Mo Guled
Western intervention in Libya’s revolution may offer hope to proponents of Somaliland’s recognition. Generally, Western states show extraordinary deference to the African Union in matters of African politics. For Somaliland, this deference has led Western states to refuse to recognize Somaliland before the African Union or other African states recognized it. But Western support for the Libyan National Transitional Council – particularly the political and military support provided by France and the United Kingdom—suggests a newfound willingness on the part of the West to interfere politically in Africa – or at least to take positions contrary to that of the African Union. This willingness to buck the AU may offer Somaliland some hope for recognition. Despite its remarkable success in transitioning from a post-conflict society to a stable and democratic state over the past twenty years, no state has recognized Somaliland. Somaliland’s failure to earn recognition is largely attributable to the African Union’s failure to act. Many Western states have shown an interest in recognizing Somaliland but, out of deference to the AU, have refused to grant recognition before the AU does. Not only has the AU refused to act, but it has also ignored the recommendations of its own fact-finding mission to Somaliland and it has taken steps – like giving Somalia’s seat at the AU to the impotent Transitional Federal Government – rendering recognition unthinkable. The AU has now endorsed a new transitional plan that does not address Somaliland, renewing its commitment to a dysfunctional vision of Somalia that has already failed fourteen times over.
Today, Western intervention in Libya provides reasons for Somalilanders to be hopeful. First, Western states did not wait for African states to extend a measure of recognition to the National Transitional Council before doing so themselves. France and Italy were two of the first three states to label the NTC the legitimate representative of the Libyan people. Of the first five states to extend the NTC this recognition, none was African.
Over the summer, more states – mostly non-African – granted limited recognition to the National Transitional Council and the AU did not grant the NTC any form of recognition. NTC fighters entered Tripoli and drove Qaddafi into the desert, and the African Union refused to extend any form of recognition to the NTC. Qaddafi is in hiding and his inner circle, including his sons, are in flight to places like Niger, but the AU continues to insist that any plan for peace or transition include Qaddafi or remnants of his regime. And, ironically, the AU still refuses to seat the NTC as Libya’s representative to the African Union.
For once, however, AU intransigence did not determine how Western states acted. Instead, these states extended full diplomatic recognition to the NTC, not only going further than the AU, but actually staking out a position contrary to that of the AU.
Second, several Western states, including both the United Kingdom and France, provided the NTC with direct military assistance in addition to political support – and above and beyond NATO’s air campaign targeting the Qaddafi regime. These states’ involvement in Libyan politics both exceeded their mandate under Security Council Resolution 1973 and placed them directly at odds with the African Union. Taking such a position is striking in the face of the deference normally accorded African states and the African Union in matters of African politics.
To be sure, the parallels between Libya and Somaliland are imperfect. In the case of Libya, an impending humanitarian disaster impelled action. Moreover, the Arab League’s call for action provided the West with some regional political cover. Somaliland faces no such impending humanitarian disaster – although the absence of such a disaster is due largely to the stable government and good governance it has developed since 1991, contrary to its conflict – and famine-riddled neighbor to the south. Similarly, no regional inter-governmental organization has endorsed Somaliland’s struggle for recognition.
However, these differences do not detract from the message Somalilanders can take from Libya. Neither the then-impending humanitarian disaster nor the Arab League’s endorsement of a No-Fly Zone over Libya mandated Western recognition of the National Transitional Council. Nor did Western states have to take a position directly contrary to the African Union’s stance to carry out their goals in Libya. Instead, states like France and the United Kingdom made the striking political choice of action rather than deference on a matter of African politics – identifying the legitimate government of Libya – second in importance only to the recognition of a new state in Africa.
This willingness to intervene in African politics in the face of AU dysfunction – while incurring the ire of the African Union – is what should provide Somaliland with a measure of hope. The African Union has had twenty years to address Somaliland’s independence. It has failed abjectly even as Somaliland emerged as a stable and democratic state, holding multiple elections at various levels of government graded fair by international observers, and even after a 2005 AU fact-finding mission recommended recognition. At each of these milestones, hopeful observers suggested that Western states interested in Somaliland’s survival would now – finally – grant it recognition. However, until the Libyan revolution this spring, none of these states had demonstrated a willingness to move faster or further than the AU on matters of African politics. Now, some level of willingness to do exactly that exists. With that willingness may come recognition for Somaliland.
About The Author
Benjamin R Farley has previously published work on the problem of Somaliland’s independence and recognition including articles in World Politics Review and the Emory International Law Review, as well as an interview with Sagal Radio.
http://samotalis.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment