Somalia’s Federalism and Northern Tribal Secessionist’s Mayhem: Some Reflections

Somalia’s state is a conglomeration of different tribes (one ethnic) with no distinguishing characteristics such as race ethnicity, language, and religion living within defined territory. The inability of some tribal secessionists groups (Somaliland) within states to partake of the “good life” has been offered as the reason for most of the current conflicts in the Somali’s Northern territory.

Consequently, most of these groups hope to redress their grievances as a right and an entitlement that is owed to them by virtue of universally accepted rights such as the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as stated in the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, and the right of “self-determination of peoples”, a concept, that emerged following World War I, and is current is current in several of the more recent instruments of the United Nations following the charter of the United nations in 1945, and to the territorial integrities of their states. The Northern Somali tribal secessionist’s minorities in decolonized Somali state resorted to violence claiming entitlement to separation from the rump state, sanctified and sanitized by misplaced conceptions of self-determination.

At independence in 1960, it is a universally acknowledged fact that some of the Somalia’sNorthern tribes (Isaaq’s) who were ~9% of Somali’s population, were a privileged minority community, having become so under a half century of British colonial rule. To them, independence of a democratic Somalia meant that they would be “…exposed to the danger of Somali’s Unionists domination” resulting in an erosion of their position privilege. “Unionists vs Secessionists problem in Somalia is not a mere matter of language, culture, or religion”.

It is one that affects our very existence as a national entity in the country in the country. This threat of ‘domination’ will persist as long as the secessionists’ community continues to maintain itself outside the pale by limiting themselves only Northern tribes (Isaaqs) or even so called Somalilanders VS Somali Federalists. On the contrary, ability to function in Federalism would enable them to compete equally with the majority and yet retain their tribal identity. It is NOT exclusion but inclusion that would prevent “Unionists domination”, as it has been with the Irish, the Welsh and the Scots in the UK, or for multitude of ethnic groups that inhabit in the United States.

The Northern Tribal Secessionist’s “Two Nation Theory” Fear of Somali Unionists (Federalists) domination made the Somali Northern Tribal Secessionists come up with proposals that would make them as a group “feel equal” with the Somali Unionists in the governance of the state, either a partners in the central government of a Unitary Federal State, or as a majority in a sizable portion Somaliland’s Secessionist State.

Conceptually, the first option would have been acceptable to the Unionists because it would not have affected the territorial integrity of the state. However, the minority tribal secessionists’ proposal for central power sharing was for equal representation (Unionists vs Tribal Secessionists), in the Parliament of independent democratic Somalia. The proposal was unacceptable to the Somali Unionists because it was considered to be reasonable excessive.

Upon rejection of their excessive and unreasonable proposals the Somali Northern Tribal Secessionists next sought a further audacious exclusionary arrangement of separatism (secessionism) based on territorial unit in the Northern Provinces (Ex Somali British Protectorate), which encompassed 1/3 of its coastline and 1/3 of the land mass of the Northern Somalis residing in the region, i.e., 35% of the Ex British Protectorate’s population. The 70% of Ex British Protectorate people are Pro-Unionists (Khatumo State, Awdel State and Makhirs).The unreasonableness of the extent of the northern tribal secessionists unit demand caused a valid concern on the part the Somali Unionists majority that secessionism was but a first step which would eventually lead to the division of the country.

Pictures: Jan – Feb 1920- The RAF’s first “little war”. RAF units were involved in bombing operations (Taleh –Now Khatumo State of Somalia) to overthrow Dervish leader Mohammed bin Abdullah Hassan, the “Mad Mullah”. The airborne intervention was “the main instrument and decisive factor” in the success of the operation. Ten dH9s were dispatched to form “Z Force”, and were used for bombing, strafing and as air ambulances.

Both arrangement sought by the Somali Northern Tribal Secessionists group with a view to “feeling equal” with the Unionists. A federal arrangement that including the Northern-Harti Provinces in a secessionists unit is especially unacceptable to the Somali Unionists because these particular provinces (Sool, Sanaag and Cayn) had for millennia been part of the Daarood’s Kingdom until the entire kingdom was ceded to the British in 1921, as proven by treats. Having failed to secure acceptance for an arrangement that would meet their expectations the Northern Tribal Secessionists the tried to resolve their ambitions in 1991 at Self-Determination of so called “Somaliland State”, to establish state in the Northern-West provinces of Somalia, even if it meant to resort to arms, on the ground of the right of self-determination, Territorial Integrity & the Right of External Self-determination (SSC vs SNM).

The issue of self-determination poses several questions that have not been answered since it was first introduced as a concept by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson at the League of Nations in 1918. Ever since the term “self-determination” was first incorporated into the United Nations Charter in 1945 there has been considerable debate as to what it means and to whom it applies, because Article 1 paragraph 2 refers to” equal rights and self-determination of peoples” What or who constitutes the term “peoples”?. For instance, according U.N. Publication Number (E.80.XIV.s), “It will be found that there is no accepted definition of the word “peoples” and no way of defining it with certainty… The various possibilities of interpretation and the consequents uncertainties could in many cases turn the right of peoples to self-determination into a weapon for use against the territorial integrity and political unity of states…Improperly understood, this right could also lead to the encouragement of secessionists movements in territory independent states, where any group whatsoever might believe (including terrorist groups) that it had an immediate and absolute right to create a State of its own.

This lack of clarity as to whether the term “peoples” could apply to any group within a state has made minority groups aspire to statehood based on the “right of self-determination in the hope that it is aright that can be claimed by any group. The Somali Northern Tribal Secessionists (Togdher and Northern West Somali provinces) claimed the right of self-determination in 1991, and the most recently group to make a similar is the Kurds of Iraq. When groups within a State aspire to statehood they seek “external self-determination “. The issue however, is whether groups within states have the right to exercise external self-determination, because it would inevitable disturb the territorial integrity of the state and in the process deny the right of self- determination to the others in the state who have a right to retain the integrity of their territory.

Furthermore, if the principle is extended it would lead to endless fragmentation and chaos. In the instruments of the United Nations, the term “people” applies to colonial peoples only (decolonization). For Instances, according to Antonio Cassese “Article 1(2) of the U.N. Charter was eventually perceived and relied upon as a legal entitlement to decolonization…this was the first time that an international legal rule proclaimed self-determination qua the of a whole population to democratic rule (Self-Determination of Peoples –A Legal Reappraisal, 1995, pp.65, 66). Continuing, Cassese States: “The legal position…summarized by the International

Court of Justice in its Advisory opinion on Namibia (was that) if the population of a colonial territory is divided up into various ethnic, groups or nations, they are NOT at liberty to choose by themselves their external status. This is because the principle of territorial integrity should here play an over-riding role “Ibid, p.72).

In the opinion of Dov Ronen, a fellow at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs,“The Charter of the United Nations, the Covenant on Human Rights, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial countries and Peoples…are specifically aimed at colonized countries “Ronen, The Quest for Self-Determination, 1979, p.5). A similar opinion expressed by John Chipman. In an article titled “Managing the Politics of Parochialism” he states:”…neither in the instruments of the United Nations, nor in customary International Law as whole, does there exist any legal right to independence, by means of the right of Self- determination for any non-colonial people or for a minority within an existing state “(Ethnic Conflicts and international Security, ed. Michael E.Brown, 1995, p.242).

In view of these and other similar opinions, external self-determination, meaning the right of secession unilaterally, is denied to groups within States. Even under conditions where human rights violations have taken place the international community has not supported secessionists initiatives. This has been the case with Kurdish in Iraq, Oramia in Ethiopia, Tuwariqs in Mali, Polisario front of Morocco, Casamance in Senegal, Boere-Afrikaners in South Africa, Buganda in Uganda, Baroste in Zambia, and is the current attitude in the case of Northern Tribal Secessionist in Somalia (Somaliland).

Claims to territory based on historical ex colonial boundaries is also not recognized by the international community because the recognition of such a concept would mean that each contending party would select particular points in history that would be most advantageous to them. Italy (Mussolini) occupied Northern Somalia (Berbera and Hargeisa early 1930’s), and British occupied Southern Somalia (Mogadishu area early 1940’s). Since of the right of external self-determination is recognized by the International community for Only Colonized People, minorities have attempted to justify secession on the grounds that they are being internally colonized by dominant groups within the state. This argument was presented by the so called “Somaliland” at the controversial Conference between Somali Federalists Group (Somali Federal Representatives) and Northern Tribal Secessionist Nationhood held in Istanbul –

Turkey on last summer.

The theory of Internal Colonialism is based on the promise that policies and process of economic development controlled by the dominant group at the center are exploitative and is deliberately skewed. However, while such circumstances may exist in some countries, the reverse has been true in the case of the Somali Northern Tribal Secessionists (Somaliland). When attempts are made to redress past injustices through affirmative action such as those adopted by the U.S.A under Civil Rights Legislation, it is in evitable that the privileged will affected negatively, What took place in Somalia was no different. Therefore, the Northern Somali Tribal Secessionists claim for the right of external Self-Determination on grounds of internal colonialism is also baseless. Today’s ex-British protectorate Northern Somali regions had a different States such as Khatumo State of Somalia, Awdel State of Somalia and Makhir State of Somalia. The people from all those states are pro-unionists and they recently got a conflict with Somalia Northern Secessionists groups (Somaliland).

Finally, having failed to justify the creation of Tribal Secessionist State on the grounds of external Self-determination, the Northern Tribal Secessionists Group (Somaliland),“…agreed to explore a solution founded on the principle of internal conflict resolution as a Federalism…”during the peace negotiation in Istanbul-Turkey 2013.

References: Neville Ladduwahetty, K.M de Silva, UN Charter and K.W.Goonawradene