By CHARLES ONYANGO-OBBO**
When, during the recent launch of the State of East Africa Report 2007, this writer argued that the inclusion of a peaceful Somalia in the East African Community was "the next logical step," there was an audible gasp of disbelief from the audience.
The argument was that including still-unstable Burundi, where the peace process remains critically poised, removed the case against the inclusion of Somalia. Indeed, Rwanda and Uganda have had more violent histories than Somalia, and a greater number of their citizens have been slaughtered in conflict than the number of Somalis who have perished in that country's 15 years of chaos.
THE ONLY difference between Rwanda and Uganda on the one hand and Somalia on the other is that the period of state failure in the former countries lasted a shorter period. In fact, Somalia and Uganda are the two East African countries where neighbours have intervened to overthrow the governments of the day: Ethiopia invaded Somalia last year and overthrew the Islamic Courts Union regime; and in late 1979, the Tanzanian army ousted Uganda's dictator Idi Amin.
The states in the EAC are considered "natural partners" because, among other things, the peoples of these countries have many cultural commonalties. Sure enough, they do.
But so do the peoples of Kenya's Northeastern and Eastern Province with the peoples of Somalia. Though these areas are relatively sparsely populated and comparatively less developed, their land area comprises more than half of Kenya's total territory.
If one of the distinguishing features of the EAC is that the border communities in these countries are related to each other, then there is probably as strong a case for Kenya integrating with Somalia, than for doing so with Tanzania and Uganda. And don't even mention Burundi and Rwanda yet.
The main reasons why it is "unthinkable" to many to ask Somalia to join is that it's a totally failed state, despite the recent efforts by Ethiopia and the African Union to back what critics consider a puppet government in Mogadishu led by President Abdullahi Yusuf.
THE SECOND problem is that Somalia makes the rest of East Africans uncomfortable for "tribal" reasons.
The Somalis have Arabic connections, and don't have what you might call a typical Bantu or Nilotic countenance. And they love camels, while the rest of us don't.
Third, unlike the rest of the countries in the expanded EAC, Somalia is Islamic. One of the unsaid things about the EAC is that it is a Christian union. The inclusion of Somalia raises the same problems for some that Turkey's bid to join the European Union is throwing up.
Fourth, the official language in Somalia is neither English nor French. And the EAC is also a partnership of former Belgian-French-English colonies.
Yet one suspects that Somalis needs a project bigger than Somalia to shift political mindsets.
If they were asked to achieve certain benchmarks in order to be invited into the EAC, it might just shift attention away from clan warfare, unite the people around a greater goal, and bring peace to the country.
IN THE long run, Ethiopia might feel less threatened by a Somalia whose government is constrained by the code of political conduct of the EAC, and Addis Ababa will therefore be less inclined to foment chaos there.
One can think of many ways in which Somalia's inclusion would help the EAC countries, particularly Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda.
What these countries need is a Garrisa Lodge, as in Nairobi's Eastleigh, where you can buy brand new stuff - from TVs and the latest mobile phones to (fake) designer clothes - at the lowest prices in the world. Somali truckers would also radically alter the long-haul business.
But most of all, Somalia would teach us the one thing East Africans need to learn most: how to prosper without benefit of government.
**Charles Onyango-Obbo is Nation Media Group's managing editor for convergence and new products. E-mail: cobbo@nation.co.ke
Source: The East African (Kenya)
