 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
Firstly, it is important to look at the living conditions of the people at the Djibouti beyond Sheraton and Kempiniski, which Faisal did not cover in his article. The squalid slums around the big hotels tell a life of destitution, unemployment and near absence of basic social services. Electricity supply, water and sewage systems are in an appalling state. This is significant because the majority of the population in Djibouti do not live in the upmarket areas and the tourist paradise hotels, which cater for the wealthy expats and native tycoons. Macro-economic indicators such as Gross National Product (GNP) and Per-Capita Income show average figures for the nation, which comparatively seem fair for Djibouti from a cursory observation. There is huge wealth distribution disparity between the rich and the poor though, and the average national figures are therefore grossly inflated, because the enormous money and capital owned by few business moguls shift the national average upwards. Djibouti, a virtual city-state still has a maternal mortality rate of 300 per 100,000 births (2011), and there are only 18 doctors for every 100,000 people. Nearly 60% of the total labour force is unemployed(1).
There is no proper monitoring of compliance with compulsory school attendance policy in elementary and secondary levels, and many of the schools are in poor condition and need upgrading. Most secondary schools are in the larger centers and the number of classrooms for secondary students is inadequate. The quality of Higher education is poor, and so far unable to produce graduates who can compete globally and regionally. This compounds the unemployment problem and fuels youth Qat addiction. Faisal has not denied any of this, nor am I denying that some progress has been made on all fronts since the year 2000. However, mentioning the challenges outside the Sheraton even as a general comment would have nuanced the glowing picture painted about Djibouti, thereby giving a much-more accurate image about the tiny country. In the political front, while Guelleh is visionary, he is not revolutionary. In fact, he nurtures the promotion of cult personality for himself and his wife - Khadra Haid. He has refused to step down after the constitutional two-term limit for the President expired in 2011. The first family and its acolytes in Djibouti live a profligate lifestyle. A country which owes international financial institutions more than 300 million dollar cannot afford such a spendthrift leadership. Despite his archetypal “big-man” governance style at home, Guelleh has done his best to help Somalis bring back their State. He deserves credit and praise for this.
Secondly, Faisal blamed Eritrea and its leadership for the conflict in the Horn. If that is how he sees it, fair enough. But one cannot miss the element of selectivity from the analysis. Faisal talked about the dictatorial nature of the regime in Asmara, but failed to paint Meles of Ethiopia with the same brush. I believe Meles and Isaias are two sides of the same despotic coin. Faisal talked about Eritrea’s aggression and occupation of Djibouti territory, but was silent on the continued refusal by Ethiopia to abide by the ruling of the international boundary commission (set up by the UN) on Badme and other areas Eritrea and Ethiopia dispute over. Clearly, Faisal did not spare Ethiopia because it wasn’t relevant for the subject under discussion. The omission could only have come from a desire to not infuriate the Djiboutian government. But he could have depoliticized the whole article and could have saved himself this quandary. We were not used to this kind of partial analysis from Faisal and therefore we do not think it was an innocuous oversight. The final misfiring is the most lethal. Faisal alleged that in addition to the Eritrean government, the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) is also a source of instability in the Horn; but also referred to the war ONLF is engaged in as a ‘war of liberation’. The syntactical constructions in the two statements are conflicting. If the war is a war of liberation, and we know Faisal has been a fearless defender of the right of self-determination for the Somali people in Ethiopia, why would those who are fighting this ‘war of liberation’ be the sources of instability in the Horn? I could only take that Faisal meant the war in the Somali region has destabilized the Horn, which is true. I grant a reprieve to the man of big books on this one; for I am convinced the gaffe could only be akin to the sort of agonizing own-goal otherwise terrific skippers occasionally score against their team, in stoppage time. I don’t see a bad intent. I wish to end my piece with a slightly off-topic didactic palaver. "Certainly my conscience will serve me to run from this Jew my master. The fiend is at mine elbow and tempts me saying to me ‘Gobbo, Launcelot Gobbo, good Launcelot’, or ‘good Gobbo’, or ‘good Launcelot Gobbo, use your legs, take the start, run away’. My conscience says ‘No; take heed, honest Launcelot; take heed, honest Gobbo', or, as aforesaid, ‘honest Launcelot Gobbo; do not run; scorn running with thy heels’." These are the words of Launcelot Gobbo, the comic servant of a wealthy, usurious Jew, Shylock, in Sheakpeare’s 'The Merchant of Venice'. It captures the fascinating clash between submission and revolt inside the divided mind of the subjugated. It shows the paradox that faces those under oppression. It solves the enigma of a horse that even after being freed from a tether still continues to go round the tree it was tied to, dutifully obeying the limits of habitual captivity. The horse fears the whip, which is the real danger for it; the incarceration to which it has grown so inured is not the danger. Tether long cut, the horse will not spurt to freedom. It waits to be whipped hard to run away from this bondage; it craves after the rider’s kind but enchaining stroke on its crest. A stroke that lulls its mane but so fatal to its inner sense of freedom!
The political import and connotation of the above character’s word is that the urge for human freedom or the urge against slavery is presented as devilish, while the acceptance and kowtowing to tyranny is presented as divine. Not by everybody, but by victims who succumb to slavery. And because the going is getting tough, there are many who are today questioning the correctness and relevance of an armed struggle against Ethiopian colonialism. There are those who fear the whip (the fight) and would get soothed by the deadly gentle stoke of false-Federalism, a false federalism that will donate the occupied natives the ‘freedom and entitlements’ Aborigines in Australia were given. If there is anything the ONLF got it right, it is to refuse the soothing stroke, and not to take the urge for human freedom as devilish. The ONLF stolidly and defiantly refused to gleefully take whatever rights and concessions the TPLF gives from its smelly armpit as a compassionate gift. It refused to accept colonialism in whatever form and name. Those who want the Somali people in Ethiopia to acclimatize to slavery and ignoramus nabobs of negativity can find fault with the ONLF armed struggle. Clearly, there is no other arena open for us to demand what is rightfully ours. Clearly, all is not well with the ONLF as an organization, too. The solution is to renovate the struggle, not to demolish it. Faisal knows the insides and outsides of the genesis of conflict in the region. He knows the history (old and contemporary) and therefore he cannot absolve Meles and blame ONLF and Isaias. That is why I believe the remarks in his article came from an ill-fated use of language and not from a belief that the ONLF is to blame for the war that is ravaging the region. We will hear from the man himself! By Muktar M. Omer (1) Source: United Nations Population Fund Report (2011) and Wikipedia ____________________________________________ We welcome the submission of all articles for possible publication on WardheerNews.com |
