Somalia’s state is a conglomeration of different tribes (one ethnic) with no distinguishing characteristics such as race, ethnicity, language, and religion living within a defined territory.

The inability of some Secessionists groups 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 1, and 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 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 the some of the Somalia’s Northern secessionists who were about 9% of Somalia’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 Nationalists domination” resulting in an erosion of their position of privilege. “Pan-Somalists 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. This threat of ‘domination’ will persist as long as the Secessionists community continues to maintain itself outside the pale by limiting themselves only to Northern tribes or even So called Somalilanders VS Federalists. On the contrary, ability to function in Federalists would enable them to compete equally with the majority and yet retain their tribal identity. It is NOT exclusion but inclusion that would prevent “Federalists domination”, as it has been with the Irish, the Welsh and the Scots in the UK, or for the multitude of ethnic groups that inhabit the United States. 

The Two Nation Theory

Fear of  Pan-Somalists (Federalists) domination made the Somali Northern Secessionists come up with proposals that would make them as a group “feel equal” with the Pan-Somalists in the governance of the state, either as partners in the central government of a unitary federal state, or as a majority in a sizable portion of Somaliland’s Secessionism state. Conceptually, the first option would have been acceptable to the Federalists because it would not have affected the territorial integrity of the state. However, the minority secessionists proposal for central power sharing was for equal representation (Federalist vs Northern Secessionists), in the Parliament of independent democratic Somalia. The proposal was unacceptable to the Federalists because it was considered to be unreasonably excessive. 

Upon rejection of their excessive and unreasonable proposal the Somali Northern secessionists next sought a further audacious exclusionary arrangement of Separatisms (Secessionism) based on a territorial unit in the Northern Provinces (ex Somali British protectorate), which encompassed 1/3 of the land mass and 1/3 of its coastline for the Northern Somalis residing in the region, i.e., 35% of the Ex British Protectorate‘s population. The unreasonableness of the extent of the Northern Secessionists unit demanded caused a valid concern on the part of the Federalists majority that secessionism was but a first step which would eventually lead to the division of the country. 

Jan - Feb 1920- The RAF's first "little war". RAF units were involved in bombing operations( “Taleh” and other cities of SSC Regions) with the Camel Corps in British Somaliland (now 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 arrangements sought by the Somali Northern Secessionists group were with a view to “feeling equal” with the Federalists. A federal arrangement that including the Northern-Harti Provinces in a Secessionists unit is especially unacceptable to the Somali Nationalists because these particular provinces (Sool, Sanaag and Hawd) had for millennia been part of the Daaroods Kingdom until the entire Kingdom was ceded to the British in 1921, as proven by treaties. Having failed to secure acceptance for an arrangement that would meet their expectations the Northern Somali Secessionists then tried to resolve their ambitions in 1991 at self-determination of so called “Somaliland State”, to establish a secessionist state in the Northern-west Provinces of Somalia, even if it meant a resort to arms, on the grounds of the right of self-determination.

Territorial Integrity & the Right of External Self-Determination

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.3), “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 consequent 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 encouragement of secessionist movements in the territory of independent states, where any group whatsoever might believe 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 a right that can be claimed by any group. The Somali secessionists (Somali’s Northern West) claimed the right of self-determination in 1991, and the most recent group to make a similar claim 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 inevitably 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 “peoples” applies to colonial peoples only (decolonization). For instance, 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 right 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 is 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 a 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 Conflict 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 secessionist initiatives. This has been the case with Kosovo, Kurds in Iraq and is the current attitude in the case of Northern Secessionists in Somalia 

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. 

Since the right of external self-determination is recognized by the international community for colonized peoples, 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 Secrete Conference of Northern Secessionists Nationhood held in California-USA on last summer. 

The theory of internal colonialism is based on the premise that policies and processes 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 Secessionists. When attempts are made to redress past injustices through affirmative action such as those adopted by the US under the Civil Rights Legislation, it is inevitable that the privileged would be affected negatively. What took place in Somalia was no different. Therefore, the Northern Somali Secessionists claim for the right of external self-determination on grounds of internal colonialism is also baseless. 

Having failed to justify the creation of a secessionist state on the grounds of external Self-determination, the Northern Secessionists group, claiming to be the sole representatives of the Northern tribes, “...agreed to explore a solution founded on the principle of internal conflict resolution as a federalism...” during the peace negotiations in Nairobi-Kenya 2004. 

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

* Jama Elmi Ph.D: Sr. Research Scientist,
Toronto, Canada
(elmij@yahoo.com)

Copyright © 2005 Wardheernews.com