GAROWE ONLINE EDITORIAL | The first law of media freedom is to protect and to uphold the peace in Puntland. Therefore, press freedom can never be a subsitute for defamation or advancement of political interests through violence.

The political collapse of the Somali nation-state in 1991 and the subsequent national disorder and disintegration has impacted every aspect of Somali society, including its politics, social order, and even the media. One does not need much evidence to understand that political realities and social order on the ground in Somalia has been transformed dramatically – and in some cases, particularly in Mogadishu and its environs, such dramatic transformations continue to date with the advent of new militant groups, like today's Al Shabaab insurgents.

The undisputed rearrangement of Somali social order occurred in 1991, when a systematic ethnic cleansing campaign under the auspices of Hawiye-dominated USC clan militia led by Gen. Aideed embarked on a mercilessly violent campaign to forever change Mogadishu's social makeup by killing all members of the Darod clan. Today, Mogadishu is almost exclusively inhabited by Hawiye families, most of whom came to Mogadishu in post-1991 era from faraway clan homelands in the central regions such as Galgadud, Hiraan and southern Mudug regions. But Mogadishu media agencies hide this truth.

There is no wonder that most Somalis feel completely alienated by Mogadishu's questionable status as "Somali capital" – when in reality, Somalis no longer feel it is a home for every clan. These dramatic transformations have not been limited to Somali politics and social order. Following Mogadishu's collapse in 1991, which equated the national collapse and disintegration of Somalia as a nation-state, the country underwent tremendous demographic, political and economic changes. For example, the advent of the Internet Age coincided with the explosion of a multitude of new media agencies across Somalia after more than two decades of censorship under the 21-year military dictatorship which allowed only a single state-owned media powerhouse in the whole of Somalia.

The new media agencies sprouted up in Mogadishu, one after another, as the clan wars of the 1990s intensified. Many of Mogadishu's media agencies were created to defend sub-clan interests as the clan wars raged on, such as radio stations and newspapers. What these media agencies shared in common was that each particular media agency pushed a political agenda supportive of its clan's interests. Ideals such as media code of conduct, the limitations of press freedom, etc., were wholly absent as militia warlords would often appear on Mogadishu radio interviews explicitly bragging about murdering militia from a rival clan.

Mogadishu's media agencies continued this tradition of airing violent views when Islamist groups like Al Shabaab emerged. This time, it was Al Shabaab militants bragging about killing Ethiopian troops in Mogadishu – or presently, attacking African Union peacekeepers who protect the country's weak Transitional Federal Government.

Misusing the media for political or financial gain

This tradition of using the media to advance clan interests was not exclusive to Mogadishu. Rather, such media agencies exist in all parts of Somalia – but Mogadishu's media agencies retain the sole title of advancing clan interests through the use of brutal violence, even against civilians.

Another feature made notorious by Mogadishu's media agencies is the role of expertly playing the "victim card" to entice foreign donors sympathetic to the press freedom cause. An expert role is played by Mr. Omar Faruk, the self-appointed chairman of an organization that calls itself the "National Union of Somali Journalists" (NUSOJ). Mr. Faruk travels the world claiming to be the chairman of Somali journalists, when in reality, no such organization has ever existed in Somalia. Mr. Faruk cannot be blamed for he took advantage of the political disorder in Somalia and has positioned himself expertly without facing any challenge. Mogadishu's "war reporters" who fled to Nairobi and Djibouti were used by media owners as "victims" to attract financial support for those media owners.

Organizations who used this model expertly include HornAfrik and Shabelle radio stations, both of which are based in Mogadishu. These are the same media agencies who allowed clan militia warlords and Islamist militants to speak to the public via their radio everyday and speak of nothing but killings and violence. Yet, when their reporters became targeted victims, these media agencies cried to international press freedom watchdogs for help – or more appropriately, for financial gain. It can be argued that such media organizations profited from the deaths and blood of their own reporters, while contributing directly to the overall violent disorder in Mogadishu.

Is Puntland following the failure of Mogadishu media to promote peace?

Puntland's independent media agencies have always practiced a culture of promoting peace and governance. The media played an intrumental role in the lead-up to the 2009 peaceful election in Puntland, which saw an opposition leader elected and an incumbent president step down democratically. It is this culture of peace that Puntland's media has always been recognized and valued for.

But there is a disturbing trend being followed by one particular media agency in Puntland called "Horseed Media" today. This organization, which has historically been bitter and critical of Radio Garowe/Garoweonline.com, has most recently embarked on two traditions inherited from Mogadishu's media agencies: 1) airing the views of violent fanatics, whether religious or clan-based in nature; and 2) playing the "victim card" when one of its reporters faces the law for threatening the security of Puntland State.

Puntland is located at a dangerous place in the world. To the south, Islamist militants in control have international connections to Al Qaeda terrorists and some of them have violent clan hatred of Puntland, and want to destroy the peace, elections and governance experienced in Puntland. The media agencies in Puntland have never had any tradition of airing the views of violent fanatics who threaten the peace and security of Puntland. But in August, Horseed Media aired an interview with Mohamed Said "Atom" – an individual listed by the U.N. as a weapons dealer allied to Al Shabaab and whom the Puntland government blames for a string of bombings and killings of lawmakers, judges, soldiers and civilians.

During the interview, Atom, like his masters in Mogadishu, bragged about "dragging the dead bodies of Puntland troops" – something never heard of in Puntland history. Such language, and the act it constitutes, is completely alien to Puntland and its peace-loving citizens.

Defaming the President of Puntland

Puntland's government ordered the arrest of Horseed Media radio director Mr. Abdifatah Jama Mire following the controversial interview. A Puntland court charged him with inciting violence and mass displacement and he was subsequently sentenced to six years in prison. Mr. Mire is now in a Puntland jail and has appealed his conviction. If Puntland was like Mogadishu, there would be no court, no jail and certainly no appeals case.

Horseed Media has published numerous reports claiming that Puntland President Abdirahman Farole directly ordered Mr. Mire's arrest. The question is: is such claim aimed at helping Mr. Mire's court case or is it disguising personal attacks and defamation against the elected president of Puntland under the banner of media freedom?

What Horseed Media is doing today is what it has learned of the "victim card" used by Mogadishu's media agencies. This, of course, does not benefit Mr. Mire who is inside a jail. This "victim card" plot is being used to deceive foreign sympathizers of media freedom to give funding to Horseed Media and its owners, who reside in the West.

Puntland media agencies have never allowed the airing of violent fanatics who oppose the existence and peace of Puntland. To use an example: if U.S. media allowed Al Qaeda terrorists to speak on TV and brag about killing American soldiers and dragging the bodies of dead Americans, would this be allowed? Would this be protected under media freedom?

The government of Puntland is engaged in a real war against Al Shabaab and its agents, like Mr. Atom, who bragged on Horseed Media radio about killing Puntland soldiers and dragging their dead bodies. This was heard by the population of Bossaso, the commercial capital of Puntland State. The government of Puntland is correct to have absolutely no mercy for Atom and his Al Shabaab masters, who oppose the peace and governance in Puntland.

Puntland always stood united against such anti-government groups, who were defeated in the battlegrounds of history. Today, there are tons of websites (i.e. Galgalanews.com, etc.) who are advancing the interests of Al Shabaab and its cronies, such as Mr. Atom – who is hiding in the mountains and fearing for his life. This is not what media freedom is about. Such websites are supporting violent fanatics and attempting to hide their true face under the banner of media freedom.

There is no question that the truest form of media freedom anywhere in Somalia can be found in Puntland. In Somaliland, independent radio stations are banned. In Mogadishu, and other parts of southern Somalia, journalists are maimed and killed for daring to speak about Al Shabaab and its violent campaign. But in Puntland, radio and TV stations and the journalists who work there enjoy the freedom of working in a peaceful and lawful environment, and the ability to independently prepare reports about the government's performance or the lack thereof. But what is not allowed is to air the views of violent fanatics who call for war against Puntland's elected government.

Horseed Media, and other media agencies in Puntland, must first respect the laws of Puntland State. The first law of media freedom is to protect and to uphold the peace in Puntland. Therefore, press freedom can never be a subsitute for defamation or advancement of political interests through violence.

The opposite of that is that Puntland allows every radio station, with narrow political or financial interests, to interview violent fanatics who hate the peace and governance of Puntland and threaten the security of the state.

This is simply unacceptable under all media rights and regulations.

Finally, Radio Garowe/Garoweonline.com joins fellow Puntland media agencies and calls on the Puntland government to review Mr. Mire's case and to release him from jail. Radio Garowe, as an independent media agency in Puntland, shares equally with fellow Puntland media agencies the joys and sorrows of journalists in Puntland.

Garowe Online Editorial
Comments/Questions/Concerns/Letters to the Editor: editorial@garoweonline.com