Kindly, stay away responding to Somali President HSM on his response to LasAnod situation
Given the complexity and the nature of politics, it may be prudent for all individuals from SOMALILAND to avoid commenting or responding back to the Somali President HSM’s reaction on the situation in LasAnod, This is because not everyone may have a comprehensive grasp of the topic.
From my limited understanding of politics, it appears that the main purpose of the meeting, arranged by the Somali President, was to discuss and address the situation in Laascaanood.
Recently, during an interview, he was asked about the conflict in LasAnod, and from my understanding of his response, he seemed to avoid creating any political unrest.
The inquiry was specifically about the Somali envoy in Somaliland, but regrettably, the response veered towards LasAnod.
Over the last four months, HSM has been under significant political strain as Puntland and Jubaland have been pushing for his complete backing of the Harti militia and militants associated with a well-known terrorist group in Laascaanood.
Puntland and Jubaland launched a widespread political assault on the Somali President through various social media platforms, and they even went as far as orchestrating a parliamentary motion to oust the Prime Minister of Somalia.
The President’s arrangement of these question and answer sessions can be attributed, in part, to his desire to offer indirect apologies to Puntland and Jubaland for the recent tensions and conflicts that have arisen between them.
Despite the President’s recent meeting and statements, it is unlikely that the situation in Somaliland will change, as the region has been operating independently for over three decades.
Alternatively, his reaction to the issue of Lasanod was veiled in diplomatic language, a tactic that involves conveying a message without explicitly stating it by using indirect, ambiguous, or coded language.
Diplomatic language, which relies on indirect, coded, or ambiguous statements, is frequently utilized in situations where the message being conveyed is delicate, contentious, or has the potential to be inflammatory.
Covert diplomacy can manifest in various ways, such as innuendo, insinuation, veiled threats, or even humor.
An example of covert diplomacy could involve a diplomat utilizing a metaphor or analogy to convey a message indirectly, rather than stating it outright. Similarly, they might opt for a euphemism to avoid using more confrontational or provocative language.
The use of disguised diplomatic language can be advantageous in specific scenarios as it enables diplomats to convey sensitive messages without risking relationships or causing offense. Nonetheless, it can also be risky, particularly if the intended recipient lacks knowledge of diplomatic codes or misinterprets the message.
In general, the utilization of covert diplomatic language demands a significant level of competence and sensitivity, along with a comprehensive comprehension of the context and the actors involved.
Ahmed Yasin Mohamed Jama