The Bevin plan was a life time opportunity that slipped through the hands of somalis as they were betrayed by SYL when the British proposed the creation of greater Somalia where it was to be put under international trusteeship but turned down by the political novices SYL and cut the ties with the British instead. If we're under trusteeship for a period then eventually we would have gained independence and a greater Somalia would have been in place today.
It was the British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, who proposed the Somali territories to be united in 1946 and the creation of Greater Somaliland.
Prior to the announcement of his famous ‘Bevin Plan’ at the British House of Commons on 4 June 1946, the British Foreign Secretary made his original proposal at a meeting of the Prime Ministers held in London on 28 April 1946.
According to the minutes of the meeting, marked TOP SECRET, Bevin proposed the following:
“Italian Somaliland, together with British Somaliland, the Ogaden and the Reserved Areas, to be placed under international trusteeship with the United Kingdom as Administering Authority”.
That proposal was clear and devoid of ambiguity. However, barely five weeks later, addressing the British House of Commons, on 4 June 1946, the Foreign Secretary presented a different version in which he also involved Ethiopia, a country to which Britain illegally gave Somali territories in 1897, by saying:
“We proposed that British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland and the adjacent part of Ethiopia, if Ethiopia agreed, should be lumped together as a trust territory …” (Emphasis added)
There must have been strong pressure – between 28 April and 4 June 1946 - from other powers that forced his departure from the original proposal to the new that gave Ethiopia a say on the matter, although Bevin publicly mentioned only the criticism of Molotov, Russian Foreign Minister when he said:
“But what attracted M. Molotov’s criticism was, I am sure, that I suggested that Great Britain should be made the administrating authority. Was this unreasonable?”
Besides changing his original proposal, Bevin also refrained from presenting the proposal to the Paris Conference. However, despite that, Bevin’s sympathy must have been with the Somalis. He told the delegates:
“I hope the deputies at the Paris Conference will now consider a Greater Somaliland more objectively”.
Had the original proposal of Bevin to the Prime Ministers’ meeting not been foiled by the enemies of the Somali unity, all Somali territory illegally given to Abyssinia in 1897 by the British would have returned to where it lawfully belonged: Somalia.
Doubts on the validity of the Anglo-Ethiopia Treaty of 1897, according to which Britain handed over the territory known as Ogaden to Ethiopia, was expressed by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, at the British House of Commons’ debate on 23 February, 1955, who said:
“I think that in many ways the 1897 Treaty with Ethiopia was unfortunate, but it suffered from our limited knowledge of Somaliland at the time and we must see it against a background of that knowledge and of the expansionist tendencies of Ethiopia in 1897.”
During the debate, he also said:
“I regret the Treaty of 1897 but, like much that has happened before, it is impossible to undo it”.
Meanwhile, about the Agreement regarding the Haud and Reserved Areas, concluded between Ethiopian Government and Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom on 29th November, 1954, and supposed to come into force, on 28 February 1955, Francis Bowles, Deputy Chairman of the Ways and Means, said during the same debate at the House of Commons:
“The Treaty comes into force in about seven days' time, Mr. Speaker. It has never been ratified by this House. What opportunity are we to have to discuss it? If the House did not like it, the Government would fall, quite apart from whether they are right or wrong in international law”.
I would be grateful if anyone of you would kindly let me know if the above Treaty has, in fact, been ratified by the British House of Commons at its subsequent meetings.
If Germans are united; If Vietnams are united, if Yemenis are united and if the Koreans talk, from time to time, of unity, despite all the problems that exist between them, why are we so predisposed to believe that division and dismemberment are in our best interest and unity is our adversary?
http://www.keydmedia.net/en/article...n_welcomed_and_1897_and_1954_treaties_repudi/
It was the British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, who proposed the Somali territories to be united in 1946 and the creation of Greater Somaliland.
Prior to the announcement of his famous ‘Bevin Plan’ at the British House of Commons on 4 June 1946, the British Foreign Secretary made his original proposal at a meeting of the Prime Ministers held in London on 28 April 1946.
According to the minutes of the meeting, marked TOP SECRET, Bevin proposed the following:
“Italian Somaliland, together with British Somaliland, the Ogaden and the Reserved Areas, to be placed under international trusteeship with the United Kingdom as Administering Authority”.
That proposal was clear and devoid of ambiguity. However, barely five weeks later, addressing the British House of Commons, on 4 June 1946, the Foreign Secretary presented a different version in which he also involved Ethiopia, a country to which Britain illegally gave Somali territories in 1897, by saying:
“We proposed that British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland and the adjacent part of Ethiopia, if Ethiopia agreed, should be lumped together as a trust territory …” (Emphasis added)
There must have been strong pressure – between 28 April and 4 June 1946 - from other powers that forced his departure from the original proposal to the new that gave Ethiopia a say on the matter, although Bevin publicly mentioned only the criticism of Molotov, Russian Foreign Minister when he said:
“But what attracted M. Molotov’s criticism was, I am sure, that I suggested that Great Britain should be made the administrating authority. Was this unreasonable?”
Besides changing his original proposal, Bevin also refrained from presenting the proposal to the Paris Conference. However, despite that, Bevin’s sympathy must have been with the Somalis. He told the delegates:
“I hope the deputies at the Paris Conference will now consider a Greater Somaliland more objectively”.
Had the original proposal of Bevin to the Prime Ministers’ meeting not been foiled by the enemies of the Somali unity, all Somali territory illegally given to Abyssinia in 1897 by the British would have returned to where it lawfully belonged: Somalia.
Doubts on the validity of the Anglo-Ethiopia Treaty of 1897, according to which Britain handed over the territory known as Ogaden to Ethiopia, was expressed by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, at the British House of Commons’ debate on 23 February, 1955, who said:
“I think that in many ways the 1897 Treaty with Ethiopia was unfortunate, but it suffered from our limited knowledge of Somaliland at the time and we must see it against a background of that knowledge and of the expansionist tendencies of Ethiopia in 1897.”
During the debate, he also said:
“I regret the Treaty of 1897 but, like much that has happened before, it is impossible to undo it”.
Meanwhile, about the Agreement regarding the Haud and Reserved Areas, concluded between Ethiopian Government and Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom on 29th November, 1954, and supposed to come into force, on 28 February 1955, Francis Bowles, Deputy Chairman of the Ways and Means, said during the same debate at the House of Commons:
“The Treaty comes into force in about seven days' time, Mr. Speaker. It has never been ratified by this House. What opportunity are we to have to discuss it? If the House did not like it, the Government would fall, quite apart from whether they are right or wrong in international law”.
I would be grateful if anyone of you would kindly let me know if the above Treaty has, in fact, been ratified by the British House of Commons at its subsequent meetings.
If Germans are united; If Vietnams are united, if Yemenis are united and if the Koreans talk, from time to time, of unity, despite all the problems that exist between them, why are we so predisposed to believe that division and dismemberment are in our best interest and unity is our adversary?
http://www.keydmedia.net/en/article...n_welcomed_and_1897_and_1954_treaties_repudi/
