The “Somaliland” Secessionist Argument: South Sudan and Eritrea’s Case

Context

The historical contexts surrounding the independence movements of South Sudan and Eritrea differ significantly from that of “Somaliland”. Eritrea was an Italian colony from the late 19th century until World War II, when it briefly came under British administration before being federated with Ethiopia in 1952. It was annexed as a province in 1962. The Eritrean struggle for independence was largely a reaction to Ethiopian annexation and the subsequent denial of basic rights, autonomy, and self-determination. Likewise, South Sudan's path to independence was deeply rooted in the colonial legacy of British administration, which treated the predominantly Christian and non-Christian South Sudan separately from the Muslim-majority North Sudan. After Sudan got its independence from Great Britain, the southerners rejected to celebrate with Khartoum citing denial of basic rights, uneven economic distribution, and potential domination by the powerful groups in the North. 

The independence movements in both South Sudan and Eritrea were thus motivated by clear historical ethnic grievances and colonial legacies that sharply distinguished their situations from that of “Somaliland”. On the other hand, the northern regions, “Somaliland”, voluntarily joined with the Trust Territory of Somalia in 1960 to form the Somali Republic. The union was not forced or imposed but was a decision made by the respective legislative bodies of the two territories. This historical decision creates a significant difference in the foundational context of modern Somaliland’s quest for independence compared to the forcibly annexed regions of Eritrea and South Sudan.

May 18, 1991

Somaliland's proclamation of independence on May 18, 1991, stemmed from a unilateral decision by the Isaq clan. Other prominent Somali clans such as the Warsangeli, Dolbahante, and Gudabirsi vehemently opposed this unilateral secession but agreed to uphold inter-clan peace accords. For instance, the Hadaftimo peace agreement of 1993, presided over by Sultan Abdisalan, underscores the resolute stance of the Warsangeli clan in maintaining the unity of the Somali Republic.

The African Union (AU), Arab League, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and United Nations (UN) formally recognize Puntland and "Somaliland" as integral units within Somalia's federal framework, despite their distinct political identities. These administrations have garnered UN-sanctioned legitimacy for their local governance, thereby facilitating an environment conducive to rehabilitation and development to rebuild Somalia (cf. UN Resolution ARES/53/1, December 8, 1998). Nevertheless, their rivalry has precipitated proxy conflicts over the Sool (Khatumo) and Sanaag (Makhir) regions, exacerbating security and economic conditions in Sool, particularly in its capital, Las Anod.

Legal and Moral Arguments

From a legal standpoint, Eritrea and South Sudan were recognized as distinct entities within the international community, albeit under colonial rule, and their struggles were often framed as liberation movements against colonial or quasi-colonial rule. The Eritrean case was fortified by a UN resolution that federated it with Ethiopia under the Ethiopian Crown. The UN resolution provided a legal basis for Eritrea’s claim to self-determination after Ethiopia violated the terms of federation. South Sudan’s legal basis for independence was cemented by comprehensive peace agreements, including the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Kenya, which provided for the formation of a transitional government and a referendum that eventually led to independence.

In contrast, Somaliland's assertion that the union was involuntary is unsubstantiated and misleading. In 1959, extensive protests across the Somali protectorate compelled the Protectorate Legislative Council in Hargeisa to create a resolution for independence and immediate union with Somalia by April 6, 1960—almost two months before June 26, the day commemorating the replacement of the British Union Jack with Somalia's national flag. Britain promptly endorsed this resolution, albeit concerns about the brief transition period. Political demonstrations, particularly concerning the undisclosed transfer of the Hawd and Reserve Area to Ethiopia, further induced Britain to endorse the permanent amalgamation of British Somaliland with Italian Somaliland to establish the Somali Republic.

Essentially, Somaliland’s secession lacks similar international legal backing. The African Union (AU) has consistently upheld the principle of respecting the current borders, which inherently includes the territorial integrity of Somalia as it was recognized at independence and the merger of the two regions on July 1, 1960. The AU’s opposition to changing colonial borders is a pragmatic and long-standing policy to ensure the stability and territorial integrity of African states. The principle of uti possidetis juris and the support for sovereignty as outlined in the AU Charter are foundational to the continent's peace and security framework. This policy approach underscores the importance of negotiated settlementsand the respect for existing legal frameworks to address aspirations for autonomy and self-determination within the bounds of established states.

International Norms and Sovereignty

International norms, particularly those pertaining to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, significantly impact the recognition of secessionist entities. The international community has generally been cautious in endorsing secessionist movements to avoid setting precedents that could lead to widespread instability. Both Eritrea and South Sudan's paths to independence were heavily mediated by international actors and framed within comprehensive peace processes that ensured a degree of stability and consensus.

For “Somaliland”, the issue is more complex. The international community, including the AU and the United Nations, is wary of recognizing Somaliland's independence without a negotiated settlement with the Somali federal government. The concern is that recognizing “Somaliland” could encourage other secessionist movements in Africa and beyond, thereby undermining the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity enshrined in international law.

Conclusion 

While there are lessons to be drawn from the Eritrean and South Sudanese struggles for independence, the unique historical, legal, and geopolitical contexts of “Somaliland” require comprehensive moral and legal approach that starts first with the rights of unionist clans in northern Somalia. Respecting Somalia's sovereignty and seeking a negotiated settlement is another viable approach. "Somaliland" is currently recognized as a regional administration within the  framework of the Federal Republic of Somalia. Khatumo and Makhir regions should likewise be accorded a similar treatment. 

By Mohamed Elmi Dhooley 

ahafinance@gmail.com

References:

1.     Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (2005). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Mission in Sudan.

2.     Cotran, E. (1963). Legal Problems Arising out of the Formation of the Somali Republic. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 12(3).

3.     Elmi, M. (2024, June). The Two Camps of Maakhir Political Persuasion. Google Blogger.