|
Early this
year, in the month of June, Congressman Donald Payne presided over a
hearing on Somalia. But it neither looked like, nor felt like, a
hearing, for there were hardly any congressmen present other than a
couple of far-left political clones of Donald Payne in the democratic
party, namely, Sheila Jackson and Keith Ellison. Rather than a
congressional hearing, it looked like a stage that was set up specially
for Donald Payne so that he could play Prima Donna, pontificate, and
fire strident verbal assaults at Somaliland without the least regard to
diplomatic protocol. The mostly Somali audience loved it. Every time
Payne said a nasty word about Somaliland, they went wild with joy. And
when he threatened Somaliland with isolation, they were ecstatic and
their applause was deafening. They thought here was finally someone who
was going to put uppity Somaliland in its place. They were convinced
that they had scored a diplomatic victory against Somaliland and had won
a new friend in the person of Donald Payne. Among those cheering were
many Puntlanders. Also present was Puntland’s President, Abdirahman
Mohamed Mohamud (Farole).
Close to six months later, it turns out that Somaliland was right and
Puntland was wrong about Payne and his hearing. But before we explain
what Somaliland was right about and what Puntland wrong about, it is
pertinent to point out that the reason behind Payne’s outburst against
Somaliland was because Somaliland declined to attend the hearing chaired
by him. Some people, including Puntlanders, and even some Somalilanders,
thought it was a mistake for Somaliland not to have attended, whereas
Somaliland’s government held on to its policy of not participating in
settings that project it as part of Somalia, and did not attend the
hearing. This is what we mean by Somaliland being proven right. For by
not attending, Somaliland’s government was sending several signals. One,
Somaliland government was showing that it was aware of the direction in
which Payne was pushing American policy with regard to Somaliland. Two,
it was indicating that it saw Payne’s approach as damaging to
Somaliland’s interests. Three, it was registering its opposition to
Payne’s project. Four, it was making it plain that it knew Payne wanted
to carve for himself a role as some sort of viceroy over Somalis and was
indirectly informing him that Somaliland will not allow him or any other
foreigner to run its affairs.
Puntland, on the other hand, endorsed both Payne’s approach and the role
he wanted to play. That is what we meant by Puntland being wrong about
Payne. For now, almost six months later, Donald Payne is gunning for
Puntland, and Puntland can only duck and hide and is in no position to
fight back because it had disarmed itself when it prematurely endorsed
him, and whatever criticism Puntland may level at Payne now would
contradict its earlier warm embrace of him. This is exactly the tack
that Donald Payne’s associate, Ted Dagne, took in an interview with
Puntland’s radio Daljir. When the interviewer who is a Puntlander tried
to criticize Payne, Ted Dagne shot back with the mocking words: “A few
weeks ago, and a few months ago, he was the darling of Puntland. What
happened?”
Moreover, whereas Payne’s venomous attack on Somaliland was precipitated
by his hurt ego when Somaliland declined to take part in his hearing,
the issue he is using against Puntland is the much more potent one of
human rights, specifically the human rights of five Ethiopian members of
the Ogaden National Liberation Front, or Ogadenis as he calls them, who
were apprehended by the Puntland authorities on suspicion of being
involved in terrorist activities.
We say that he is using this issue, because although he is quick to come
to the defense of the ONLF and has worked hard for the release of their
members who are in Puntland’s custody, to our knowledge, he has never
condemned the ONLF’s policy of killing civilians and burning the
vehicles of individuals who belong to Somaliland clans. Payne has not
even condemned the ONLF’s murdering of 9 Chinese expatriate workers in
Eastern Ethiopia and its taking of hostages. Payne also has nothing but
praise for the dictator of Djibouti, Ismail Omar Guelleh, and says
nothing about Guelleh’s iron grip on the political situation in that
country. Barely two weeks ago, Djibouti forcibly returned to Mogadishu
40 Somali asylum seekers, including women and children who had survived
a 30-hour journey at sea, and not a word of protest was heard from Mr.
Payne. If more evidence of Mr. Payne’s selectivity when it comes to
human rights, one need not look further than his habitual praise of the
African troops in Mogadishu (AMISOM) who almost daily bombard and
massacre civilians.
Donald Payne’s positions and political outlook are clear. He is on the
side of Sheikh Sharif, Djibouti, and has not yet given up on Eritrea
despite its horrific human record and being a terrorist haven. Moreover,
after years of being brushed aside by the Bush administration and being
treated as a non-entity, he now thinks as Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Africa and with a new and callow democratic administration, he can
shape and direct American policy. Somaliland’s government has figured
early on that Payne is pushing US policy in a direction that is anathema
to Somaliland’s interests and decided not to be party to such policy;
Puntland, on the other hand, blindly embraced him and now is regretting
that decision. The difference in handling Payne says a lot about the
government of Somaliland compared to that of Puntland.
|
|
