SomaliNet Forums

What do you guys think will be the best solution(s) to Somalia's problems? And don't bother spouting crap about removing some tribe or another, let's keep this thread qabilist-free. My views follow below, feel free to skip if it's too long. lawl

Personally, I think that nothing will improve in Somalia unless it is able to ward off the neocolonial powers that attempt to subjugate it in the same way that Ethiopia and Kenya bows down to the West. Eritrea is more independent but that is why the US targeted it using various "diplomatic" strategies (see reports on Hillary Clinton accusing Eritrea of providing arms to Somalia and similar accusations/actions).

"Yes, as I said, since the Restore Hope failure, United States has preferred to keep Somalia in chaos. However, in 2006, a spontaneous movement developed under the Islamic courts to fight against the local warlords and bring unity to the country. It was a kind of Intifada. In order to stop this movement from rebuilding Somalia, United States decided suddenly to support the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) after having refused to recognize it before. In fact, they realized that their project of a Somalia without effective state was no more possible : a movement – furthermore Islamic !- was about to lead to a national reconciliation. In order to sabotage the Somali unity, United States decided to support the TFG. But this later was lacking any social basis and an army. So the Ethiopian troops, commanded by Washington, attacked Mogadishu to overthrow the Islamic courts."

Source: http://www.michelcollon.info/Somalia-Ho ... ml?lang=fr

This is very true and we can see that similar sinister motives lie behind nearly every action the US/West has taken when it comes to the "War on Terror" (ie. war against anyone who won't bow down to our will - give us your oil and servitude) or so-called "military intervention" (see Mali/Niger and France and US' genocide of Tuaregs to suppress their separatist movements).

Perhaps a new form of rule that resembles political structures of precolonial times. Correct me if I am wrong, but in certain areas, there was a leader (usually by birthright but even then, he was specifically chosen out of his siblings). He was advised by clan elders, military experts, astrologists/astronomists (not sure which it is), poets, etc. Today, we can create a similar, familiar system such as a senate or similar group of elected, well-respected leaders of communities who specialize in certain fields (ie. military, economics, education, etc) whose votes determine laws passed among other things and whose positions on certain subjects influence the country's leader. It is important that this senate or confederation of regional leaders come from various clans and regions, so that each group and people are represented and thus given voice on a federal level.

I also think that it is vital that referendums be used for major laws or laws that will create great change. Given the Somalis' inclination towards totally opposing governments or leaders if they feel their views are not represented, this may ease the transition of a new leader in power. The regional leaders of the confederation or senate or whatever it is should also host community meetings and debates regularly at which citizens walk in, discuss important issues, listen, and be heard. These meetings should continue until the majority come to agreement, which I believe I've been told is a Somali custom. Their leader/representative can then represent their concerns and views at senate/confederation/etc.

All the while, focus should be placed on infrastructure, improving access to education, clean water, jobs, proper healthcare, among other things. Education is very important and will help open the minds of the people as well as broadening their horizons and allowing our country focus on intellectual advancements, inventions, innovations, and other pursuits at a greater pace in the future. Somali environmentalists and academics should also work towards planning for a sustainable future and to put in place legislations that will protect our natural resources and environment.

So while we do have serious issues with qabil and power struggles related to clans' ambitions, the West (particularly the US) and its puppet regimes have done nothing but to contribute to the deaths, lawlessness, corruption, and injustices suffered by many peoples, including those in Somalia. I don't see the future being bright for an independent, prosperous Somalia as long as Africa and Somalia's neighbours continue to be under neocolonial rule, suppression, and exploitation of its resources.

Our problems are primarily of our own making, therefore, the solutions to our problems are in our hands.
Foreign powers cannot interfere in our affairs if we are a strong and united country.
Imperialist powers seek to cause conflict and disunity to better exploit African countries.

Somalia has a corrupt political/business class, an illiterate population, is overrun with pseudo Islamists etc.
Its hard to envision a strong and wise leadership emerging in such circumstances.

Majeerteen and Ogaden forget one thing:
Their rebellion against Amiir Xassan will lead to Hawiye rebellion against any future darood president.
I will def not support a dooro president , may Allah forbid that from happening.
So the solution is to have every time hawiye president and the somalis should obey their amiir.

@CushiticReflections Could you please elaborate on how the West is to be largely blamed for Somalia's woes?

What resources of Somalia are being exploited? And please don't give me that crap about illegal fishing on Somali waters, the idea that the West is conspiring to subjugate Somalia so they could get free fish is just laughable. These are independent corporations that are doing the illegal fishing/toxic dumping and their only motive is a quick buck, nothing else. Regardless, what happens in Somali waters is completely irrelevant to the chaos inside that lawless jungle you call a country.

These "neo-colonial powers" that are hell bent on subjugating Somalia so they could become client states only exist in your mind. The US and co are only concerned about their security and commercial interests. Somalia poses a threat to both these interests -- you can't expect jihadism and piracy to reign supreme in Somalia and expect the West to do nothing. Somalis were more than happy killing each other uninterrupted and without foreign involvement from from 1994 to 2001, when the US decided to get involved in 1993 after the American public was bombarded with images of famine and starving Somalis on CNN, there was pressure on Bill Clinton to finally bring some order to this hopeless country and stop the famine (which he did). After the American show of gratitude was rebuffed and the warring clans temporally suspended their beef to battle the Marines, they soon picked up where they left off and started killing each other again levelling the city in the process.

Anyway, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a client state of the US. History has shown that those countries that are on the same page as the US fare much better than those petty autocratic countries that seek conflict with it.

Compare: North Korea, Iran, Eritrea, Iraq, Cuba, Sudan, Venezuela, Burma (until recently) etc with Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan, SIngapore, Saudi Arabia etc. How are these countries different in terms of economic well being and prosperity? What do they have in common in terms of foreign policy and strategic allegiance? Go figure. Somalia doesn't have the resources nor the human capital to stand up to a few units of ragtag militia yet alone the United States of America. The Somali president should be preoccupied on how he could woo the US for aid money and foreign companies for investment investment in the country. His foreign policy should be based on how best to achieve economic progress, absolutely nothing else.

^
Weakling.

^^^I`d say he is more of a realist.
We don`t wanna fall out with the big dawgs on the block, and end up on the axis of evil.
Somalia has sunk so deep into the abyss, that to be pimped out by the yanks is a drastic improvement.

Yeah maybe in a generation or so we can get all nationalistic, but now is definitely not the time.

We need more people like OP and less like theAnswer.

optimists who believe in their country.

Where are the leaders you can believe in?

TheAnswer2 wrote:@CushiticReflections Could you please elaborate on how the West is to be largely blamed for Somalia's woes?

What resources of Somalia are being exploited? And please don't give me that crap about illegal fishing on Somali waters, the idea that the West is conspiring to subjugate Somalia so they could get free fish is just laughable. These are independent corporations that are doing the illegal fishing/toxic dumping and their only motive is a quick buck, nothing else. Regardless, what happens in Somali waters is completely irrelevant to the chaos inside that lawless jungle you call a country.

When did I ever state that the US is interested in Somalia's waters? I did not and so that has no place in the discussion, although it is certainly true that Somalia's waters have been polluted and exploited.

Somalia is, generally speaking, an arid land. So I do not understand why you referred to it as a jungle.

I have also never stated that Somalia's resources have been exploited so I am unsure as to why you ask that of me. The only times when I mentioned "resources" were to highlight the importance of Somalia's development being sustainable and protecting the environment or at least doing the least amount of damage as possible. I also mentioned that other African nations' resources are being exploited. But while we are on that topic, I should probably clarify how Somalia's resources come into play. I have provided a link to a source in case more information was needed. On that page, it states that Somalia possesses oil and ores. Here is a quote from the site that provides information perhaps more clearly than I could:

In Sudan, due to the civilian war, Exxon has had to leave the country after having discovered oil. So isn’t letting Somalia plunge into chaos contrary to American interests, which cannot exploit the discovered oil ?

Oil exploitation is not their priority. The United States know that the reserves are there but doesn’t need it immediately. Two elements are much more important in its strategy. First, prevent the competitors from negotiating with a rich and powerful Somali state. If you consider Sudan, the comparison is interesting. The oil that the American companies discovered there thirty years ago, Sudan is selling it today to China. The same thing could happen in Somalia. When he was president of the transition government, Abdullah Yusuf went to China although he was supported by the United States. US mass media had strongly criticized that visit. The fact is that United States have no guarantee on that point : if a Somali government is established tomorrow, whatever is its political color, it could probably adopt a strategy independent of United States and trade with China. Western imperialists do not want a strong and unified Somali state. The second goal pursued by this chaos theory is linked to the geographical location of Somalia, which is strategic for both European and American imperialists.

Source: http://www.michelcollon.info/Somalia-Ho ... ml?lang=fr

TheAnswer2 wrote:These "neo-colonial powers" that are hell bent on subjugating Somalia so they could become client states only exist in your mind. The US and co are only concerned about their security and commercial interests. Somalia poses a threat to both these interests -- you can't expect jihadism and piracy to reign supreme in Somalia and expect the West to do nothing.

If you read the same link provided above and in my last post, then you will find that it is precisely because Somalia is a strategic location and so it is of concern to their security and commercial interests. I suggest you take the time to read the source provided before as many of the points you raise are addressed there.

"Jihadism" did not rule supreme in Somalia, in fact, your misuse of the word "jihad" entirely misrepresents what Al Qaeda had been and is doing in Somalia. "Jihad" comes from the root word jim - ha- dal. It literally means to struggle or strive. In Islam, it is striving in various aspects including spiritual, personal endeavours, fighting injustice, among other things. But it never included terrorism - the Qur'an prohibits Muslims from being aggressors and permits fighting only to fight oppression. To use "jihadism" is to use the term that the media popularized and which has mistranslated as "holy war". In the minds of many non-Muslims "jihad" means to fight against non-believers when, in reality, the Qur'an states that we are to fight only against oppressors. Jihad is far more than fighting, it is striving in the cause of God which includes the spiritual aspects of one's inner life as well as their life decisions.

You can read more on the root jim- ha - dal here: http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

TheAnswer2 wrote:Anyway, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a client state of the US. History has shown that those countries that are on the same page as the US fare much better than those petty autocratic countries that seek conflict with it.

Compare: North Korea, Iran, Eritrea, Iraq, Cuba, Sudan, Venezuela, Burma (until recently) etc with Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan, SIngapore, Saudi Arabia etc. How are these countries different in terms of economic well being and prosperity? What do they have in common in terms of foreign policy and strategic allegiance? Go figure. Somalia doesn't have the resources nor the human capital to stand up to a few units of ragtag militia yet alone the United States of America. The Somali president should be preoccupied on how he could woo the US for aid money and foreign companies for investment investment in the country. His foreign policy should be based on how best to achieve economic progress, absolutely nothing else.

“Quite evidently, dependence presupposes an exchange of favors: the 'patron state' allots to the 'client state' goods necessary to its survival according to a procedure identical with what occurs at the level of internal societal functions. In turn, the client state brings favors all the more diverse, whether they concern the use of its territory or the symbolic power it holds as a state on the international scene. The transfer of territorial rights from the patron state corresponds, first of all, to what an abundant literature formerly called the “looting of the third world”, referring principally to its diverse and abundant natural resources. It is also known that this transfer fits into the geopolitcal aims of the patron state and concerns the granting of military bases or simply of “facilities” for crossing the client state's territory. These two are often demanded as exclusive rights, as Great Britain did with Persia following the Afghan wars in the nineteenth century.”

“But it is remarkable that in modern times this transfer logic tends to become outrageously diversified, as is revealed by the extension of the practice of the 'trash state', in which the client allows the patron to dump industrial waste on its land and in its waters. This kind of agreement concern in particular the Gulf of Guinea and the Horn of Africa.”

There is an imbalance of power in a patron-client relationship. The patron state holds the majority of the power and so this means a great inequality of power in financial, economic, military, technological levels. The patron state also decides the organization of the sociopolitical life of the client state and everything that influences it (ie. verbal, musical, and satorial expression). This, in turns, affects the cultural identity of the nation and its people.

In addition, there are risks for the client state which exists only minimally for the patron state, due to the current power structures of the international scene. This means that the client state has more to lose when their relationship changes.

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=LH0XCe ... pg=PA26&dq p 24-26

Considering that such a relationship involves dependendence on another nation, particularly on one that has less to lose when it decides to end the patron-client relationship and gains more in this relationship, then it only follows that when the relationship is no longer of benefit to the more powerful state, the relationship will change resulting in the lack of security of the patron-client relationship.

According to the book linked above, such shifts have had negative affects on client states (ie. Ethiopia between patronages and Iran after the Islamic revolution. This has meant ostracizement from the international community as well as other negative results.

As outlined above, the effects of being a client state and possible outcomes reveal that more than simply changes in the economy that may lead to great losses for the client nation.

Foreign investment has led to great losses in the economies of so-called “third world” nations. The example, though there are many like it, of Zambia follows:

An investigation by the British charity ActionAid has found that a major British corporation avoided paying income tax on hundreds of millions of dollars earned in the African state of Zambia.

The charity says that Zambia Sugar, a subsidiary of Associated British Foods (ABF), has paid almost no tax in Zambia since 2007.

The company moved millions of dollars out of Zambia and into tax havens like Mauritius and the Netherlands, reducing its taxable profits.

The report also accused ABF of "exploiting two separate tax breaks originally intended respectively for domestic Zambian farmers and big foreign investors".

ABF has denied the allegations, describing ActionAid's assertions as "illogical".
"The mill and related activities provide employment for more than 5,000 people," ABF said in a statement.

"As a direct consequence of this investment in a sustainable business, capital allowances and tax incentives were available to the company as they are to other investors."

Since 2007, Zambia Sugar has paid less than 0.5 percent of its $123m in profits, according to ActionAid - in a country where the main corporate tax rate is 35 percent; between 2008 and 2010, the firm paid no taxes at all.

"We estimate that Zambia has lost tax revenues of some US$17.7m since 2007, when ABF took over the Illovo sugar group," the charity wrote in its report, adding that this case is part of a much larger problem.

In response to the report, Illovo said it "believes that ActionAid’s work on the ground in many countries is laudable. However, this report is clearly designed with political campaigning in mind. It is inaccurate and misleading".  

Researchers estimate that Zambia's economy loses some $2bn each year because of tax avoidance by multinational corporations.
Those underpayments mean poor public services for Zambians.

In Mazabuka town, on the edge of a local sugar plantation, about 1,200 students cram into just 12 classrooms, where they are taught in shifts, according to the charity's report.

Medical care is scarce; nationwide, there is just one doctor for every 10,000 Zambians.

In summary, this loss leads to fewer public services made available to the public. Such services include education, health care, among other important facilities or insitiutions.

In what ways are autocratic countries all “petty”? Is the mere fact that they autocratic automatically mean that they are “petty”? This does not logically follow. It is a word with a negative connation and thus reveals a bias against such nations. Bias affects how one views an issue or situation and if it even comes into what would ideally be a factual, objective post considering that you asked for elaboration while providing examples of your own to support your assertions. In order for your statements to hold weight in any debate, it is important that they be factual, logical, and objective in delivery. This is because, while everyone has an opinion, arguments are most persuasive and its logic sound when it fits the above criteria.

In conclusion, your argument neglects the many impacts that client states or nations that are invested by multinational corporations that leads to billions of dollars in losses to a poor nation's economy, fewer public services (ie. health care, education, infrastructure, etc), lack of independence of identity and culture, pollution (see “trash states”), among many similar impacts. Therefore, the possibility of some economic growth in addition to the above results does not lead to the overall benefit of poor nations to accept the foreign investment or a patron-client relationship.

grandpakhalif wrote:We need more people like OP and less like theAnswer.

optimists who believe in their country.

I've never been referred to as an optimist before but thank you.

original dervish wrote:Where are the leaders you can believe in?

I don't know if there exists any political leader we can faithfully believe in without question. It is important to always be aware, informed, and to speak out when necessary. Regardless, I do believe that there are leaders or potential leaders who may bring what is needed to the table. But the issue of many African nations is that they over-centralize their government when it may be beneficial to have functional and significant levels of government. This may help to potentially control corruption. Somalia has semi-autonomous regions but the federal government could use some restructuring, in my opinion.

The current Govt of Somalia has been in office 5 mins and they`re already trying to abandon federalism, and impose control from the centre.
Tribal politics doesn't allow for a honest and competent leadership to emerge.
Sadly, I`ve come to the conclusion Somalia needs outside supervision.