It is strange how an earlier article of mine on the impossibility of an equation between Kosovo and Somaliland gave birth to an incredible reaction and article from the part of (a supposedly Somali of the breakaway and unrecognized state of Somaliland) Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse. His attack, which is going to take the form of a series of articles, is not personal, but although phrased in civil terms, attempts to make a link between my subject and an imaginative array of issues that first, do not concern me, and second, are irrelevant to the topic of my aforementioned article. I find therefore the reason to reply analytically; this would help many realize that there is actually no apparent reason for the existence of Somaliland, except secret plans machinated among disastrous circles in America, and sheer expansionism of the Neo-Nazi regime of Abyssinia. As I am going to republish the entire article in order to analytically comment various points therein included, I want only to state beforehand that things are certainly clear. There is no parallel between Kosovo and Somaliland. ------------------------------------ First published on 7th April 2008 in American Chronicle, AfroArticles and Buzzle

1. The Nile, Egypt, Abyssinia, Somalia,
and Somaliland
It is strange how an earlier article of mine on the impossibility of an equation
between Kosovo and Somaliland gave birth to an incredible reaction and
article from the part of (a supposedly Somali of the breakaway and
unrecognized state of Somaliland) Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse.
His attack, which is going to take the form of a series of articles, is not
personal, but although phrased in civil terms, attempts to make a link
between my subject and an imaginative array of issues that first, do not
concern me, and second, are irrelevant to the topic of my aforementioned
article.
I find therefore the reason to reply analytically; this would help many realize
that there is actually no apparent reason for the existence of Somaliland,
except secret plans machinated among disastrous circles in America, and
sheer expansionism of the Neo-Nazi regime of Abyssinia.
As I am going to republish the entire article in order to analytically comment
various points therein included, I want only to state beforehand that things
are certainly clear. There is no parallel between Kosovo and Somaliland.

2. No parallel between Kosovo and Somaliland
Kosovo is inhabited by another nation than Serbia, where it had belonged to,
and has therefore right to national independence. Albanian Kosovars differ
from the Serbs in terms of origin, language, culture and religion; Albanian
Kosovars were oppressed and tyrannized for almost a century, ever since the
Serbian army invaded their territory in the First Balkan War (1912).
Even worse, Albanian Kosovars were mercilessly persecuted in the winter
1998 – 99, as the masterminded Serbian plan aimed at bringing about the
Albanian Kosovars’ forced expulsion or physical extermination in what can
be called the 20th century’s last genocide.
Somaliland is not a separate, independent nation, as all the inhabitants of the
breakaway and unrecognized state are Somalis. They speak absolutely the
same language, and they worship the same religion; there is no cultural,
social, behavioural difference among people in Kismayu, Mogadishu, Ras
Hafun, Garowe, Laasqoray, Bossasso, Berbera, and Hargeysa.
Certainly the prevailing social infrastructure – due to lack of development –
allowed the persistence of tribal traits, but this is meaningless; there are more
differences between an Italian from Catania and an Italian from Milano than
dissimilarities between a Somali from Berbera and a Somali from Mogadishu.
In striking difference with what occurred in Kosovo where a nation invaded
and subjugated another nation, in Somalia we never attested a situation like
that, precisely because the Somalis are all one nation – along with the
Ogadenis and the Somalis unjustly engulfed in Kenya and Djibouti.
Of course, the entire country was invaded by colonial empires, mainly Italy
and Britain (and to a minimal extent France) in the beginning, and then
Abyssinia (through the illegal transfer of the political authority in Ogaden
from the departing British to the monarchical tyranny of Haile Selassie
between 1948 and 1955). For the largest part of Somalia, 1960 signaled
independence and unity. During the period of Somali unity, an attempt was
made to take Ogaden out of the clutches of the murderous tyrants of the pro-
Communist regime of Mengistu, but it failed.
As one can imagine, despite tribal rivalries, we never attested in Somaliland
the Albanian Kosovars’ drama; certainly localisms exist in every country, and
there is a rivalry between the Turks of Istanbul and those of Ankara, between
the Greeks of Athens and those of Salonica, between the Germans of Munich
and those of Berlin, etc. but the story ends there.
And it must end there, if we do not want to see the paradox of integral
nations splitting unreasonably to 10 or 20 pieces. This was the basic concept

3. developed in my aforementioned article. The Somalis of the so-called
Somaliland cannot present a single reason for which they should be apart
from Somalia, and worse, to be recognized as such. One must not read me
mistakenly; it is understandable that, when a part of a country is plunged into
a civil strife, another stays in peace. There is nothing wrong with it. But,…
The part that remains in peace has the national and the moral obligation to
deploy all efforts to solve the prevailing problems among the warring sides of
the other part of the country, to help peace prevail there too, and to merge
with them as before.
The great majority of the Somalis of Somaliland want passionately peace to
prevail in the Somali South, and then an agreement for reunification to be
made with all the political parties and groups, leaders and fronts that would
bring all, the Somali South, Puntland, Maakhir and Somaliland, under one
umbrella.
The only exception is made by the current regime of Somaliland that turned
out to be a band of high traitors sold out to the Neo-Nazi Abyssinian dictator
Meles Zenawi. Now, if we take into consideration that the Amhara and Tigray
Abyssinians have been the traditional enemy of Somalia, and are currently
working on several malignant, criminal, and racist projects against Somalia,
we can ask ourselves "what sort of legitimacy may the puppet regime of
Hargeysa claim to"?
An unrepresentative, anti-Somali regime must not exist on any part of
Somalia’s territory.
This said, one can easily realize that the Somaliland predicament concerns
exclusively the Somalis and their enemies, the Amhara and Tigray
Abyssinians. So foolish the Hargeysa traitors have been that they failed to
understand the precarious nature of the ailing Abyssinian state; Fake Ethiopia
will be decomposed and broken down to pieces.
Assuming that Hargeysa is now recognized by a few states, which is not
likely of course, what sort of future relations can tiny Somaliland have with
an Oromo government at Finfinne, and with Ogaden achieving secession and
independence? None!
However, Somaliland does not concern other states in the area, even nearby
Eritrea. How could Somaliland possibly be a matter of interest for Sudan,
Egypt or Turkey? The question hints at the contents of the article – attack
against my position about Somaliland; this odd argumentation tries to
establish a link where there is no link.
At this point, I will publish integrally Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse’s

4. article, encrusting numbers that refer to the comments that are presented after
this diatribe. As the text was published in several websites, I don’t know
which one was the original, as there is no mention in this regard. Probably,
the article was sent to many recipients at the same time, so the links below are
just indicative:
http://www.somalilandtalk.com/node/3181, and
http://radiohadhwanaag.com/index.php?news=426.
Kosovo and Somaliland: the Impossible Equation – The Egyptian Position
The impetus of the Greek professor’s analysis is anchored on "Somaliland’s
insubstantial demand for international recognition." The complexity of issue
requires a more holistic and objective approach addressing the dynamics of
the creation of the Somali Republic in 1960 as well as the immediate and the
latent causes of the failure of the state. At a minimum, the professor should
have asked: What went wrong and why? 1 What would have been done
differently to avert the failure of the Somali state? 2 A nation that does not
meet its full potential 3 is an evolutionary failure 4, and by any stretch of the
imagination, Somaliland’s withdrawal from a disastrous union 5 should not
and can not be portrayed as the nucleus of all things that went wrong in
Somalia.
The subject of recognition of Somaliland is solidly based on indubitable legal
and constitutional ground according to international law [law of international
treaties, succession of states etc.]. For example, from April 29th to May 5th
2005, a fact finding mission of the African Union, headed by the Right
Honourable Mr. Patrick Mazimhaka, 6 Deputy-Chairperson of the
Commission of the African Union, visited Somaliland, and among its findings
and conclusions is the following excerpt:
"The fact that the union between Somaliland and Somalia was never ratified
and also malfunctioned when it went into action from 1960 to 1990, makes
Somaliland’s search for recognition historically unique and self-justified in
African political history. 7 Objectively viewed, the case should not be linked
to the notion of ‘opening a Pandora’s Box’. As such, the AU should find a
special method of dealing with this outstanding case". 8
Having said that, the histrionics of professor Muhammad Shamsaddin
Megalommatis is an extension of the cloak-and-dagger politics of the
Egyptian government. 9 From Butrous-Butrous Ghali to Amar Mousa and in
between, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry has been the standard bearer of a
futile unholy crusade against Somaliland's quest for recognition. 10 This
diplomatic offensive is aimed at forestalling Somaliland's efforts to present to
the international community its legitimate right to reclaim its sovereignty. 11
This diplomacy has ended in utter fiasco.12 For example, during his heydays
at the helm of the United Nations Organisation, Mr. Butrous-Butrous Ghali

5. made one of the most embarrassing and undiplomatic statements during a
live interview with the Arabic Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
13 This career Diplomat said, "Doul mush Bani Adam" in response to a
question about the Somali crisis. Roughly translated, this short statement
means: "They are not human beings." Imagine the bigotry of the Secretary-
General of the United Nations! This is the same Butrous Ghali who
engineered the United Nations' disastrous intervention in Somalia- a mission
without a clear mandate and objectives. 14
The common thread between the professor Megalommatis and the Egyptian
diplomatic corps is intolerance towards any real or perceived threats towards
the national interest of Egypt 15 : The River Nile is Egypt 16 and Egypt is the
Nile. 17 The livelihood of 100 million Egyptians 18 takes precedence over the
very existence of over 180 million inhabitants in the River Nile Basin. 19 The
population of the riparian states is expected to double in the coming twenty
years. The imbalance between a diminishing natural resource coupled with
the consumption demands of exploding populations, is a sure recipe for an
armed conflict in the region.
The Nile Water Agreement of 1929 guarantees Egypt about 56 Billion cubic
meters out of about 74 Billion cubic meters of the total water flow- that is
roughly 76% of the total water volume. 20 This outdated formula gives the
Egyptian government almost exclusive monopoly and right of usage of the
River Nile waters. For example, one of the clauses of the agreement states:
"Without the consent of the Egyptian Government, no irrigation or
hydroelectric works can be established on the tributaries of the Nile or their
lakes if such works can cause a drop in water level harmful to Egypt". 21
Times have changed 22 and the littoral states [Kenya, Uganda, Sudan,
Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, and Ethiopia are under tremendous
pressure 23 to renegotiate the terms of water allocation and usage. The
Egyptian demands on the waters of the River Nile are simply unsustainable.
Sooner or later, the needs of other nations should be addressed. However, the
Egyptian regime is not even prepared to address the issue, let alone
renegotiate the terms of the old agreement. The Egyptian foreign ministry
views any diversion of the Nile water as an act of war. 24 With exploding
populations of their own, the countries at the source of the Nile are vying to
tap this resource within their boundaries for their domestic agricultural and
industrial development needs. Ignoring the belligerent stand of Egypt, the
Tanzanian government embarked on 170 mile long pipe-line to deliver water
to about 400,000 people at an estimated total cost of US$85.10 million. The rest
of the East African nations question the legitimacy of this eighty year old
agreement and it is a matter of time before they follow the Tanzanian
example. 25

6. To be continued
Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse
Comments
1. What went wrong in Somalia was not the subject of my article.
2. With so many factors - internal and external – involved, it would be the
matter of a treatise of book. However, it is essential to state at this point that I
personally believe that the current division and strife in Somalia is
preponderantly an external affair, a matter of multi-faceted foreign
involvement, mainly American, Abyssinian, British and Chinese. If the
Somalis were left alone, peace would prevail soon. But again this issue was
not my article’s subject.
3. This is quite a statement! "A nation that does not meet its full potential is an
evolutionary failure"! My goodness! This can be said about Russia, Germany,
China, etc. What was the nation, which throughout History "met its full
potential"? This cannot be said even for the Roman Empire or the vast state of
Alexander the Great! 'Evolutionary failure'? Somalia? When? In 1960? In
1977? I believe in this case that the sole evolutionary failure in the area of
Eastern Africa is Abyssinia. Under monarchical, communist and pseudo-
republican regime, Abyssinia (fallaciously re-baptized as Ethiopia) failed to
mark an evolution, remaining a loathsome tyranny, mostly detested by the
outright majority of its inhabitants, i.e. the various subjugated nations.
4. To estimate whether a state was a failure or not is the task of a Historian,
and it takes a greater span of time in order to be truly and correctly evaluated;
Somalia has not failed. Somalia crosses a tumultuous period of its 4 millennia
long History. Those, who are truly urged to say that Somalia failed are,
conspirators who want to spread discord and fear in order to achieve the
perverted goals of their racist, Anti-Somali plan.
5. I would not accuse Somaliland’s leadership for what happened in 1990, but
I would certainly do so for their recent policies (since 2000). One could even
understand a certain animosity or bad memories. However, we cannot accept
the national humiliation of Somaliland’s Somalis who – because of their
regime’s options – are turned to become the puppets of their worst enemy.
Everything would be different, if Somaliland closed its border with Abyssinia,
and denied Abyssinians any access to Berbera.
6. Quite unfortunately, the African Union is not a respectable authority and
an international body able to inspire high esteem; it’s the realm of tyrants and
postcolonial gangsters kept at the helm through Anglo-French interference
and preserved in their unelected positions in order to perpetuate Africa’s

7. underdevelopment. This is not a credible source therefore, to say the least.
7. This point is absolutely irrelevant. So the author was told to say, and so he
said. The article's author is merely his master’s voice – nothing more.
8. The AU had nothing to say for – and still has nothing to do in – Darfur,
Kabylia, Ogaden, etc. Shall we give it some credit when talking about
Somaliland? Probably, this was one more case of bribery…
9. I don't view this nonsense as a personal attack, but I find it as absolutely
incredible! There is no proof in support of this insulting allegation, and I don't
express positions of the Egyptian government. Useless to add, I totally deny
these allegations; actually, I never had any type of contact with the Egyptian
government, and I have not got Egyptian citizenship. I have only lived in
Egypt over the past 7 years; that is all! I never attempted to contact mass
media that voice official positions of the Egyptian government, and I am not
concerned with Egyptian politics. Certainly, I studied hieroglyphics in France,
England, Belgium and Germany; surely I thus became an Egyptologist and
definitely, I published books, scholarly articles, and encyclopedia entries on
Ancient Egypt. Furthermore, I conducted university courses on Ancient
Egypt, but I have never been involved in Egyptian politics and/or foreign
policy, either in Egypt or abroad.
10. I am unrelated to the diplomats mentioned, and I have no positive opinion
about them. I certainly understand why they took a position against the
recognition of Somaliland; they acted within the frame of the Arab League,
and insisted on protecting the integrity of a member nation. Beyond that, I do
not see a specific and concrete Horn of Africa policy developed and pursued
by Egypt.
11. There is no legitimate right of the Somaliland gang to reclaim sovereignty;
there is no nation called Somaliland; the breakaway state controls part of the
national Somali territory without any particular reason other than the
preservation of peace at a moment of strife in the Somali South. This does not
consist in any right to sovereignty.
12. The only fiasco in this regard is Somaliland, as its efforts for formal
recognition have been contested even by the Abyssinian dictator himself, who
certainly does not want to lose his servile puppets, namely the Hargeysa
rulers.
13. I never had a positive idea about this diplomat, so I will not desist from
denouncing a political discourse like that; however, to get substantial
credibility, the author should provide us with a link to the BBC webpage,
particularly when allegations of this sort are made.

8. 14. This is a self-contradiction; if the Egyptian origin UN Secretary General
was purportedly against Somaliland, why did he not bother to set clear
targets for the UN intervention in Somalia? It makes no sense.
15. What on earth can drive us mad enough to make a link between Nile
politics and the Egyptian rejection of Somaliland’s claim to sovereignty? And
again what do I have to do to with the policies of a state of which I am not
citizen and for which I never worked? Irrespective of Egypt's positive or
negative stance towards Somaliland, nothing would change in Egypt’s Nile
policy. Recognition of Somaliland or isolation of Hargeysa is one topic that
does not influence the sphere of Nile politics at all. The approach does not
even reflect Abyssinian viewpoints; it only highlights assumptions believed
by the few isolated guys at Hargeysa, namely that Somaliland can possibly
influence African politics. It is an aberration.
We will complete the criticism in a forthcoming article.
Note
Picture: the Somalis of Somaliland want unity with Somalia, as they know
very well that the traditional enemies of Somalia, i.e. the Abyssinians, plan to
destroy Somalia, and there are no traitors among the Somali people.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Published: 4/7/2008