owned peace conference from the very beginning. Addis Ababa, sensing a rare opportunity to precipitate Somalia’s decline into anarchy, set out to derail the accomplishments of the Arta conference and the transitional national government that it bore. While Ethiopia was the major obstacle, according to Ghalib, other international entities such as the United Nations and the United States, turned a blind eye on Addis Ababa’s negative meddling in Somali affairs. This Ethiopian intervention manifested in several forms, from actual military invasion and periodic incursions in the country to blatant interference —mostly by proxy— in all Somali peace conferences. In one instance during the early 1990s, Somalia’s factions, which were 16, were invited to a gathering in Addis Ababa. Soon, that number had multiplied into 25 separate groups. Some of the Somali personalities who had been invited were mere figures without actual groups. Ethiopia, according to Ghalib, has always had an expansionist policy toward Somalia, a policy that is several hundred years old and is also deeply rooted in fear of Islam.

Ghalib devotes more than 98 pages (one-third) of the book to the destabilizing role of Ethiopia in the past and present of Somalia. What follows is an interesting discussion of other countries’ policies toward Somalia. For instance, Ghalib has a positive view of countries and entities like Kenya, Djibouti, Italy, Egypt, OAU, and the Arab League. The book also covers some general features of Somali culture, Somaliland, and certain key personalities in Somalia.

The discussion on Somaliland and how its secessionist government was founded is perhaps one of the most interesting parts of the book. Ghalib, an avowed nationalist and unionist, minces no words and provides detailed historical and legal refutations of claims made by Somaliland politicians as to why they opted for secession from Somalia.

Perhaps, the discussion of some Somali political leaders, as seen by Ghalib, will create uproar. Ghalib talks about personalities such as Dr. Ismail Jumale Ossoble, Hashi Weheliye Maalin, Ali Mahdi, Aideed, Abdulkadir Zoppo, Abdullahi Yusuf, Mohamed Abshir, Abdirahman Tuur, and Mohamed Ibrahim Egal. The author’s view of Aideed is generally positive. Ghalib, for instance, spends less than a paragraph discussing the clan cleansing that took place in southern Somalia. Ghalib’s four-sentence recap of that tragedy in Mogadishu in which thousands of innocent civilians were killed, uprooted, and targeted simply because of their clan affiliation, is as follows:

“Aideed led an uprising against a formidable and strongly established order. The victory over the latter, unfortunately, degenerated into a tragic civil war and inter-clan strafes to which Aideed’s militia was also a party. People therefore died on all sides throughout these conflicts, whether combatants or innocents. Many personalities including Aideed could not therefore escape responsibility for the upheavals per se, but he was never personally accused, let alone proved, of any particular willful murder of non-combatant civilians.”

Ghalib’s narrative of the late former prime minister of Somalia, Egal, is the most intriguing. The discussion is exhaustive and multi-faceted. It covers Egal’s family history, his failure to finish college in England, his political career which was replete with brilliance and backstabbing, public service and corruption, relations with the CIA—real or imagined—and years of imprisonment in Barre’s jails, serving as lackey to Barre after his release and betraying his people in the north, and finally changing colors and expediently becoming a secessionist leader and president of Somaliland. What piques the interest of the reader is what Egal did to Ghalib while the former was in power in Somaliland. Egal sent assassins to Ghalib’s house in Hargeisa, who in turn showered the author and his family with a fusillade of bullets. Fortunately, no one was hurt.  Ghalib has reproduced in his book a hand-written letter allegedly written by Egal ordering the political assassination.  

Ghalib’s book is a valuable addition to Somali studies. He is an excellent writer and is well-versed in Somali history, politics and culture. His assessment of political events, though at times clouded by his inherent biases, is powerful. I liked Ghalib’s first book, The Cost of Dictatorship, and feel the same with his new book. Ghalib is a Somali icon whose integrity and love of Somalia cannot be disputed. He stands tall in a world where many Somali politicians have sold their country to the highest bidder. Some consider Ghalib as a politician who, despite having served under Barre for 14 years as head of the police and interior minister, has not taken any responsibility for the crimes of that repressive regime. This is a subject Ghalib has yet to address because he has skillfully eschewed it in his prolific writings about Somalia. 

Because this book is self-published, Ghalib, unlike his first book, lacked the services of a professional editor. Hence, the book is poorly edited. It is inundated with numerous references—some good and some unimportant—that should have been neatly organized in footnotes. Despite that shortcoming, I would highly recommend this book to serious readers who are interested in Somali history and politics and who want to know why Somalia is in the state that it is in today.

A Winter of Discontent for Somalia's Beleaguered President

Mark Twain one said, “Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as you please.” When news of his demise spread like wildfire, Twain astutely remarked, “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”

Last week, Somali President Hassan S. Mohamoud had his Mark Twain moment. When Turkey sent a special plane to take Mohamoud to Istanbul, the Somali Government spokesman told the mass media the president was having a medical check-up. Several Somali websites reported that the president was suffering from a stress-related condition and he had been placed in intensive care; others even floated the bizarre idea that he had actually died. 

 

After several days of silence, President Mohamoud gave a five-minute interview to Radio Mogadishu. He was furious he had been reported dead or was in intensive care. He contradicted his spokesman and stated he had come to Turkey to visit his wife and children. And yes, he’d had a medical check-up and the results were great.  The president said he was healthy and did not need to take an aspirin.

A simple question about his health that required a simple answer morphed into a tirade against his rivals that lasted several minutes. “These rumors and innuendos are the work of the enemies of the Somali people,” he warned. “In fact, these gossip-mongers are supporters of Al-Shabaab.” To emphasize his fitness, the president asserted, “I am 100% healthy,” six times in five minutes. The repetition of the word “healthy” was accompanied by a dire threat to his enemies. “I ordered the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Security to investigate the people behind these false reports,” he added.

For the president, this has been a winter of discontent.

First, the West has abandoned his government. Last year, his government was heralded as the best option for ending Somalia’s two decades of chaos and anarchy. Western donors met in Brussels and pledged $2.5 billion to help the country rebuild itself from the ashes of ruin. British Prime Minister David Cameron convened an international conference in London to help Mohamoud and his government. Mohamoud also got a warm welcome in Washington, Rome, Tokyo, and other capitals.

Last July, the Somali government suffered a setback when the United Nations Monitoring Group for Somalia and Eritrea accused it of systemic corruption. The report concluded that 80% of aid given to the regime was missing, and the Somali Central Bank had become a “slush fund,” for the country’s officials. The bank’s governor was forced out and replaced by Yusur Abrar, a former Citigroup vice president. Then, the shocker came when Abrar herself resigned from her post after only seven weeks in office. She accused top government officials of graft and of pressuring her to open an account in Dubai so that funds from the Gulf States could be funneled through it instead of being deposited in the central bank. It was embarrassing for the government that Abrar had submitted her resignation in the UAE where she felt safer after assassination threats against her in Mogadishu. Her resignation was so damaging to Mohamoud’s reputation that Western donors withheld all aid to Somalia. Mogadishu has yet to receive a penny from the $2.5 billion pledged by these Western donors.

Second, Turkey, the only government that had been transparently providing cash aid ($4.5 million a month) directly to the Somali Government cut its aid in late December, 2013.  When a Turkish official was asked if aid would be resumed, he said, “We have no such plans at this stage. It is not our agenda.” Fortunately for Mohamoud, his government is still getting millions of dollars from Qatar and other Gulf States, monies whose size and frequency have never been revealed. 

Third, Al-Shabaab has intensified its bombings in Mogadishu, especially of the presidential compound. These terror acts are unprecedented in their ferocity and frequency. The lack of safety in the capital is a manifestation of the regime’s inability to reign in the terror group. Recently, James Clapper, the American Director of National Intelligence, accused Mohamoud of being weak and for heading a regime marred by chronic political infighting. To add insult to injury, a confidential report by the UN Monitoring Group for Somalia and Eritrea, that was leaked to Reuters this month, accused the Somali government of diversion of arms to Al-Shabaab. “A key adviser to the president, from his Abgaal sub-clan, has been involved in planning weapons deliveries to Al-Shabaab leader Yusuf Isse Kabatukade who is also Abgaal,” the report stated. These were weapons the government purchased as part of the partial lifting of the UN arms embargo last year. This is not the first time Mohamoud has been accused of having ties with Al-Shabaab. Last August, in an interview with a Somali channel, former prime minister and current parliamentarian Ali Khalif Galeyr accused Mohamoud of being in cahoots with Al-Shabaab. According to Galeyr, PM David Cameron of Britain had withdrawn an invitation to Mohamoud to attend the G-8 summit when the ties between Somali officials and Al-Shabaab leaders were uncovered. 

The reports of Mohamoud’s ill health are indeed exaggerated. However, what is not in doubt is his growing isolation from the international community, especially Western donors and Turkey, a country that has been a stalwart supporter of Mogadishu. Mohamoud might claim to be as fit as a fiddle, but his government today is ailing with endemic problems of corruption, lack of financial resources, serious security matters, and poor leadership.  

(Reprinted with permission from African Arguments, February 18, 2014).

Waran-Cadde's Wallaweyn Problem

I have a confession to make: I am a southerner and a card-carrying “Wallaweyn” man. Incidentally, Wallaweyn is a small town in southern Somalia. I was born in Afgooye (not far from Wallaweyn) and, since immediately after my birth and until age 18, I grew up in Mogadishu. Despite my strong credentials as Wallaweyn, I also have connections in the north, mostly through blood ties. In the 1960s, one of my sisters married a northerner (Ciise Muuse), a union that produced two children. A cousin also married another northerner (Sacad Muuse-Jibril Abokor), and that couple had several children. Most of my teachers in school were northerners. If you kindly think my English is good, all the credit is due to my northerner teachers. My grandparents hail from the north: my grandmother from Sool and my great grandparents from the Sanaag (Maakhir) region. This dizzying web of lineage for a Wallaweyn man like me is not unique; many Somalis are, after all, inter-related.

You may ask, Okay, what is the point? What are you trying to say?

Relax, I am doing what Somalilanders call “gogol-xaadh” (introduction) because this piece will infuriate some and delight others. It will annoy some because I will be called a “Somaliland hater” or a “Wallaweyn whiner.”  Others may approve of this piece because, as unionists, they will be delighted by the thrashing of Somaliland secessionists. Others might see it as a humorous attempt to toy with that dreadful and suffocating thing called “political correctness.” Are we clear now? No hard feelings.

 

The theme of this article can be summarized in one sentence: I like Somaliland politics. I never get bored with it because it is intriguing and lively. The north and the south share these common features: a) a dominant tribe is in power in both regions, b) there is a certain level of corruption in each, with the south being the greater den of thieves, and c) each regime marginalizes its opponents. However, the north enjoys relative peace and safety. Unlike the south, politicians in the north are not assassinated if they oppose the policies of the government. In Mogadishu, one member of the parliament was recently killed in a mysterious car bombing immediately after leaving the presidential compound. That happens only in Mogadishu.

 

A Pinocchio Interior Minister

Politicians lie, but some shamelessly offend our intelligence.

Recently, a brave and competent Somali journalist from the Somali Channel in the U.K interviewed the interior minister of Somaliland, Mohamed Ali “Waran-Cadde” (The White-speared). The interview was a classic example of how to dodge, lie, misinform, and mock. The minister said that Somaliland was a British protectorate and had a special relationship with Britain based on respect and cooperation.  While the British ruled Somaliland indirectly and were not as brutal as the Italians in the south, the territory was still administered by the Colonial Office in London. The protectorate, after all, was established to supply meat to the British garrison in Aden. Britain did not help the territory develop or build infrastructure.

 

Waran-Cadde was asked about the rumors of his government hiring white mercenaries to protect potential oil fields. He curtly denied them and made it clear that his government will hire neither white mercenaries nor black ones. Then, in reference to the African Union forces in the south, Waran-Cadde called them “sanweyne” (big nose). This denigration of fellow African Union forces that are helping the country get rid of terrorists reveals ignorance and arrogance.

 

Waran-Cadde, in a boldface lie, denied that his government had any shortcomings. He said that the government did not deny the head of the UCID opposition party permission to hold a public demonstration in the town of Gabiley. In fact, the government insisted on the event taking place in the office of UCID rather than outside. Furthermore, Waran-Cadde discounted that a major clan in Somaliland dominates—by design— key positions, including  the presidency, interior, foreign affairs, and finance ministries, chairmanship of opposition parties, and the airport and port administrations.

Recently, Waran- Cadde’s security forces arrested three Somali federal government officials at Hargeisa airport. These officials had attended the Turkish-sponsored bilateral talks between Somaliland and Somalia that were held in Istanbul. “Here in Somaliland, [we] enacted anti-federal government legislation and they knew our response; henceforth, we would bring those people to justice,” declared Waran-Cadde. “They traveled by plane from Mogadishu to Hargeisa and they weren’t transit passengers,” he added. It was only last November when Waran-Cadde, in a press conference, named the Somali government enemy number one of Somaliland.

 

Waran-Cadde has also denied that Somaliland receives foreign aid. This is a strange statement from a government official since his entire security forces get their salaries from the UNDP. Somaliland has also received $3 million from UK Aid in the last year. This assistance, which was earmarked for the pacification of the Sool and Buuhoodle regions, was misspent as is most of the aid given to any part of Somalia. Faisal Ali Waraabe, chairman of UCID, has called the ruling clique in Somaliland a bunch of looters and demagogues who muzzle the independent media like Universal TV and fleece national resources. He compared the current regime in Somaliland to the Siad Barre government. “Somaliland is for sale,” he lamented.

 

Waran-Cadde is a flamboyant politician who has changed political parties as often as one changes clothes. He has, in his home, what defies logic: seven wild lions. Several years ago, one of them got loose in Hargeisa and killed a girl. He has failed to justify why he keeps dangerous wild animals in the city or whether keeping such animals in an urban setting is legal.

 

A War of Words

Recently, a spat erupted between Fadumo Siciid of the UCID party and Amina Mohamoud Diriye, a deputy minister. Ms. Siciid held a press conference in which she lashed out at Ms. Diriye. Ms. Siciid was barred from entering Gabiley by the current administration. This war of words might seem trivial to many, but in reality it is an indication of relative freedom of speech in Somaliland. The role of northerner women in politics is more vibrant than that of their sisters in the south.

  

The current Somaliland administration has a history of marginalizing the opposition parties and deliberately creating discord in their ranks. Funds allocated for the opposition are given to them at one time and denied at another. Opposition figures are also deprived of access to the national mass media. Waran-Cadde, of course, reassured the Somali Channel viewers that he would look into the matter.

Let us hope for that.