Possible Failure of the Talks between Somaliland and Somalia and its Consequences beyond the Region

1. Abstract

The current talks between Somaliland and Somalia have-not attained any legal basis and yet no comprehensive agreement accomplished upon the inception of the talks. In addition, the talks are no longer carried out as part of a wider, coordinated international effort, but, in the absence of multilateral bodies such as the EU, AU, UN, IGAD and Arab League, fallen on the shoulders of the Turkish government which has unilaterally hosted the three most recent talks. Therefore, there are a lot of speculations and potential signals that the current talks can anytime break or fail due to the fragile conditions of Somalia side and failure to obtain legitimacy from African Union and United Nations which are the key prominent rightful bodies to facilitate any genuine dialogue between two sides. However, this paper intends to explore the possible failures of the talks between Somaliland and Somalia as well as its consequences beyond the region, eventually, the absence of strong international community commitment can exasperate the process to be paused.

2. Introduction

Since its declaration of independence in 1991, Somaliland has been seeking a credible counterpart in Somalia with which to negotiateits demand for sovereignty. Following the collapse of the Somali state. In the outset, Somaliland succeeded to attain many of the internationally-valued fundamental instruments and criteria for statehood as defined by declarative theory including drafting and legislating a national constitution and establishing formative government institutions. Secondly, there was an international momentum and increasing pressures Somaliland to open dialogue with Somalia, but the international community was so blind and unwilling to take some pragmatic measures so as to attain a possible two state solutions.

Throughout the post- Cold War, secession was taboo in the state-centric international system. However, the breakup of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, the independence of Eritrea and East Timor as well as recent developments in Kosovo seemed to have weakened the principle of inviolable state boundaries. It seems the AU recognized South Sudan without an agreed constitution and no official name for the new government, any defined territory and population.

What is puzzling is why the AU and other international organizations like the UN are giving a blind eye to the question of Somaliland‟s independence. The world recognized southern Sudan government and Khartoum had no option but to accept.

It is very normal that independence and secession could come from outside like East Timor, Yugoslavia, Bangladesh. All these countries won independence with outside intervention and local authorities were forced to accept. This invalidates AU‟s argument asking Somaliland to negotiate with the shaky and powerless government in Mogadishu over its independence. Moreover, if the international community is not able to complement forging the dialogue in favour of what Somaliland is entitled as independent sovereignty state? The consequence of the failure will be shouldered by the international community and now talks apparently appear to be in a deadlock which seems to be driven by two conflicting imperatives. On the one hand, the Federal Government of Somalia and its negotiators cannot endorse the declaration and dissolution in 1991 in the pursuant of 2001 referendum which 97% reaffirmed in the onset declaration of 18 May1991. Conversely, Somaliland and their negotiators cannot accept in any cost that Somaliland will be under what is called Federal Government of Somalia which is internationally propelled fragile system of statehood.

Nevertheless, there continues to be contradicting viewpoints among negotiating partners who were prohibited using the inappropriate language which is one of the indications that future negotiations is rife with the possibility of failure. There are indeed denials and prejudices at all levels, especially negotiating parts from Somalia are committed to limit any reasonable arguments apart from their taboo of the Union and creating symbolic propositions of legitimatizing their misappropriations which is often showcased what is not viable, acceptable and incredible to Somaliland negotiators to tolerate. Likewise, Somaliland negotiating parts are insisting on the legitimacy and rightful entitlement of their self-determination that Somaliland people opted.

There are some arguments portraying that these bilateral talks will disapprove the Somali proverb which says: to engage in dialogue is to reach an agreement”. This is because neither sides willing to legitimately concede to the other‟s demands which compromise their own stance. Many observers, both Somali and international, have opted to interpret such statements as evidence that Somaliland‟s commitment to independence remains flexible (Bryden, 2004). In the meantime, it is arguable that some interpretations are presumed as it would have liked to be and what Bryden has stated in the prior talks is one of the inflammations that Somalia leaders dream as nightmare and it is discrediting the whole process if such perception conceivably overlooks the realities on ground.  

Eventually, the bilateral meaningful dialogue between Somaliland and Somalia is on the other hand a positive testimony that may intensify Somaliland‟s journey toward international recognition because the “tailored language” of the international community is Somaliland must talk with Somalia. In terms of international law, Somaliland is qualified to meet the standard criteria and measurement of statehood objectively and this is one of the strongest rational arguments of Somaliland‟s sovereignty.  

In addition, there are some de facto states that demonstrated extensive progress: for example, Kosovo declared its independence in 2008 and is today recognized by 77 members of the United Nations. Subsequently, Russia recognized the independent of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008. The United State of America is one of the main allies of Taiwan; on the other hand Taiwan has also been allowed full membership of the WTO in which America serves as its patron; the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognized by only Turkey. Considering the above examples, Somaliland is required to desire plausible options in order to tackle its potential challenges for recognition.

However, as such talks are not the new paradigm to international politics and diplomatic arena because the international community had many times arbitrated in the cases of East Timor and Indonesia, Taiwan and China, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Sudan and South Sudan, and Palestine and Israel as well as many others. Hence the question which deserves to be answered is: why is the international community so silent, reluctant and inconsistent in this case of Somaliland over the past two decades. One of the immature speculations from international community‟s side is that should Somaliland be recognized, Somalia will remain a failed state. In this typical example, the international community is denying the facts that Somaliland has entirely contributed to regional peaceful coexistence where Somaliland has become a safeguard of international crimes and Somalia has itself benefited from these capabilities deployed by Somaliland.

The current talks would likely suffer regarding the critical elements that both sides are raising in every occasion of the negotiation arena. Nevertheless, Somaliland must review its friends and create its patron country. South Africa is the right country to ally with Somaliland and provide political and diplomatic backstopping. Similarly, Ethiopia, shares highly distinctive socio- economic, security and political interests with Somaliland, is best placed to start providing Somaliland much-needed diplomatic backstopping in efforts to boost its own, enormous communal interests.

3. Possible Scenarios and Predictability Talks to Fail

It became apparent that overreaching goal of the talks cannot be accomplished on amicable terms due to its fragile status on the basis of political legitimacy, which is not yet defined in the pursuit of forthcoming rounds; the disclosure of the information in the public is contributing the delicate of the talks is astonishing, at a moment both sides are encountering strong public reflections that can break off the continuation of the dialogue, another strain of the dialogue will be the paradox politics within Somalia state building enterprise at micro and macro level.

Any Somaliland government that moves towards dialogue with the Southern must be prepared to confront vigorous internal opposition including allegations of a “sell out”. Before committing themselves to such a potent political risk, Somaliland‟s leaders are likely to first evaluate the credibility of their Southern negotiating partners. Likewise, a Southern government will have to contend with domestic opposition to engage in dialogue with Somaliland. Some Southern leaders will argue bilateral dialogue with Somaliland is tantamount to recognition of the breakaway state. Others may feel that bilateral negotiations between Mogadishu and Hargeysa might upset existing power-sharing arrangements among Southern groups by awarding excessive importance and legitimacy to Somaliland and its administration (Bryden, 2004)

Moreover, there are some scenarios which explicitly and implicitly signify that Somaliland and Somalia bilateral talks will not lead to any agreement neither Somaliland declaration of independence nor reviving the dead slogan of the Union, in these persuasive political gestures are clear symbolic of the anticipated results. Notably, there are some fundamental elements propelling of the statehood enterprise of Somaliland and Somalia which is so asymmetric because Somalia is not an independent country that can advance its international relations since the country is extremely relies on outside support. So, the leadership of Somalia cannot contemplate independently and this is perpetuating to reach any communal consensus that investigates ultimate two-state solution.

On the other hand, it is potentially workable that a third party play a binding role to moderate in this bilateral dialogue especially the African Union is considerably required to impartially make things happen. Somaliland has had a significant relationship with the international community particularly member states of African Union, United Nations, UK, EU, Norway U.S. World Bank as well as other bilateral and multilateral actors. In addition, Turkey and UAE have recently demonstrated their working relations with Somaliland. So through this integrity, Somaliland can recommend the third part to moderate the talks, otherwise there will be minimum expectation to continue this dialogue alone. The Turkish government indeed has particularly made dramatic efforts to bring both sides on the table because Turkish has stimulated three vital approaches. First, Turkey is an Islamic country that may attract greater sympathy from both sides; second, the Ottoman Empire had left much footprint in the Horn of Africa especially many places in Somaliland and Somalia so there is now a connection with historical ties; thirdly, the west countries dual approach have seemingly raised many shortcomings simply because it was more than two decades since the politics of the region has been stagnant; and lastly the Turkish government has instantly succeeded to build confidence and impartiality since Somalilanders have some phobia with many Islamic countries who tend to support what had not worked in the past.

Generally speaking, the international community has started to visualize and explore with ways in which a workable two-state political solution can be accomplished at expense of internationally efforts underway. To envision the unconventional move that might avoid past mistakes, the international community, as a key partner in the consummation of a long-lasting solution to peaceful relations between Somaliland and Somalia, must be aware of the historical facts and impact of the political union entered into by the two entities in 1960. (Barawaani, 2013).On the other hand, there are other constituents that may contribute to the failure of the negotiations because political instability, internal fragmentation, constant changes of Somalia leadership, and increased dependence on the international community’s support are all indications of pause of the talks. However, there are other components that can also harm the continuation of the talk including but not limited to the denial and misappropriations of the Somali Republic communal resources and integrity of diplomatic prerogative international representation including AU and UN seats. Equally important, the attempt to influence internal issues against unity and sovereignty of Somaliland is another obvious factor that should challenge to infiltrate and institutionalize the dialogue of both sides.

As the dialogue progresses, it will get harder, not easier, since the two governments remain wedded to irreconcilable positions: the FGoS is required by the provisional constitution to defend the unity and territorial integrity of Somalia, and would risk political suicide were it to consent to Somaliland’s separation. The Somaliland government is bound by its own constitution to defend Somaliland’s independence and would face domestic upheaval if it consented to rule from Mogadishu. Both sides face acute domestic challenges and are unwilling to appear weak on such an explosive existential issue (Bryden, 2013)

4. Somaliland: Political Opportunities Against Shortcomings

Today, Somaliland has many strengths and opportunities to safeguard its independent sovereignty, and there is no doubt that with and without recognition, Somaliland independence and self – determination is valid and cannot be revoked. Somaliland has gradually taken it upon itself to build up state institutions over the past twenty-two years, and has accomplished more than what de jure states do under similar post-conflict conditions. Somalilanders have proved their dedication, willingness and collectively through the process of establishing peace, order and self-governance, and now their country became one of the most stable in the Horn of Africa. (Barawaani, 2013) Somaliland has been described as the inspiring story of resilience and reconstruction and of truly African renaissance which has many lessons to teach the rest of Africa, and the international community (M.Iqbal, 2007).

Somaliland achieved a dramatic recovery of socio-economic and political transformation during the post- Siyad Bare era because there are some extensive efforts underway regarding the decades of revival of reconstruction, reintegration, resilience, reconciliation and rehabilitation through the bottom up breakthroughs. Somaliland is hailed as safe haven of peace and stability, and this has brought inspirations to its citizens. Somaliland‟s achievements stand in contrast not just to the chaos in Mogadishu but also the records of governments across the Horn of Africa. Various countries have to some extent accepted Somaliland„s sovereignty. They have not officially recognized the entity, but established bilateral ties to its government (Harriet Gorka, 2011). The debate over Somaliland‟s recognition is commonly cast in terms of the likely costs and benefits to Somalilanders themselves and to the immediate region. But, this is also an issue in which the international community itself has a substantial stake. Standing at the point at which seismic global social, political and economic fault lines grind together, Somaliland stands to play an important role in whether these can effectively managed or slip further out of control. The issue of recognition should thus be approached, among other considerations, in terms of its likely impact on this process (The Brenthurst Foundation, 2011).

Indeed there are other important dimensions which deserve to be accurately emphasized in the interplays of internal into external outlook over the issues of concern. For example, building nationalism, solidarity, and communal interests are attracting outsiders to accept this evidence of history and need for acquisition of the international recognition so building internal trust, justice, inclusivity and fight against malpractice can be positive gesture and will be a real political revolution from ethnic-clan centric system into moderate responsive and accountable state.

Moreover, securing original boundaries of Somaliland in a peaceful manner is another vital aspect supporting Somaliland to gain international recognition, proactive, and comprehensive foreign policy can prevail to sideline the immature policies of Mogadishu government towards the regional actors and international community as well. At moment, the Mogadishu government seems to have failed at dealing with regional powers such as Ethiopia and Kenya: in contrast, Somaliland must engage those countries in more accentuated diplomatic manner and friendly communal interest relations. The other incentive is the AU‟s suspension of Egyptian membership after its recent military coup as well as the new Somaliland Foreign Minister who has competent knowledge in the way the African Union operates and its member states since he was deputy Special Secretary General in Daafur hybrid mission.  

5. Reviewing Somaliland Foreign Policy as Alternative of Proactive Diplomacy

It is beyond doubt that Somaliland has strategic and political value considering its post- conflict reconstruction and state-building process and, in doing so, Somaliland has contributed the region to be peaceful and stable but attaining international recognition was one of the heightened factors to uphold. In this case, it is time to review Somaliland foreign policy and it is time that regional and international efforts against Somaliland’s quest of international recognition should be closely evaluated. Similarly it is time that Somaliland people unite against the political setbacks, impractical and unpopular agendas contrary to Somaliland sovereignty.

Currently the international community seems to be carrying on reviving the dead slogan of the greater Somalia considering the coherent efforts of international community towards revitalizing and re-constructing what is called permanent state of Somalia. Subsequently, Somaliland foreign policy must accommodate bargaining options based on holistic and comprehensive approach by strengthening regional and international engagement. It is also commended to conduct aggressive awareness-raising and lobby activities both academic deliberations, Diaspora and among diplomatic spheres.

Nonetheless, Somaliland cannot also preserve a Western unpopular policy towards Somaliland‟s quest for international recognition and it is right time to diversify Somaliland‟s foreign policy with more mixed and unfixed options. In fact, it is intensely viewed Somaliland‟s foreign policy must generate alternatives and predictable scenarios of coordinated efforts with negotiating regional power brokers of IGAD, African Union, Arabic league, Turkish, Commonwealth and East African Community must also be engaged at maximum level.

Moreover, the AU- Finding Mission to Somaliland in 2005 declared that Somaliland‟s case should not be linked to the notion of “opening a Pandora‟s Box”: so, there are many historical, territorial and political remarkable achievements that strongly contribute Somaliland‟ case for international recognition. In this regard, Somaliland requires deploying a lot of capabilities to its foreign interventions, convincing international investors to explore the raw natural resources of Somaliland which is one way to uphold citizens‟ aspirations and country long run economic recovery. Therefore, it is also workable that following key factors are indispensable to employ in the near future in Somaliland foreign policy:

Somaliland to advance its hard-power capabilities and consistent deployment of the security forces that the region takes into account as domestic and regional forces;

Create patron country that scarifies its internationally recognized prestige to Somaliland; Mobilize most prominent, academic, intellectual and Diaspora communities to participate in this long journey of international recognition of Somaliland, with more strategic, realistic, and coherent positions; Somaliland must demand and lobby deploying another AU Fact Finding Mission and UN simply because it was after more than a decade when the AU Fact Finding Mission evaluated and reported back to the members states so currently and near future it is indispensable to bring African Union attention and entire international community to closely exam the transformative efforts undertaking in Somaliland;

 Search every possible option obtaining international recognition either controversial or consistent manner meaning forging possibilities of preventive diplomacy as strategic dimension for contemporary political realities;

 Establish consistent relations with IGAD,AU,UN, EU, Arab League, African Development Bank, Islamic Bank, Commonwealth, World Bank, IMF, WTO and Sports International Associations and appoint Envoys or ambassadors to those organizations, not necessarily to operate in the headquarters but those designated persons will follow up the reports and interventions in the regions as coordinated and articulated manner, seeking endorsed observant status in the above organizations can possibly gained through constant and continued unfixed foreign policy.

To this end, the expanded strategies and advocacy campaigns can raise renewal of international engagement to re-assess the assertion of Somaliland‟s independence and right to self- determination. It is noted that recognition is a matter of politics rather than legal: many emerging states conquered popular international engagements without doubt and it is far beyond the realities of the international community to have always given Somaliland a blind eye and deny it its historical and political trajectory. Of course, there is little international community engagement to Somaliland, but to consolidate peaceful and democratic efforts, recognition is necessary in order to embark upon state accountability, bilateral and multilateral assistance and speed up the exploration of the natural resources that can showcase the country‟s prospective. Somaliland‟s international relations at this momentum could be able to absorb any leverage of diplomacy and commercial penetration across the global ideals; however, this international optimism can have significant impact on domestic spheres. As nationhood evolves, civil society engagement can also be vital because CSOs have better international relations and experts of this arena of undertaking advocacy campaigns of Somaliland recognition.

Somaliland is lacking coordinated international effort towards drawing two state solutions because yet the talks did not appear as political process of two state solution. Since the last air space agreement was signed at Istanbul with presence of high officials of the Turkish government. But, Somalia Officials showed inconsistent signals that are opposite to what the agreement stated and this is pushing talks to fail since no faith from Somalia side. Somalia has one of the worse reputations in the world. It is frequently referred to as the epitome of a” failed state” (Harper, 2012). Whilst Somalia is insisting the false representation and denials, the dilemma situation is not possible to tackle if Somaliland wants to build peaceful bilateral relations with mature diplomatic equals of Somalia. Somalia lacks to stand on its own feet and it takes time to do so: in this case, it is unfeasible Somaliland to remain such uncertainty but it must contemplate choices which are critical pathways that may accelerate practical engagement of Somaliland‟s diplomatic activities in overseas.

In the meantime, the issue of boundary disputes would be most likely to end since the group which is called Khatumo state of Somalia aborted, considering recent developments that most of the significant groups returned to their original constituencies inside Somaliland and they widely declared their commitment to Somaliland‟s sovereignty and independence. Therefore, the question of boundary argument has been dismantled for the moment. Presumably, over the past two decades Somaliland had attracted regional and international policy actors especially with regards in socio-political, economic and security intensifications for domestic, regional and international interests the assertion of independence of Somaliland has remained the region to be peaceful zone that entirely paved the way the regional integration, developmental cooperation, trade, immigration and fight against international crimes, this is eventually embarked on international limelight of Somaliland‟s geopolitical strategic positions. (Barawaani, 2012).Despite the dialogue between the two sides, Somalia‟s political sketch is still moving under miscalculation of unworkable scenarios in 1960. Somalia has entered international agreements and attempting to use historical Somali Republic assets frozen and Somaliland has right to sue Somalia as such misappropriation both reputation and false representation. In conclusion, preventative diplomatic measures can contend this political conspiracy manufactured by the leaders of Somalia.

6. Somaliland’s Legal Case for Independent Sovereignty and International Recognition

The Brenthurst Foundation discussion paper in 2011 has outlined how apparently the case of Somaliland is legitimate and ostensible. Similarly, a report by the legal section of the then South African Department of Foreign Affairs sated 29 April 2003 found on the question of „Somaliland‟s „claim for sovereign status that it is undeniable that Somaliland does indeed qualify for statehood and it is incumbent on the international community to recognize it. According to Anthony Carroll and B Rajagopal, any efforts to deny or delay would not only put the international community at the risk of ignoring the most stable region in the Horn, it would impose the people of Somaliland due to the denial of foreign assistance that recognition entails.

If the negotiation between Somalia and Somaliland is to be successful in the long-term, it must have legitimacy within both electorates: where only one electorate view the negotiations as legitimate the likelihood that problems will arise in the long term is substantially increased.

While gaining full legitimacy within both constituents may not be a necessary precursor to short- term success of secession negotiations, ultimately it will be a hindrance to long –term success of the negotiations (Watershed, 2013).Somaliland has built a good legal case for recognition, and a significant body of independent legal opinion supports this case. Its de facto existence means it fulfils several fundamental criteria for statehood. In addition, its prior existence as an independent state following the end of British colonial rule in 1960; the legitimate rebellion of the bulk of people of Somaliland against Siad Barre‟s repressive regime and their consequent expression of their right to self-determination; and the dubious legal validity of Somaliland‟s union with Somalia all contribute to a strong case in favour of recognition. (Unpublished study, 2008).

The Montevideo convention is the clearest statement of the declaratory theory of Statehood. The declarative theory requires two things: that the prospective state meets each of the four elements listed above and that the state declares its sovereignty. Thus, statehood does not depend on recognition or acknowledgement by other Nations. The United Nations has contributed to the development of this theory since the time of democracy, equal rights, and respect for self- determination. Somaliland has strong arguments to sustain its sovereignty and self- determination comparing many emergence de facto states in the post-Cold War era. Edna Aden (2006) The territory of Somaliland is defined by the borders of the former British Somaliland Protectorate, which are defined by the following international treaties:

-The Anglo-French Treaty of 1888

-The Anglo-Italian Protocol of 1894

-The Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1897

The borders of Somaliland were confirmed and demarcated again by the British in 1935 and 1957. Regarding our failed union with Somalia, we are by no means the first African State to have entered into a voluntary union with another the subsequently withdrawn from that union intact. The following countries have all done likewise and have never been punished for it as Somaliland is being punished:  

-Senegal and Mali in 1960,

-Egypt and Syria in 1961,

-Rwanda and Burundi in 1962,

-Senegal and Gambia in 1968,

-Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau in 1975,
-Ethiopia and Eritrea in 1993.

– Sudan and South Sudan 2011

Moreover, Somaliland has got this historical and legal evidence indicating, both comparative substantial footsteps and territorial legitimacy that had widely made Somaliland as existed identity nation. Somaliland has had cultural preservation and political spectrum that neither international community nor Somalia cannot deprive: there are much strengths and chances that Somaliland can diminish its shortcomings both through its home-grown efforts and materializing country which dream of being a workable state. Indeed the recognition is the consequence of what the people of Somaliland has dramatically made over the past decades; avoiding election postponements and seeking way outs of massive unemployment are two key pressing issues that domestically is raised. In order to contend these challenges, international community must advocate achieving pragmatic two state solutions through this bilateral dialogue and the will and political ambition of the Somaliland people is sacred.

7. Conclusion

Since Somalia is failed state and has mystified its own internal problems, we cannot anticipate a genuine dialogue between the two sides. Therefore, Somaliland must concentrate on possible options that could generate new political prototype with regards to many experimental cases and if international community does not take an active and neutral role in these talks, no easy agreement will be reached.

Somaliland is a classic example in the Horn of Africa and its case needs regional and international responsibility to take forward and it is unfair for international community to recognize and support one of the two regions united in 1960 without consulting the other. So the prior recognition, Somaliland deserves to be welcomed to present its cause of self- determination in all international forums, any potential intervention and international demands against the true aspiration of the people of Somaliland will only fuel this conventional conflict in the region.

However, the phenomenon of the talks can propel international actors‟ optimistic approach to complexity of the in depth realities of the two sides. Currently, there are some positive indications in the Islamic world, both Arabic and non-Arabic countries, to help understand the outlook and magnificent attributes of the Republic of Somaliland. Somaliland has much distinguishing factors to its descendants in the Horn of African and elsewhere: hence, if the talks fail, Somaliland has many political features to preserve its sovereignty independence, and the consequences will affect beyond the region. The case of Somaliland and Somalia is not akin to other descendants since Somaliland and Somalia merger had no clear legal basis in which later on Somaliland reclaimed its independent in 1991 and succeeded to build sovereign state over the past two decades where Somalia has been in turmoil over the 22 years. Equally important, no signal jurisdiction that Somalia is able to exercise over the territory of Somaliland: so, this case requires further analysis and brave decision. Somaliland has so different political character with other emerging states recognized on the world.

By Mohamed .A. Mohamoud (Barawaani)

By Xuseen Cabdillahi Bulhan