An International Multi-Disciplinary Journal, Ethiopia Vol. 3 (3), April, 2009 ISSN 1994-9057 (Print) ISSN 2070-0083 (Online) The Somalian Crisis: A Legacy of Colonialism? (Pp. 297-314) Mamman Musa Adamu - Department of History, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria E-mail: [email protected] Phone No. 07056275560 Abstract: The Somalian crisis seemed to have defied all solutions since its inception in1991. The country had become increasingly ungovernable and the condition had been described as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Somalia is considered by many to be a ‘failed state’ being the only state in the world with a vacant seat at the United Nations. It is not that it has been abolished but that it has entered what some analysts have called an undetermined ‘Gray Zone’. All these have been as a result of the crisis that engulfed the country since the fall of the regime of Siyyad Barre almost two decades ago and further complicated by the Ethiopian /American invasion of 2006. This paper examines the roots of the crisis, the attempts made at reconciliation as well as the role of international bodies in averting or escalating the crisis. The paper also looks at the possibility of finding a lasting peace in the country. It is argued that the Somalian crisis should be largely seen as a legacy of colonialism in the country as well as the misdeeds of some people like Siyyad Barre. The paper shows that the only way to peace is to allow the Somalians to determine the manner in which they want to be ruled. Roots of the crisis: One of the most favourite but disturbing explanations in the discussion of the roots of the crisis in Somalia is that the crisis was an ethnic or tribal war Copyright © IAARR, 2009: www.afrrevjo.com 297 Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info African Research Review Vol. 3 (3), April, 2009. Pp. 297-314 between the various clans and ethnic groups in the country. The major advocates of this argument are Kinfe Abraham (2000), Hussein M.Adam (1997), Hirsch and Oakley (1995) and other media outfits and correspondents. Kinfe, 2002, has viewed the Somalian crisis as part of what he referred to as a “culture of ordered anarchy which prevails among pastoral nomads”. He largely saw the conflict as a clan war between the Darood clan of Siyyad Barre and other clans such as the Majerteen, Hawiyee, Isaaq and Digil- Mirifle. Noel Mwakugu and David Aweis of the BBC News also presented the war as ethnic between the Mogadishu’s dominant clan, the Hawiyee against the Darood clan of President Yusuf Abdullahi. The Hawiyees fighting because of their fear that Abdullahi’s administration was only aimed at ending their traditional dominance in government (www.bbcnews.com 26 th April, 2007). Aweis was specifically of the opinion that the likelihood of Somalis moving beyond their clan outlook and uniting behind one leader was slim and that ‘everyone’s agenda comes down to clan in the end’(ibid). This kind of explanation seems to be popular with the western media based on their perception of African societies as being ethnic and tribal conglomerations. The same description was given in the case of many other conflicts in Africa such as that of Darfur (Mamman, 2008). This line of thinking, however, incapacitates us from going beyond the categories of these clans to the real issues that led to the crisis. Moreover, it should be noted that the Darood, Majerteen, Hawiyee or the Isaaq clans would not be fighting just because of their ethnic identities. Scholars like Thomas Walkom and Amina Mire were also of the opinion that the crisis especially in its later form was a religious war between Christians as represented by Ethiopia and the US and muslims in Somalia. Thomas Walkom noted that “American backed, foreign Christian troops intervened in a Muslim civil war to unseat the winning islamist side” while Mire called it a “Christian colonial crusade” and concluded that “this is a Christian unholy crusading war against the muslim nation of Somalia” (www.somaliacrisis.com). It should be noted however, that both Ethiopia and the US went to Somalia not to Christianize anybody but to protect their security, political and economic interests as we shall see later in this discussion. The colonial roots of the crisis: The Somalian crisis had its roots in Somalia’s colonial past. Just like Shillington, (1994) argued, most of the post- independent conflicts in Africa Copyright © IAARR, 2009: www.afrrevjo.com 298 Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info The Somalian Crisis: A Legacy of Colonialism? could be traced to its colonial experience and the corruption or incompetence of its leaders. He noted that: “The problems which Africans and their governments have had to face since independence have very largely, been the product of their history.This is not to suggest that the misdirection, corruption or incompetence of some African leaders or even ecological factors have not been partly to blame for Africa’s continuing underdevelopment. But the roots of many of Africa’s recurrent problems in the final decades of the 20 th centuryare to be found in the period of colonial rule…….. (Shillington, 1994 p.408). The crisis could also be seen to be an excellent example of a colonial legacy in all of its ramifications. The Somalian people had enjoyed relative peace for most of the period before the colonial infiltration. In fact (Lyons and Samatar, 1995) have shown that their kinship and homogeneity was a major source of stability during the pre- colonial period. (Hirsch and Oakley,1995 p.3) have in the same way shown that the uniqueness of the Somali state in the sub- region was based on a single ethnic group, their identity was defined by a common language (Af-Somali), a pastoral economy, adherence to islam(sunni) and a patriarchal clan based political system. The people believed that they descended from the same male ancestor and his two sons Somali and Sab. The Somali or Somaale group constituted about 80 percent of the population and occupied the northern part of the country while the Sab took the remaining 20 percent and were based in southern Somalia. The two groups’ basic identity was in their economic activities with the Somaale being predominantly nomadic while the Sab were mostly agriculturalist. The communities were also united into a larger social and political unit called a (ren) each with its own leader (“Somalia culture”www.arab.net.). Both Anna Simons (1998) p.57 and Mohammed (1997) have indicated that there were six kin- based clan families to which the whole people belong, namely the Dir, Isaaq, Darood, Hawiyee Digil and Rahanwein which are again divided patrilineally into smaller sub- clans. Lyons and Samatar, 1995 have given a more complex division in their book. They mentioned three clan families namely the Saar, Irir and Darood. The Saar comprised of the Rahanwein and the Digil, the Irir sub- divided into the Dir, Isaaq and Hawiye while the Darood were made up of five clans namely the Ogaden, Majerteen, Copyright © IAARR, 2009: www.afrrevjo.com 299 Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info African Research Review Vol. 3 (3), April, 2009. Pp. 297-314 Warsangali, Marchan and Dalbonte. These bonds managed to cement Somali cohesion in the period before the arrival of the Europeans and served as shock absorbers in crisis situations. The European infiltration of the area, however led to the balkanization of the country thus sowing the seeds of discord and dissentions that manifested after independence. This started with the British occupation of Aden on the Arabian coast in 1839 and some towns on the Somalian coast in 1882 under the guise of safe guarding the route to India through the Suez Canal which had been opened in 1869. It followed this with the declaration of a protectorate over the area and known as British Somaliland under the administration of the British foreign office in 1898 and of the colonial office in 1905. Italy was the next country to be in Somalia and it signed treaties with native Somali sultans and acquired a foothold along the coast of the Indian Ocean by 1889 (Fage, 1988 p.377). It then extended its control over the area inland by the treaty of London which was signed in 1915 and via other post war agreements. This area became the Italian Somaliland. The French acquired part of the Somali area around Obok on the Afar coast in 1862, developed the port of Djibouti in 1884 and made it to become the French Somaliland (ibid p. 378). A part of Somalia, known as Ogaden also came under Ethiopia while another part was carved into northern Kenya. Hence, the land traditionally occupied by the Somali people was balkanized into five states by the colonialists during the colonial period. It was this division that should be taken to be partly responsible for what was to follow after independence and to ultimately lead to the Somalian instability and crisis. This division seriously militated against the tendency of unity as each of the territories was administered independent of the other in a grand divide and rule style. The British used the so- called indirect rule system which ruled through the traditional rulers of the people. The Italians on the other hand used the direct system in which it brutalized the people and made them to submit their customs, rights and economic preferences to the conquerors ways. Nomadic customs and laws were abolished and Roman law was instituted in its place. This fact made the south to be more nationalistic and radical in its independence struggle than the north.