discussion paper 75 This paper analyses the notion of self-determination and secession by adopting a comparative perspective on two case studies, namely Somaliland and South Sudan. Somaliland declared its independence in 1991 following the collapse of the Somali state. Since then, Somaliland has been making relentless efforts to secure recognition from the international community. South Sudan successfully negotiated the right to exercise self-determination, a right that was formalised in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed between the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). The people of South Sudan held a referendum and voted overwhelmingly for secession, with formal independence being achieved on 9 July 2011. International law may better qualify Somaliland for statehood than South Sudan for three reasons: (i) it was created by colonialism, (ii) it has already been recognised, albeit only for a few days, as an independent state in 1960, and (iii) it has proven to be stable, functional and relatively democratic. Yet Somaliland has failed to achieve international recognition. This paper interrogates this discrepancy. It concludes that the existence of a partner ready to accept the right of self-determination, and geostrategic concerns about security as well as economic and political interests, determine international recognition. self-determination and REDIE BEREKETEAB is researcher at the Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala, Sweden with the focus on conflict and state building in the Horn of Africa. He holds a PhD in Sociology from secessionism in somaliland Uppsala University and has published articles, book chapters and books on the Horn of Africa. His research interest is state, nation, nationalism, identity, conflict, democratisation, governance, development. and south sudan CHALLENGES TO POSTCOLONIAL STATE-BUILDING REDIE Bereketeab Nordiska Afrikainstitutet (The Nordic Africa Institute) P.O. Box 1703 SE- 751 47 Uppsala, Sweden www.nai.uu.se Self-Determination and Secessionism in Somalia and South Sudan DISCUSSION PAPER 75 Self-Determination and Secessionism in Somaliland and South Sudan Challenges to Postcolonial State-building REDIE BEREKETEAB NORDISKA AFRIKAINSTITUTET, UPPSALA 2012 Indexing terms: Somaliland South Sudan Independence Self-determination Secession Nation-building Political development International relations Comparative analysis The opinions expressed in this volume are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. Language checking: Peter Colenbrander ISSN 1104-8417 ISBN 978-91-7106-725-8 © The author and Nordiska Afrikainstitutet 2012 Production: Byrå4 Print on demand, Lightning Source UK Ltd. Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 4 Background ............................................................................................................................. 5 Self-Determination: Theoretical Framework ...................................................................... 12 Comparing Somaliland and South Sudan ........................................................................... 17 Defining Separate Identity to gain Somaliland’s Recognition ......................................... 22 Challenges of Recognition in Somaliland ........................................................................... 25 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 27 References ............................................................................................................................. 28 Abstract This paper analyses the notion of self-determination and secession by adopting a comparative perspective on two case studies, namely Somaliland and South Sudan. Somaliland declared its independence in 1991 following the collapse of the Somali state. Since then, Somaliland has been making relentless efforts to secure recognition from the international community. South Sudan successfully negotiated the right to exercise self-determination, a right that was formalised in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed between the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). The people of South Sudan held a referendum and voted overwhelmingly for se- cession, with formal independence being achieved on 9 July 2011. International law may better qualify Somaliland for statehood than South Sudan for three reasons: (i) it was created by colonialism, (ii) it has already been recognised, albeit only for a few days, as an independent state in 1960, and (iii) it has proven to be stable, functional and relatively democratic. Yet Somaliland has failed to achieve international recognition. This paper interrogates this discrepancy. It concludes that the existence of a partner ready to accept the right of self- determination, and geostrategic concerns about security as well as economic and political interests, determine international recognition. Keywords: self-determination, secessionism, Somaliland, South Sudan, state- building 4 Background In 1897, Somaliland became a British protectorate (Spears 2010:121; Farley 2010:779; Bradbury 2008:26) and on 26 June 1960 British Somaliland got its independence1 (Jhazbhay 2009; Hansen and Bradbury 2007: 463). Four days later, it joined Italian Somaliland upon the latter’s independence on 1 July of the same year to form the Republic of Somalia (Farley 2010; Bradbury 2008; Hans- en and Bradbury 2007). British Somalilanders pressed hard for the consumma- tion of the union while the Italian Somalilanders wanted to proceed cautiously. Legislators from Italian Somaliland preferred to delay the union in order to set- tle pending issues. Apparently, British Somalilanders perceived postponement of the union could be to their disadvantage and pushed to accelerate it. ‘I noted with alarm that the people of Somaliland had forced the union upon the South so precipitously that they alone had to pay the price by accepting a southern constitution, southern flag, southern capital and a southern Head of State – who also appointed a southern Prime Minister,’ wrote Jama Mohamed Ghalib (cited in Spears 2010:129). In addition to the post of president, heavyweight ministe- rial posts were allotted to the Italian Somalilanders. British Somaliland held 33 seats in the 123-seat National Assembly (Spears 2010:129–30; SCPD 1999:14). This inequality eventually gave rise to a sense of loss and disaffection among Somalilanders (Bradbury 2008). Presumably, it did not take long before Somalilanders discovered they had been mistaken in insisting on a prompt marriage without safeguards (Hansen and Bradbury 2007463; Pham 2010:140; Renders and Terlinden 2010:728–9). It became increasingly clear to them that the elite of Italian Somaliland would be in the dominant position (Hoehne 2006: 401). The post-independence con- stitution and political arrangements were set out according to democratic prin- ciples, however. Indeed, many perceive the period between 1960 and 1969 as a golden democratic age in Somalia’s history (Samatar 2002; Hansen and Brad- bury 2007; Bradbury 2008; Elmi 2010; Ismail 2010). Power-sharing between the two regions was arranged democratically, with the presidency reserved for former Italian Somaliland while the prime ministership was allocated to the erstwhile British Somaliland (Samatar 2008). This gave a semblance of equity between the parts. The reality, however, proved to be entirely different and gen- erated a growing sense of marginalisation and alienation from the state among northeners. Moreover, the democratic system was rapidly faltering. Corruption and divisive clan politics soon ate into the system from within (SCPD 1999:15). The double vices of pervasive corruption and divisive clan politics incited by 1. It was recognised by 35 countries, including the United States and Israel, Benjamin R. Farley, ‘Calling a State a State: Somaliland and International Recognition’, Emory Inter- national Law Review, vol. 24, no. 2 (2010). 5 Redie Bereketeab clan entrepreneurs running in the presidential election of 1967 (Farley 2010:781; Hansen and Bradbury 2007:466; Bradbury 2008:35) exposed Somalia to in- stability, jeopardised its integrity and state-building process and culminated in the assassination of President Abdirashid Ali Shermarke on 15 October 1969. Ultimately, clan politics coupled with sectarian political parties and widespread corruption created political chaos and gave rise to a military coup led by Gen. Mohamed Siad Barre in October 1969 (Spears 2010:118; Samatar 2008; Lew- is 2002; Kusow 2004; Ismail 2010; Elmi 2010). The Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC), established pursuant to the military coup, took over power from the political parties. The SRC targeted corruption, nepotism, anarchy and sec- tarian clan politics and was very well received by ordinary people on the streets for doing so (Spears 2010:133, SCPD 1999:15). Indeed, the Siad Barre regime declared clanism a cancer in society that had to be rooted out and embarked on a process of modern state-building (Bradbury 2008: 36). In its foreign policy, the Siad Barre regime established close relations with the Soviet Union. The Soviets, in turn, provided Siad Barre with training and armaments, which by 1972 were estimated to be worth $50 million (Khapoya and Agyeman-Duah 1985:23).