Dear WDM Readers,
Here is why the release of the latest instalment of the interview series (on Arta Conference and Mbagathi Conference) is nothing less than a breakthrough — and why it should set off alarms in every quarter that profits from confusion, distortion, and the “unitary-only” narrative of Somalia.
What these interviews do
1. Restore the credible chronology — The record of Somali peace, reconciliation and state-building conferences has been battered for decades by selective memory, bad-faith revisionism and outright political opportunism. The new series offers voices that cut through the noise, reminding us: Arta (Djibouti, 2000) though unrepresentative and manipulated by Djibouti President Ismail Omar Guelleh, laid the foundation for what became the transitional federal system, and Mbagathi (Nairobi, 2002) created the Second Somali Republic, the Federal Republic of Somalia.
2. Expose the distortions — For too long, opponents of federalism have reduced these long series of talks to “failed unitary state attempts” or “mere elite bargains.” The interviews draw attention back to the substance: clan and regional delegations, diaspora involvement, the roles of external actors—not just as spoilers but as architects of new national pathways.
3. Clarify Puntland’s missing links — In your own field of interest — the establishment of Puntland (1998 onward) and the subsequent federal trajectory — these interviews provide context. They place Puntland as the leading partner and an integral part of the pre-federal puzzle: those conferences and trajectories originated from the north-east Somalia
4. Punch holes in the “unitary nostalgia” narrative — The forces pushing for a strong centralised Somalia (for understandable motives: control, rents, centralised aid flows) have long misused the conference histories to argue that federalism is a foreign import, a last-resort fallback. The interviews dismantle that line: federal forms were emerging in real time, not hijacked later.
Why this matters politically
Power & resources: Whoever controls the narrative controls how revenue (hydrocarbons, port revenues, diaspora flows, donor funds) is allocated. By reconstructing a credible narrative of federalism’s roots, the interviews shift the terrain away from zero-sum centralisation.
Legitimacy and memory: In Somalia’s fragile political architecture, memory is contested terrain. These interviews insert a counter-memory to the dominant one-state-only mythology. For Puntland, for diaspora networks, for business communities in Galkayo, Garowe, Qardho — this means recognition and standing.
External actors: With your interest in UAE, Turkey, Qatar, IMF/World Bank, etc., recall that many external players prefer a weak centre to negotiate bilaterally. A stronger federal architecture threatens that. The interviews thus irritate not just domestic monopolies but external contractors of ambiguity.
Narratives shape institutions: If the conferences are portrayed as failures or as “throwaways,” then federalism becomes a placeholder. But if the interviews make clear that they were substantive, then federalism becomes an institution with roots and rights — and Puntland’s claim to its piece of that architecture becomes sharper.
But: No piece is perfect. Here are caution flags and opportunities for sharpening.
Selection bias: Make sure the interview series does not give the impression of cherry-picking voices friendly to your agenda. Credibility is built when critics—yes, even opponents of federalism—are present, questioned, held to account.
Depth of archival grounding: Oral interviews are powerful, but must be backed with documentation (resolutions of Arta, minutes of Mbagathi, clan-delegation lists). Without that, critics will accuse you of anecdote substitution.
Vocabulary discipline: Some audiences dismiss the label “federalism” because of its misuse. The interviews should define terms clearly: what “federalism” meant in 2004, how that framework differs from “autonomy,” “confederation,” “unitary state.” Clarify the difference between de facto federalism (as in Puntland’s reality) and de jure federalism.
Avoid triumphalism: While it’s tempting to celebrate the interviews as “the answer,” stay in journal-istic posture: raise questions, point the gaps, invite commentary. That strengthens rather than weakens the piece.
Footnote the economic dimension: Given your interest in infrastructure, remittances, donors, etc., ensure a stronger thread in the interviews about how these peace conferences had direct economic/macro consequences (e.g., how conference outcomes enabled diaspora flows, or how they linked to telecom liberalisation, or how they influenced port logic). This links the political critique to your core interest.
The bottom line
For too long, Somali federalism has been treated like an accident of war, a refuge of clan leaders, or a donor fad. These interviews slash through that fiction. They remind us that–from Arta to Mbagathi to Puntland––there existed purposeful design, contested negotiations, regional and diaspora agency, and institutional potential.
In doing so, they unsettle those who prefer a weak Mogadishu-centric rent-seeking model, who benefit from a fuzzy memory of the past, and who still see federalism as a threat to their resource-grain.
So: Listen. Review. Share. But don’t stop there. Use the interviews as a weapon in the contest of history — because until history is agreed, policy will be surrendered.
Support WDM — the home of fearless, independent journalism that speaks truth to power across Somalia and the region. Tel/WhatsApp: +252 90 703 4081
— Yours in the unflinching fight for Somali accountability and development,
Ismail H Warsame
WDM
Warsame Policy & Media Network (WAPMEN) 