Commentary:

What can be the Next Step in the Post Failure of the Talks between
 Somaliland and Somalia

Introduction

Since the London Somalia Conference in 2012, which championed the pursuant provision 6 of the communiqué of the conference, talks between Somaliland and Somalia made no tangible progress.1 Both entities admitted to engage in the proposed talks with altruistic energy and there were some ad hoc and planned meetings that both sides showed their varied interests on the commencement of the talks with openness and continuation without first having consensus on the strategic objectives of such talks.

Moreover, it is axiomatic because of the impromptu nature of the talks between Somalia and Somaliland was bound to fail at any moment for several reasons. First, because of the sovereignty disputes, thus the situation of talks lacked the necessary enabling environment.

The current failure of the talks between Somaliland and Somalia is because in the impromptu talks the concerned entities engaged in tacit political hostility. Thus, the failed talks between Somalia and Somaliland have many political repercussions beyond these entities and across the region. Therefore, the need for third part mediation can be one rational move in order to prevent further political and security clashes between two sides.

Indeed, it was apparent that British government and the EU were the central actors in the remaking of the Somalia state- leading the building process in the post transitional period in 2012 and this has also succeeded to put Somalia into the international limelight, whereas now bilateral and multilateral actors view Somalia as horrible but slow recovering is underway in the last few years of the post- transitional period.

The initiative of the talks between Somaliland and Somalia was emanated from the British government’s leading efforts to make the region more peaceful and secure combined with Turkey’s commitment on hosting the talks as well as, its humanitarian and development interventions in Somalia.

However, the Turkish government which hosted the talks seemed to be lacking in depth experiences on the issues of Somaliland and Somalia, since Turkey’s involvement in Somalia and Somaliland primarily started 2011. This case of Somaliland and Somalia needs to be sufficiently studied by external actors since the central problem and its symptoms are wide- ranging and not easy to facilitate the debating of the issues that both sides presented.

For this reason, some of the political commentators and intellectuals view that this failure of the talks between Somaliland and Somalia was partly due to Turkey’s limited experiences about Somalia and Somaliland contemporary political developments .and because of Turkey’s unilateral involvement in these talks which has not been attracted by other international community members who had long term involvement and knowledge about the issues of Somaliland and Somalia.

Hence, the failure of the airspace agreement signed between the two sides was empirical evidence that flagged the possible failure of the talks; the most frustrating factor of the talks was that no single outcome was realized. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that if the joint airspace agreement fails, there is no doubt that the whole talks will be a failure and that the Turkey’s mediation role will be questioned.2

However, the next move of the talks needs clear understanding and strong international community leadership since both sides raised controversial signals that can underpin the recent disagreements. Although Somaliland’s argument was more valid than Somalia, because Somaliland is arguing that the failure of the talks was the deliberate intention from Somalia’s side since Somalia has changed the negotiating team of the talks and breached some of the agreements reached before by two countries.

General Overview of the Commentary

It was apparent that prior to the failure of the talks, the political gestures between two sides were intentionally signifying the level of mistrust. For instance confusion and ambiguities followed the failure of the Istanbul Airspace Joint Agreement on 2013 which Somalia has discarded. In fact, the Turkey government has played an encouraging role for both sides to resume the talks

but Turkey did not succeed in using its political pressures and diplomatic maneuvering skills to continue this political discussion in order to reach peaceful agreement through this dialogue.

In due course, the international community needs to fully understand that any event to resume the talks between Somaliland and Somalia may bring out the previous resentment and historical grievance between the two sides that commenced at the history of the union.

Noteworthy, the central factor is that the malfunctioned Union of the Somali Republic posed persistent insecurity in the Horn of Africa, and plunged the region in trouble for many decades that combined with poverty, famine, piracy, ethnic and religious conflicts. In direct contrast, Somaliland’s declaration of independence concluded the protracted regional proxy war and also made unwavering contribution on issues of regional security cooperation, peace and economic development.

Nevertheless, if the talks between Somaliland and Somalia have failed at the moment, what is the next step to back up the process of the talks? Really, the international community is required to take some leading role and help Turkey to expand its cooperation with relevant and significant actors that are knowledgeable of the matter including Great Britain, EU, UN, Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti and AU. Undeniably, the obvious failure of the talks will not be only on the shoulders of the Turkish government alone but it must be the concern of all rational actors within and outside of the region.

The concerns related to Turkey’s facilitation and hosting of the talks is that Turkey seems to be pursuing its own interest regardless of sovereignty disputes between Somalia and Somaliland. Whereas Turkey wants to win the minds and hearts of the Somali people in the region, but Turkey government needs to assess and analyze the political, social and historical evolution of the Somali people in the Horn of Africa compared to the situation in which the Ottoman Empire was dealing with Somalis during the seventeenth century.

More importantly, the politically ambitious goals of the Turkish government must be consistent and empirically verified considering historically grounded realities. On the contrary, Turkey’s diplomatic priority, and the focuses of its development interventions and humanitarian assistance has been vividly skewed toward Mogadishu and its authorities.

Therefore, the status of Turkey’s neutrality on the talks can be judged according to the practices of Turkish government based on its interventions and amount of investments in the respective territories of Somalia and Somaliland. Turkey has helped to rebuild roads in Mogadishu, built hospitals, opened agricultural and fisheries schools and assisted with drilling of deep wells to improve water supply.

Meanwhile, Somalilanders are questioning how Turkey operates here in Somaliland and especially its development approaches in Somaliland comparing to Somalia and comparing to the Western countries that pursue the Dual Track Policy such as UK, EU and the US which continually encourage the peace, stability, security and democracy of Somaliland over the past decades.

Furthermore, it is ostensible that Western countries deal with Somaliland as de facto state, as well as, a role model of successful democratic nation state in the Horn of Africa and it is notable to mention that Somaliland has succeeded to maintain its hybrid political orders whereby the liberal democracy is a central factor combined with the indigenous and traditional governance.

Moreover, the international community has scored credit on the promotion of the process on which Somaliland has achieved its stability and development over a considerable period of time. Recently the international partners created aid effectiveness mechanisms such as Somaliland Special Arrangement (SSA)4 and the Somaliland Development Fund (SDF)5.These development modalities were widely adopted and have become realistic development paradigms that reshaped the long term development ambition of the country.

In contrast, the Turkish development modalities toward Somalia and Somaliland are viewed as not fair. In this regard, Turkey’s development and humanitarian interventions will have some implications on the process of the talks. In other words, the people of Somaliland are fully aware of how Turkey is dealing with the two countries, which is not only hosting the talks and mediations, but in terms of diplomatic activities and development aspects.

Since 2011, Ankara has showcased its diplomatic and financial clout in Mogadishu. Turkey’s relation with Mogadishu is reflective of the great imbalances and disparities of Turkey’s engagement between Somalia and Somaliland. These include but not limited to the visit of the Turkish Prime minister to Mogadishu, the establishment of an embassy, the implementation of various humanitarian and development projects6, as well as the inauguration of regular Turkish Airline flights highlighted the many benefits of presence.

However, the stability and survival of the Horn of Africa region lies in the peaceful dialogue between Somaliland and Somalia, which for most Somalilanders are expecting to reach a comprehensive outcome of a two “state solution” and brotherly states living side-by-side. External actors must fully understand and appreciate the past and recent political trajectory of Somaliland as the high significant improvements of the social, economical, political and security matters.

In the meantime the people of Somaliland seem to be more realistic and confident to manage their internal differences and seek their rights through solidarity and peaceful means. Whereas in Somalia both the people and their leadership did not succeed to manage their internal difference but depend on external actors to fix their internal problems.

Based on a number of apparent facts the Somalilanders are arguing that they have the right for their independence as defined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All peoples have the right to exercise self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

On the other hand, Somaliland’s history in the past can be linked with the present political scenarios of the territorial integrity and citizenship, the Republic of Somaliland had been the only independent nation state in June 1960 across the Somali Peninsula in the Horn of Africa before the failed union on July 1 in 1960, in the meantime Somaliland also included only 12 African countries received their independence in June 1960.

What is the Next Step in the Post Failure of the Talks?

The post failure of the talks can trigger immediate political confrontation which can contribute to the vulnerability and insecurity of the region and beyond. On the other hand, the failure of the talks can open a new political scenario which unlikely to be controlled by its legacy and dynamics because both sides have already demonstrated their argumentative notions toward the debating issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Currently, Somalia is under the control of many external hands and the brand of the so-called international community mainstreamed where the UN has been the master minding and conducts some political and security interventions through authorization of the series of Security Council Resolutions in collaboration with AMISOM. Recently, the UN and Hassan Shiekh Mohamoud, the current President of the Federal government of Somalia, signed a UN Integrated Strategy for Somalia, which contributes towards achieving the vision set for 2016.

On the other hand, there are other scattered regional and international actors including Turkey, UAE and Qatar that presumably established different camps of development accompanied with political and strategic interests. The neighboring countries also do play a dynamic role on the issues of Somalia, although since the London conference in 2012, Somalia’s political arena was dominated by bilateral and multilateral international actors beyond the region.

In contrary, Somaliland has demonstrated more competency than Somalia because Somaliland’s state- building process was more locally driven and followed this trajectory of hybrid political arrangements where domestic actors shape the political system of the country. Somalia is a depressingly familiar in this regard, it is another international mission trying to move the locals to a ‘better’ system; the locals, in turn, reluctant to accept responsibility for failure of past ones, willing to admit technical rather than fundamental political problems.

In addition, the major political setbacks that constantly affected the talks between Somaliland and Somalia were frequently changes of the Somalia leadership since the post- transitional period has ended on 2012, presumably, this internal leadership struggle and unhealthy political competition between various factions of Somalia leadership.

mostly the President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud and his successive Prime ministers appear to be one of the political constraints that hampered the process of the talks because fixing Somalia leadership yet is unpredictable due to surrounding conditions of political and legal matters. Ultimately, the constitution is generally interpreted as mandating a Hawiye president and a Darod prime minister. That design is meant to encourage inclusiveness. In truth, however, it mostly led to a struggle between the president and the prime minister, mimicking the power fights between the two main clans.

Moreover, one of the substantial points reached in the first meeting at Chevening House June 2012 was the need for external assistance both in technical aspect and facilitation with deploying external experts on legal, economic and security matters.12 As result, it is undisputable that limited international community efforts caused this embarrassing political deadlock at present time, the hosting country Turkey cannot be blamed alone but the rest of the international community shares the responsibility of the failure.

Therefore, it is worth to mention that these talks or any peaceful engagement between Somaliland and Somalia is not only in the obligation of these countries but it is an international and regional obligation to pursue these negotiations to be successful both legally and diplomatically, however, debating this case between two sides will not be straightforward to overcome but to take some pragmatic political actions should be necessary since the current political narratives are pursuing more inconsistent and signaling unconstructive engagement.
 
However, the evidence was that Somalia has shifted the talks from the two governments that emanated from Somaliland British Protectorate and Italian Trust Territory of Somalia, to clan representatives and individuals, whom the Somaliland negotiating team rejected and then boycotted the talks. Thus, Somaliland argued that it is impossible to negotiate with persons originating from Somaliland since these talks between the legitimate representatives from the governments of Somaliland and Somalia.
 
Ultimately, if the international community uses its channels of diplomacy and if Turkey realizes the subsequent failure of the talks because of its limited efforts of this process of the talks and because of avoidance of the other actors of international community, the Somaliland’s demand of the third part intervention is strongly justifiable and appropriate.
 
Nevertheless, there are some possibilities that can be addressed in order to resolve the current stagnation and deadlocks. Therefore, the following steps seem be necessary to pursue for any future talks between Somaliland and Somalia, because the past experiences can be used as point of entry if the revival of the talks should be mapped out and parties reconsider both modalities of the talks and hosting.

First: this process of the dialogue is required to demonstrate on a clear legal base and procedures, such as a code of conduct which is officially signed by all parties in the presence and oversight of the international community. This code of conduct should consist of administrative procedures that fix the whole process including timing, delegations, protocols and implementation of the outcomes of the talks and negotiation methods. The previous code of conduct of the talks was neither signed nor comprehensive because it was only seven points which are not a binding document since it was not signed.

Second: if Turkish government is ready to continue hosting the talks, Turkey must create a simultaneous diplomatic efforts in order to persuade sides to reaffirm their commitment and integrity of the process by starting to balance its development approaches, diplomatic activities and relationships of Somaliland and Somalia.

Third: the Turkish government must not also forget one thing, that without the international community’s cooperation and without assessing the root causes of the failure any future attempt and remedial action will not be an ideal and effective. Perhaps the post failure of the talks posed unpredictable political arena and it is notable that the dialogue between Somaliland and Somalia has become a symbolic issue in the region but there is worrying a political atmosphere at present time.

Fourth: it is a crucial factor and it should be a central premise that both parties to maintain respect, consistency, integrity and mutual responsibility, because if the bilateral agreements that parties’ sign are not implemented like the Airspace Joint Agreement, no meaningful dialogue will occur and no hope of the durable solution to be reached.

Fifth: the need for third part intervention at the moment appears a magnificent and profound concern; otherwise the apathy of the talks is precarious. International pressures, international community involvements and to deploy international observers during the talks are all significant step at this stage of political stagnation and mutual confrontations.

Sixth: parties must also establish a consistent participation by forming committees and offices that regularly act on behalf of the two governments and the outcome of the talks must be periodically reviewed and monitored by the international community. Considerable attention must be given to the issues over the parties are confronting.

The Role of International Community

In fact, the neglected and mounting competition among the international community themselves partially contributed to the failure of the talks and its mystification. It was a long time, since the international community was advising Somaliland to talk with Somalia pointing out Eritrea and South Sudan, as well as, East Timor as classical examples for peaceful dissolution and bilateral agreements.

However, the Somaliland and Somalia case is tremendously different from the above stated countries in both political and historical aspects. First, the Somaliland case is not seceding from Somalia instead it has dissolved the failed union of 1960. Second, Somaliland has created full stability and a functioning state on its own local resources over the past twenty four years, while Somalia has remained chaotic and subject to many external interventions.

Therefore, the question is which one Somaliland and Somalia was absorbed or absorbing state during the merger period regarding the concept of the international law because the case of Somaliland and Somalia was united of states where there is no legal document that classified those issues but Somaliland is senior one according to the independence. In other words, the political features of Somaliland and its ideal type of state –building can be attributed more credible and plausible form of state hence, this case of Somaliland and Somalia is very unique and will make some new political history in Africa.

In fact, regarding the weight and importance of the case, the international community has made little effort to make these talks successful and some of the independent scholars and political commentators both in the region and at international levels believe that less involvement of the international community in these talks undermined the results which were anticipated to be accomplished. Therefore, if the international community fails to increase its involvement of the talks, indeed, there is no hope since President Hassan Sheikh is not ready talks to be resumed.

Moreover, it was an encouraging signal when the Djibouti President Ismail Omar Guelleh has hosted a pre-talks meeting in 21 December 2014 where parties reiterated their commitments and willingness, in this Djibouti meeting which was the first meeting that the regional actors such as IGAD and AU intervened in this case of Somaliland and Somalia.

For the benefit of the talks, this Djibouti meeting was an avenue for both sides to resume their diplomatic enthusiasm and create possibilities for the talks to continue. One of the points of the Djibouti communiqué is showing to deter the unwanted political behavior which parties often are engaged as “inflammatory statements” and inappropriate language that parties send through media outlets. Eventually, the political deadlock at this time cannot be prevailed unless the role of the international community is scaled up and their level of engagement, diplomatic pressures, as well as, their consistent approaches is enhanced.

Reasons for Parties to Continue the Talks

It seems that dialogue is the only peaceful way that a two state solution can be achieved, because this region in the Horn of Africa has been in crisis for the last number of decades, and remained riddled with insurgencies, terrorism, piracy, human trafficking and arms smuggling activities, hence, any new political and military conformations cannot be endured.

Thus, the central purpose of the talks is the parties must determine amicable solutions; Somalia leadership has repeatedly indicated their position which is unity of Somalia such federal, co- federal, merger, unitary state or any other forms of sharing one identity and sovereignty.

In the contrary, Somaliland’s position is clear because Somaliland’s leadership is representing the historical facts and realities on the ground where 97% of the Somaliland people voted for the reassertion of independent sovereignty of Somaliland.

On the other hand, the people of Somaliland had suffered the merger of Somaliland and Somalia in 1960 which formed the Somali Republic and in the last twenty four years Somaliland has been a viable de facto state that has contributed to the peace, security and development of the region. At this point, Somaliland is viewed as the soul of the foundation of stability that brought solution to the long-term border conflict between the former Somali Republic and Ethiopia to an end.

To that end, the arguments that both states raised need to be fully studied on the basis of the historical evolutions, realities on ground and the contemporary political dynamics in the region.

Indeed, Somaliland’s argument for independence and self-determination seems to be rational, justifiable and legitimate. But Somalia’s ongoing civil war for the past twenty year and its legacies of chaos and failed state has left Somalia with a situation that can be described as an
“unsystematic system” structure.16 Continuing to view and treat Somaliland as a region of Somalia is tantamount to holding Somaliland people hostage to Somalia’s troubled fate, and inflicting an unfair collective punishment on them.

Conclusions

Apparently the continuation of the talks between Somaliland and Somalia is not only in the concentration of the two sides but it deserves international community and regional actors to be serious both sides to reach two state solution. Therefore, the post- failure of the talks actually signified the extent in which the hope and friendly agreements are too far to accomplish.

But if the international community engagement is genuine and legitimate the durable solution is more likely to be reached. And in the absence of the international community interventions, the spirit of the talks will not be possible and productive because the face to face dialogue or meetings failed to entertain any meaningful conclusion that the parties agree.

Nevertheless, the political behaviors of the Somalia side regarding the talks need to be monitored by the international community, since Somalia has violated some of agreements including the airspace joint agreement that both sides signed in the presence of the Turkish government following the criteria of negotiating teams.

On the other hand, Somaliland has accused that Somalia government was responsible for the failure of the talks since the members representing the Somalia government were not the legitimate representatives to carry on the citizenship of Somalia. Thus the demise of the talks is a political embarrassment for both the Turkish government and Somalia as well.

Moreover, any future talks should require laying a comprehensive roadmap and legal foundation that both sides ratify at the parliamentary levels. Turkey which is the hosting country must also allow other regional and international actors to contribute in this process of the talks.

In the meantime, if the Turkish government does not balance its development interventions in Somalia and Somaliland, it is possible to lose the sight of impartiality and trust, besides it’s against the principle of DO NO HARM. Furthermore, at the present time the parties seem to be desperate, and incapable to find out any immediate way out.

It is long time since Turkey was trying to engage parties to reach durable solution but it seems that Turkey can no longer continue this status quo of the talks. Therefore, it is crucial for the Turkish government to handover these talks to the other international concerned actors because the Turkey did not succeed to further explore issues surrounding the talks as well as building a constant diplomatic activities and persuasive channels of communications.

However, observing these long term horrible and deplorable situations in Somalia, it is neither fair nor acceptable international community to watch in this depressing political situation where international community has punished to the people of Somaliland because of their rights of self- determination and because of their political aspirations of being independent nation state and democratic society in the Horn of Africa.

Definitely the failure of the talks can be a clear message to the international community that both sides cannot reach any comprehensive agreement unless international community engagement should be consistent and cooperative. It is therefore incumbent upon the international community to take some concrete actions that should create a hope of achieving two state solution, otherwise this current stagnation may possibly revive the long term political hostility.

Finally, Somaliland is viewed as anchor of peace, stability and democracy in the Horn of African but Somalia is yet a safe haven of terrorism following unhealthy political competitions among Somalia politicians and regions which tempered across the shackles of the political system in Somalia. Federalism modalities and political consensus at moment pursuing more clan or tribal political construction rather than building a nation state that can rescue Somalia from the dangers of stateless and lawless conditions, such attempts of building artificial states under the federal government may perpetuate both the talks and attaining a durable solution for Somalia.

By Mohamed A. Mohamoud (Barawani)