By DANCAN BWIRE

The attempt by President Uhuru Kenyatta and his Somali counterpart Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, aka Farmajo, at normalising bilateral ties is encouraging.

The meeting reportedly brokered by Egyptian leader Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly will possibly see diplomatic engagements reconsidered with crucial aspects of trade and cooperation on security restored. But it should never be done at the expense of sovereignty.

Kenya is strong economically and militarily, but it has always pursued peaceful resolution to conflicts with neighbours and avoided war.

But it is not without a cost. While the non-intervention policy has played out well in making it one of Africa’s largest economies, its neighbours, who have fought bitter wars, view it as weak and largely inexperienced in combat.

PERCEPTION

Indeed, a leaked diplomatic cable first published on September 1, 2011 claimed that Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni had questioned the capability of the Kenyan military to fight Somali insurgents Al-Shabaab.

He was probably comparing it to Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF), which has fought with Tanzania and Rwanda and faced active combat in Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia.

Perhaps this attitude towards Kenya has fuelled his confidence in staying put in Migingo Island.

No doubt, the perception has also encouraged Somalia to reconsider its common maritime boundary with Kenya.

But the dispute with Somalia should not be taken at face value. Photo sessions and a handshake between presidents may be good for the eye, but a clear understanding of historical issues left unaddressed by our forefathers would be key in the pursuit of an amicable solution.

The Kenya-Somalia border row did not start yesterday. Somalia has always felt that Kenya was unfairly given part of its territory by the British.

SHIFTA WAR

History books point to a discontented and bitter Somalia that felt betrayed by Britain, a colonial power that granted the administration of former North Eastern Province (then-Northern Frontier District — NFD) to Kenya despite its protests.

This resulted in Mogadishu severing diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom on March 18, 1963.

Somalia’s position comes from a reasoning that the area is exclusively inhabited by ethnic Somalis who share cultural and social commonalities.

A subsequent armed uprising by northeastern residents in the years after 1963 to rejoin Somalia was violently suppressed by Kenya in what came to be known as Shifta War.

Mediated peace talks between founding father Jomo Kenyatta and then-Somali Prime Minister Mohamed Egal in 1967 in Arusha may have bandaged the wounds but never treated them fully.

This would, perhaps, explain why President Siad Barre, the next Somali ruler, abolished the memorandum of understanding signed following the mediation, claiming it was unfair.

COMMON INTERESTS

It should be recalled that in a bid to reunite the Somali-speaking people, Somalia was also involved in a bitter war with its western neighbour, Ethiopia, but the collapse of the Barre regime in 1991 left the former bitter and defeated to date.

This quashed its dream of uniting all ethnic Somali groups spread across Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia in a ‘Greater Somalia’ concept it vigorously pursued.

Mogadishu and Al-Shabaab might be politically and religiously at odds, but their cultural beliefs are common.

That explains why the terrorists joined the same government it is fighting in condemning Nairobi’s border claim.

It’s heartbreaking to see Kenya playing weak brother in yet another territorial dispute, reluctant and unprepared to argue its case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The leadership’s pursuit of an out-of-court settlement with a rival who is not willing to play ball is a gamble with our sovereignty and they should be ready for painful consequences.

Source:Daily Nation