Israel Eyes New Alliances In Africa

Tel-Aviv, 9 March 2010 (Somalilandpress) – Israel is struggling to keep its diplomatic friends in Africa as Iran makes a determined effort to expand its influence there, making the continent an emerging theater in the Iran-Israel confrontation.

But these days the Jewish state has a new ally, Kenya, which wants Israeli help to fight the growing menace of jihadist terrorism emanating from war-torn Somalia, Kenya’s northern neighbor where jihadists linked to al-Qaida are active.

Israel is also seeking a foothold in the turbulent Horn of Africa to guard the approaches of the Red Sea. This is a vital shipping route and the access to the Arabian Sea for missile-armed Israeli submarines to target Iran should hostilities erupt.

It is also used by Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip via Sudan and Egypt.

The Kenyans have suffered three major attacks by al-Qaida in recent years — the suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi on Aug. 7, 1998, and twin attacks Nov. 28, 2002, in Mombasa, the bombing of a hotel frequented by Israelis and a missile attack on an Israeli airliner.

Kenyan Minister of Internal Security George Saitoti asked for Israeli counter-terrorism assistance when he visited Jerusalem in February.

According to media reports, he told Israeli leaders: “The jihad is taking over Somalia and threatening to take over Kenya and all of Africa. No one is more experienced than you in fighting internal terrorism.”

These reports said the Israelis responded by saying they were prepared to consider establishing a joint force with Kenya to guard its northwestern border to prevent terrorist infiltration.

Somalia’s al-Shebab Islamist movement, which is fighting a Western-backed transitional government in Mogadishu, has repeatedly threatened to attack Kenya for allegedly training Somali troops.

According to the Jamestown Foundation, a U.S. think tank that monitors jihadist militancy, “The talks with Kenya appear to be part of a growing Israeli interest in the Horn of Africa.”

In early February, Yigal Palmor, spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Ministry, reportedly told the Somalia media that Israel was prepared to recognize the breakaway territory of Somaliland, which split from Somalia in 1991, as an independent nation.

If that happened, Israel would be the first country to recognize Somaliland, which is strategically located on the Gulf of Aden.

There have been reports, all unconfirmed, that Israel has its eye on setting up a naval outpost at the port of Berbera to monitor the approaches to the Red Sea. The Soviet military established a naval port there in 1969 during the Cold War, along with an airfield capable of handling all types of military and cargo aircraft.

Last June, one of the Israeli navy’s German-built Dolphin class submarines, reputedly able to carry nuclear-armed missiles, transited the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean into the northern end of the Red Sea for “exercises.” That was generally seen as a warning to Iran as Israeli warships usually have to take the long route from the Mediterranean via the Cape of Good Hope to reach the Red Sea.

Two Saar 5-class missile ships followed in July to beef up the Israeli presence in the waterway.

According to several Internet reports, two more Israeli warships passed through the canal in recent weeks into the Red Sea. Israel’s Defense Ministry declined comment.

In the 1950s and ’60s, Israel cultivated links with many of the post-colonial African states because they provided considerable diplomatic support in the United Nations and other internal forums, usually in exchange for military and agricultural support.

That changed amid a swell in pro-Arab sentiment following the Middle Eastern wars of 1967 and 1973.

More recently, Iran has been buying off some of Israel’s erstwhile allies in a systematic effort to spread Tehran’s influence in the Third World.

Last year, Mauritania, one of the few Arab League members to have relations with Israel, told it to close its embassy in the capital, Nouakchott, after Iran moved in.

Iran’s clout in central and west Africa is also heightened by the presence of large and influential communities of Lebanese Shiites who are generally sympathetic to Hezbollah.

They dominate the diamond trade in the region, which provides considerable funds for the Iranian-backed movement.

However, in recent months, Israel has been building military and intelligence links with Ethiopia, Nigeria and other African states.

Source: UPI

Somaliland: On the Road to Independent Statehood?

Author: J. Peter Pham, Ph.D.

Date Published: 2007-12-12

Somaliland: On the Road to Independent Statehood?

J. Peter Pham, Ph.D.

In October, in my testimony to a House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health hearing on security in the Horn of Africa, I stated:

The most significant national interest at stake for the United States in this complex context is to prevent al-Qaeda (or another like-minded international terrorist network) from acquiring a new base and opening a new front in its war against us and our allies…

I would be remiss if I did not avail myself of this opportunity to raise the question of the remarkable reemergence of the Republic of Somaliland amid the ruin of Somalia and multiple conflicts wracking the Horn of Africa. With the collapse of the Somali state, the Somalilanders reasserted their independence and created a functional government, complete with all the accoutrements of modern statehood save, alas, international recognition…

Surely if America’s national commitment to support and strengthen democracy as a bulwark against extremist ideologies and terrorist violence has any real-world application, it is certainly the case here. The point I made at last year’s hearing on the expanding crisis in the Horn of Africa is even truer today: “The people of Somaliland have made their choice for political independence and democratic progress. While they have stumbled occasionally along the way, their efforts deserve encouragement through the appropriate economic, political, and security cooperation—which, in turn, will anchor Somaliland within America's orbit as well as international society.”

I make no apologies for constantly returning to this theme: it is to me incomprehensible that we continue to express concern about the state of democracy in the Horn of Africa while all but ignoring a New York-sized region that has held internationally-monitored elections for the presidency as well as national and local legislatures. Talk of mixed signals!

Last week, in its December 4^th issue, the Washington Post carried a remarkable article by Ann Scott Tyson. Under the headline “U.S. Debating Shift of Support in Somali Conflict,” the piece notes that “the escalating conflict in Somalia is generating debate inside the Bush administration over whether the United States should continue to back the shaky transitional government in Mogadishu or shift support to the less volatile region of Somaliland, which declared independence in 1991” and quotes two anonymous Department of Defense officials:

“Somaliland is an entity that works,” a senior defense official said. “We're caught between a rock and a hard place because they're not a recognized state,” the official said.

The Pentagon’s view is that “Somaliland should be independent,” another defense official said. “We should build up the parts that are functional and box in” Somalia’s unstable regions, particularly around Mogadishu.

In contrast, “the State Department wants to fix the broken part first—that’s been a failed policy,” the official said.

In conclusion, Navy Captain Bob Wright, head of strategic communications for the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) based at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, was quoted as saying “We’d love to [engage Somaliland], we’re just waiting for State to give us the okay.”

The next day, December 5^th, the Bureau of African Affairs posted to the State Department website a five-bullet point “fact sheet” attempting to explain what passes as “United States Policy on Somaliland”:

· The United States currently engages the Somaliland administration and has provided assistance, for example to the election effort. Our policy on recognition is to allow the African Union to first deliberate on the question. We do not want to get ahead of the continental organization on an issue of such importance.

· As indicated in the full quote above, the United States continues to engage with the administration in Somaliland on a range of issues, most directly Somaliland’s continued progress towards democratization and economic development.

· In FY 2007, the United States provided a total of $1 million through the International Republican Institute to support training for parliamentarians and other key programs in preparations for the upcoming municipal and presidential elections in Somaliland. We expect to provide an additional $1.5 million in continued support for the democratization process in Somaliland following the elections.

· While we continue to engage with the Somaliland administration, we do believe that the African Union is the most appropriate forum to address the question of recognition of Somaliland as an independent state. We understand that Somaliland is pursuing bilateral dialogue with the African Union and its member-states in this regard.

· However, as the African Union continues to deliberate on this issue, the United States will continue to engage with all actors throughout Somalia, including Somaliland, to support the return of lasting peace and stability in the Horn of Africa.

On the face of it, the Foggy Bottom’s position seems reasonable enough: the United States does not want to be blamed for opening up a veritable Pandora’s Box by backing a secessionist attempt to redraw colonial-era boundaries in Africa which could cause a ripple effect across the continent; better to let the African Union make that call. However, the artful facade the diplomats put up to cover their geopolitical inertia is utterly mendacious, despite the truly diplomatic efforts of Somaliland Foreign Minister Abdillahi Duale to welcome the State Department’s positive comments about the country’s “continued progress towards democratization and economic development.

First, as I pointed out in this column nearly two years ago: “From 1884 until 1960, Somaliland existed within its current borders as the protectorate of British Somaliland. On June 26, 1960, Somaliland was granted its independence by the British Crown and was internationally recognized as a sovereign state. When, a week later, the United Nations trust territory that had been the Italian colony of Somalia received its independence, Somaliland joined it to form a united republic. The union, however, was troubled from the beginning…Amid the anarchy that ensued following Siyad Barre’s ignominious flight in January 1991, clan elders in Somaliland issued a declaration reasserting the independence that the northwestern region had briefly enjoyed in 1960.” There is no question of – much less precedent set for – redrawing colonial frontiers.

Second, the African Union (AU) itself has acknowledged the unique circumstances surrounding Somaliland’s quest for recognition. The official report of an AU fact-finding mission to the republic in 2005 led by AU Deputy Chairperson Patrick Mazimhaka concluded: “The fact that the union between Somaliland and Somalia was never ratified and also malfunctioned when it went into action from 1960 to 1990, makes Somaliland’s search for recognition historically unique and self-justified in African political history. Objectively viewed, the case should not be linked to the notion of ‘opening a Pandora’s Box’. As such, the AU should find a special method of dealing with this outstanding case.”

However, by punting the question to a body like the AU, which decides major political questions by consensus, while simultaneously continuing the delusional policy of recognizing the utterly ineffectual “Transitional Federal Government” (TFG) of Somalia, which asserts sovereignty over the entire territory of the defunct Somali Democratic Republic despite being unable to so much as control its putative capital, the State Department belies any pretensions of neutrality. The Africa Bureau knows very well that there is no way the phantasmal TFG will ever permit an AU consensus to be forged which recognizes the de facto Republic of Somaliland. Thus the State Department’s support for the fictional Somalia’s continued presence at international forums like the AU is fundamentally irreconcilable with functional Somaliland’s ever getting a fair hearing. So the only thing conceivably worse than the State Department being cynically duplicitous in its Somaliland policy is the possibility that its denizens don’t realize this and, hence, are criminally incompetent in their guidance of U.S. policy in the geopolitical sensitive Horn of Africa.

Fortunately, the TFG may not be a factor for much longer. Last week, its “president,” Abdullahi Yusuf, was hospitalized in Nairobi, Kenya, and had to cancel a meeting in Addis Ababa with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; should his condition worsen, that charade will be over. The meeting that did take place between TFG “prime minister” Nur Hassan Hussein and America’s top diplomat was farcical to anyone with historical knowledge of the region. The secretary said she hoped “Hussein will draw on his humanitarian background to facilitate delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid.”

What “humanitarian background” does Dr. Rice refer to? His role as police colonel under the brutal dictatorship of Muhammad Siyad Barre? His tenure as deputy head of the despot’s “National Salvation Court,” a military tribunal that sent thousands of regime opponents to their deaths? Or perhaps his leadership of the Somali Red Crescent Society where he “did well by doing good” – so well, in fact, that as Somalia descended into chaos and its luckier citizens fled, his children inexplicably found the capital to open a string of internet cafés and currency exchanges in Great Britain to meet the needs of their displaced countrymen? And while the secretary could only “encourage” the self-appointed TFG “to develop a timeline for the remainder of the transitional process by early January” in the hope of staging elections sometime in 2009, Somaliland has already held several sets of the internationally-monitored free polls, the most recent, the parliamentary elections of 2005, was observed and reported on by an International Republican Institute (IRI) delegation led by Ambassador Lange Schermerhorn, a former U.S. envoy to Djibouti who has also served as political advisor to the CJTF-HOA. (I served as an election observer with the ambassador in Nigeria earlier this year.)

The failure of the TFG should not be surprising. As I pointed out a year and a half ago, the pretender regime is little more than the product of a well-intentioned effort by the international community to conjure up yet another government for Somalia after the ignominious collapse the previous year of its previous attempt, the risible “Transitional National Government” (TNG), which went through four prime ministers and hundreds of cabinet members in three years before going bankrupt, having misappropriated millions of dollars in donor funds while governing nothing other than what was inside the confines of the four walls of “president” Abdiqasim Salad Hassan’s villa in nearby Djibouti. With even fewer prospects and, if it is possible, even less legitimacy than the TNG, the TFG’s leaders have little incentive to do anything other than leverage the international recognition which is their only real asset with which to enrich themselves.

One could hardly find a starker contrast to this than Somaliland. As former World Bank economist William Easterly, hardly someone who looks at Africa through rosy lenses, noted in his realistic, if somewhat pessimistic, volume, “The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good”:

In Somalia, the “international community” has sponsored fourteen rounds of fruitless peace talks since the collapse of the government in 1991, not to mention the failed UN/U.S. military intervention. Meanwhile, without outside intervention, foreign aid, or even international recognition, the breakaway Republic of Somaliland in the north of Somalia has enjoyed peace, economic growth, and democratic elections over the same period.

Thus, among the many others which could be adduced, there are five compelling reasons for the United States to abandon the bankrupt, State Department-driven policy of preferring self-appointed “leaders” of a failed construct to an effective government of a real country:

▪ Counterterrorism. As the Pentagon has now publicly acknowledged (and as I suggested earlier this year), scarce resources would be better spent boxing in the troubled parts of Somalia, rather than vainly asserting the questionable claims by a clearly unpopular regime whose illegitimacy is actually a magnet for extremists. No less a figure than Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates declared last week while visiting Camp Lemonier that his “biggest concern for Somalia is the potential for al-Qaeda to be active there.” Formal ties with Somaliland would permit closer ties between U.S. military and intelligence personnel with their counterparts in the small country’s services. Access to Somaliland territory, including the onetime NATO installation at Berbera, would also expand the scope for counterterrorism and other operations by CJTF-HOA as well as the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) which will subsume it next year.

▪ Regional stability. Far from being destabilizing, as I told Congress earlier this year, recognition of Somaliland would “show the countries and peoples of the sub-region our resolve to reward progress as well as give the lie to those who argue that our anti-terrorism and pro-democracy objectives are not subterfuges for an anti-Muslim agenda. (Somaliland’s population is almost exclusively Sunni Muslims and the shah?��dah, the Muslim profession of the oneness of God and the acceptance of Muhammad as God’s final prophet, is emblazoned on its flag.)” Furthermore, U.S.-led diplomatic recognition of Somaliland would not only allow the country much-needed access to international institutions and finance for development of the country itself, but also spur regional integration and prosperity. To cite just one example, America’s close partner Ethiopia, whose cut-off from the sea is a factor in the border dispute with Eritrea which I discussed two weeks ago, would benefit directly from access to Somaliland’s 900-kilometer coastline along the Gulf of Aden.

▪ Natural resources and economic opportunities. Earlier this year, I reported on mainland China’s play for petroleum resources in Somalia. Establishing formal ties with Somaliland would not only open opportunities for American firms to bid for similar concessions in that country, but also to invest in what could be a significant regional market. Conversely, ties with American commercial interests would also help anchor the strategically-placed country in the orbit of the United States as it joins the global economy. On the other hand, Somaliland’s considerable potential for economic and social progress is jeopardized not only by the maelstrom in neighboring Somalia, but also, as the AU has reported, by “the lack of recognition [which] ties the hands of the authorities and people of Somaliland as they cannot effectively and sustainably transact with the outside to pursue the reconstruction and development goals.”

▪ Moral imperatives. As I previously argued, “Somaliland’s trajectory…has been nothing if not extraordinary, being characterized by both social stability and democratic politics—the northern region’s progress standing in stark contrast to the free fall of the rest of the former Somalia. And despite being cut off from international financial institutions, direct bilateral assistance, and other sources of development and investment capital—all for want of diplomatic recognition—the Somalilanders have rebuilt Hargeysa, which was leveled during the Siyad Barre regime’s brutal campaign against them, and resettled close to one million of their displaced citizens.” Somaliland has already had democratic presidential, legislative, and local government elections; even the State Department has acknowledged that its upcoming presidential and municipal elections are more than credible enough to deserve U.S. funding.

▪ Global leadership. Despite some major faux pas of American foreign policy in recent years – both in substance and implementation – the world still defaults to looking to the United States to take the lead in critical arenas like the Horn of Africa. A number of governments, both African (including those of Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia) and European (including those of Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden), have either entered into de facto relations with or at least made friendly overtures to the Republic of Somaliland. In June, the German federal parliament even passed a resolution calling upon Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government “to work towards mitigating dangers for Somaliland’s stability that may arise from the current Southern Somali scenario,” including “initiatives to advance the resolution of the question of an international recognition of an independent Somaliland.” However, nothing is likely to advance without American leadership or at least tacit approval – in any event, the opposite of the State Department’s passive attendance on the AU’s capacity-challenged policymaking and implementation processed (see my column last week on “The Challenge of Peacekeeping in Africa”).

At the very launch of this column series, I wrote: “Since the disintegration of the Siyad Barre’s oppressive Somali regime into Hobbesian anarchy and warlordism, the international community has staunchly defended the phantasmal existence of the fictitious entity known as ‘Somalia.’ Now, however, is the time for the United States to break ranks and let realism triumph over wishful thinking, not only recognizing, but actively supporting Somaliland, a brave little land whose people’s quest for freedom and security mirrors America’s values as well as her strategic interests.” If anything, that counsel is even truer today than ever before, as many of our military officers have now publicly acknowledged. The only question is whether or not America’s elected political leaders will have the vision and fortitude to finally instruct their unelected diplomatic mandarins on the real stakes: diplomatic, military, and economic.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor

J. Peter Pham is Director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C., as well as Vice President of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA).

Source: Family Security Matters Arcive

Yemen To Open Diplomatic Office in Somaliland

HARGEISA, 17 February 2010 (Somalilandpress) – Reports close to the Somaliland government say that Yemen is planning to open a new diplomatic office in Hargeisa. As part of the growing bilateral relationship between the two governments, San’a is now interested in setting itself in Somaliland.

Sources told Somalilandpress that the Yemeni government is sending an official delegation to Hargeisa in the coming few weeks to discuss the issue with the Somaliland authorities before the office is launched.

It is believed that the office will mainly focus issues concerning the relationship between the two countries, piracy, terrorism and trade.

There have been increasing common interest between the two governments since the Islamist groups in Southern Somalia threatened Yemen and vowed to bridge their fighting beyond the gulf waters to join their Yemeni Jihadists in the country. Struggling an increasing Islamist movements in Yemen, the government is now looking for other partners in order to tackle the Alshabab’s expansion to its country.

There is no official statement from Somaliland government so far.

Somalilandpress

It's time Somaliland was declared independent by Jeremy Sare-

Jeremy Sare
guardian.co.uk,


While Somalia in the south is in chaos, the north is safe and democratic – yet seems invisible to the international community

The recent spate of piracy off Somalia's coast is yet another symptom of the country's collapse of stability and some of its peoples' intense desperation. Reports that the pirates or hijackers of the Ukrainian vessel had begun shooting each other formed a perfect microcosm of Somalia's brutal inner turmoil.

But in the northern half of the country, known as Somaliland, there is no such mayhem. Given its close proximity to the ravaged "failed state" of Somalia, it is astonishing that Somaliland should be stable, safe, democratic and largely crime-free.

To most people, Somalia is synonymous with bloody anarchy – simply one of the most dangerous places in the world. Only the few people with an active interest in the Horn of Africa seem aware of Somaliland's peaceful existence. The leading authority on the region since the 1950s is Professor Ioan Lewis – his book, Understanding Somalia and Somaliland, published in July, leads you to the conclusion. In comprehending the unending enigma of the Horn, one course of action is clear – the peaceful north must be allowed to declare independence from the endless chaos of the south.

That view is privately shared by many governments in Africa and in the wider world, but Somaliland's declared independence of 1991 is still yet to formally recognised by any nation and it remains an "invisible" country.

Diplomatic recognition is the perpetual obsession of the Somaliland government; without it, the country remains starved of foreign investment and aid. In all probability, it would take just one country, such the US, to move on the issue and the rest, with a handful of exceptions, would be bound to follow. However, none of the main players wants to be first, so they are engaged in a multiple "Mexican stand-off".

The few countries who openly oppose recognition (Egypt and Italy) argue "former colonial boundaries should not be redrawn". But Somalilanders agree. The country was a former British protectorate which became independent in 1960 and simultaneously joined in union with the former Italian colony of Somalia. By the mid-1980s the union was rapidly disintegrating; the mass bombing in 1988 of Somaliland's capital, Hargeisa, where 50,000 civilians were killed extinguished any thoughts of reconciliation.

The collective policy of finding a peaceful solution in the southern half of Somalia has not progressed even after 15 peace conferences in as many years. One Somali commentator called this apparently pointless exercise, "the policy of following a blind camel". A Senlis council report published in April says, "the international community needs to be reawakened from its torpor on Somaliland".

But Ted Dagne from Washington's congressional research service argues: "Somalia must develop a federal structure that gives regional autonomy." For the Somalilanders in the north this political theorem is plainly non-sensical. They see the failed union like two brothers who went into business together – while one brother was sober and hard-working, the other went off the rails, destroying the company's stock along with its reputation. Yet it is to the "reckless brother" the international community relentlessly turns to for a solution.

The Somaliland president Dahir Riyale Kahin visited the US in April in the hope of broadening support towards the goal of recognition. Somaliland has certainly passed any democratic test set by Washington in establishing a multi-party system, holding free and fair elections and upholding freedom of speech.

There is now a division of opinion at the top of the US government on this issue. Pentagon chief Robert Gates sees Somaliland as "an entity that works". But Dr Jendayi Frazer, second in command at the state department said: "The US will not take the first step to recognising Somaliland before the African Union."

A change of president in January may alter that position, or before that Bush may be persuaded that Somaliland recognition could be part of his "African legacy". The military see the strategic importance of having a base in the Gulf of Aden as a bulwark against al-Qaida and the deep-water port of Berbera could be ideal.

Ultimately, these are the factors which are likely to determine Somaliland's chances of gaining equal nation status under the UN and not its efforts, against the odds, to create a democratic and free society.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/08/somalia.africanunion

Accepting Somaliland May Help Stabilize Africa's Horn

By Dr Charles Tannock

After almost two decades as a failed state torn by civil war, perhaps the world should begin to admit that Somalia – as it is currently constructed – is beyond repair. Some of the country, however, can meet at least a basic standard of governance. The northernmost region, Somaliland, situated strategically at the opening to the Red Sea and home to roughly 3.5 million of Somalia’s 10 million people, is more or less autonomous and stable. But this stability fuels fears that Somaliland’s people will activate the declaration of independence they adopted in 1991.

At the end of September, Somaliland will hold its third presidential election, the previous two having been open and competitive. Unlike many developing countries, it will welcome foreign observers to oversee the elections, though, unfortunately, most Western countries and agencies will stay away, lest their presence be seen as legitimizing Somaliland’s de facto government.

But Somaliland’s strategic position near the world’s major oil-transport routes, now plagued by piracy, and chaos in the country’s south, mean that independence should no longer be dismissed out of hand. Indeed, following a fact-finding mission in 2007, a consensus is emerging within the European Union that an African Union country should be the first to recognize Somaliland’s independence. A 2005 report by Patrick Mazimhaka, a former AU deputy chairman, provides some leeway for this, as Mazimhaka pointed out that the union in 1960 between Somaliland and Somalia, following the withdrawal of the colonial powers (Britain and Italy), was never formally ratified.

Ethiopia is the obvious candidate to spearhead recognition, given its worries about jihadist unrest within Somalia. Moreover, landlocked Ethiopia uses Somaliland’s port of Berbera extensively. Yet Ethiopia may hesitate, owing to its fears that formally recognizing Somaliland’s independence could undermine Somalia’s fragile Western-backed Transitional Federal Government (TGF). But, as Somalia’s new president, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, is a former head of the Islamic Courts, Ethiopia may choose the current status quo in Somaliland over the dream of stabilizing Somalia.

The key regional obstacle to recognition is Saudi Arabia, which not only objects to the secular, democratic model promoted by Somaliland, but is a strong ally of Somalia, which is a member of the Arab League (despite not being Arab) and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Saudi Arabia supports the TFG financially and politically. Saudi pressure on Somaliland has ranged from banning livestock imports between 1996 and 2006, to threatening to reject the Somaliland passports of Hajj pilgrims.

When Somaliland’s people vote at the end of September, they will not be deciding explicitly on secession, but their steady effort at state building does amplify their claims to independence. So, two years after Kosovo’s independence, and a year after Russian troops wrenched Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia, it is high time for diplomats and statesmen to provide some guidelines as to when and in what circumstances secession is likely to be acceptable.

Does any self-selected group anywhere have the right to declare independence? If so, the richest parts of any country could decide to go it alone, thus impoverishing their fellow citizens. Even if greed is ruled out as an acceptable motive, in favor of traditional ethno-cultural nationalism, a profusion of tiny tribal states might make the world far more unstable.

Moreover, does anyone, for example, want to see China return to the years of bloody warlordism of the early 20th century? Not likely. Thus clear principles are needed, as neither self-determination nor the inviolability of national borders can be treated as sacrosanct in every case.

So let me attempt to outline some basic principles: First, no outside forces should either encourage or discourage secession, and the barriers for recognizing secession should be set high. Secession is in itself neither good nor bad: like divorce, it may make people more or less content.

Second, a declaration of independence should be recognized only if a clear majority (well over 50 percent-plus-one of the voters) have freely chosen it, ideally in an unbiased referendum.

Third, the new state must guarantee that any minorities it drags along – say, Russians in the Baltic States, or Serbs in Kosovo – will be decently treated.

And fourth, secessionists should have a reasonable claim to being a national group that, preferably, enjoyed stable self-government in the past on the territory they claim. Nations need not be ethnically based; few are entirely. But most nations are unified by language, a shared history of oppression, or some other force of history.

On this, admittedly subjective, measure, Somaliland qualifies as a nation. It was briefly independent (for five days) in 1960 after the British withdrawal, before throwing in its lot with the formerly Italian south, a decision which its people have regretted ever since. In this brief period, 35 countries, including Egypt, Israel, and the five permanent members of the Security Council, recognized Somaliland diplomatically (interestingly, Israel was the first to do so).

If Somaliland’s imminent multiparty elections are reasonably fair and open, the outside world, including the AU and the United Nations, will need to reconsider its status, which has been fudged since the collapse of Siad Barre’s regime in 1991. All three of Somaliland’s parties contesting the forthcoming election are adamant about wanting recognition of the region’s independence, which was confirmed overwhelmingly by a referendum in 2001. So there is no question of one clan or faction imposing independence on the others.

Given the interests of all the world’s great powers in stabilizing the Horn of Africa, there does seem to be movement toward accepting Somaliland’s claims. An independent Somaliland could be a force for stability and good governance in an otherwise hopeless region. So the world may soon need to test whether the controversial principles it brought to bear in Kosovo have the same meaning in Africa.

Charles Tannock is spokesman on the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee for the European Conservatives and Reformists Group. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org).

Source: The Daily Star, Tuesday, September 15, 2009

International Experts Say Somaliland’s Recognition Will Assist In Strengthening Accountability In Regions That Are Now Pirate Infected

Cambridge, MA, January 30, 2010 (SL Times) – A group of twenty-five scholars, diplomats, lawyers, military officers, shipping industry officials, and other experts on maritime piracy and Somalia from nine nations who convened at the Harvard Kennedy School in December 2009 have recommended that one of the ways of exerting control over and reducing the threat from pirates is to recognize Somaliland.

“If African states and the AU can be persuaded to recognize the now independent but otherwise unacknowledged polity of Somaliland, doing so will strengthen the incentives for Puntland, which aspires to greater autonomy, and parts or all of the remainder of Somalia to make similar progress in terms of political institution building. Recognition of Somaliland will thus assist in strengthening accountability and governance in regions that are now pirate infected. Indeed, if Puntland knew that international engagement were possible, following on a full recognition of Somaliland, a powerful incentive would exist for Puntland to exert control over and reduce the threat from pirates on its soil,” the experts said

Click below for the full text of the group’s recommendations for combating maritime piracy off the Somalia coasts:

Combating Maritime Piracy: A Policy Brief With Recommendations For Action



Source: Somaliland Times

http://www.somalilandtimes.net/sl/2010/418/3.shtml

Israel says ready to recognize Somaliland

HARGEISA (Somalilandpress) — The government of Israel is ready to restore the de jure recognition it has offered to Somaliland in 1960 as it eyes the Red Sea and the Horn, an Israeli spokesman says.

According to a local source, Golisnews, Mr. Yigal Palmor, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman is quoted on the Israeli newspaper of Haaretz Daily saying his government was ready to recognize Somaliland again. He cited Israel was the first state to recognize Somaliland in 1960 when it received its independence from Great Britain.

However, Mr. Palmor admitted Somaliland government has not contacted the Israeli government to seek ties.

When asked a question regarding Somalia, Mr. Palmor answered: “Somalia looks like the Afghanistan of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, historically speaking we know the Somali people have different believes and politics. The Somali people have different political values of which they unified in 1960 that led to the whole misunderstanding and ultimately the collapse of Somalia,” he told Haaretz Daily.

While answering to a question regarding Somaliland-Israel ties, he said: “Israel was the first nation to recognize Somaliland and indeed was the first country the State of Israel has recognized, after it received it’s Independence from Great Britain. When it unified with Southern Somalia, again we were the first to recognize it. We always wanted a relationship with a Muslim country in East Africa and which we can share the Red sea with.”

Mr. Palmor said his country was ready to restore Somaliland’s old status however currently the two states have no bilateral ties.

He added Israel has ties with number of East African countries including Tanzania, Uganda and even Djibouti.

Many analysts believe Israel has growing national interest in the Red Sea region, a key shipping route. According to well-informed regional sources Israel believes the region is also a key route for arms from Iran for Hezbollah, Sudanese regime and number of other groups in Palestine. The Red Sea gives Israeli ships access to the Arabia Sea and are within cruise-missile range of Iran. Israel also concern about Arab nations such as Egypt blocking it’s commercial shipping lines.

There are unconfirmed reports also suggesting Israel wants to deploy submarines in the Somaliland port of Berbera and possibly establish a military outpost. Many Arab states have in the past expressed concerns about the proposed Israeli-base in the Horn of Africa seeing it as Israel surrounding them.

The region is well known for it’s strategic importance and it was days ago when an Al Qaeda spokesman, Said al-Shihri, said “taking control of Bab El-Mandeb, will constitute an escalating victory: the Jews will be crushed in a vise, because it is through the Strait that the United States brings its support to Israel.” Bab El-Mandeb, which means “tears of gates” in Arabic is a 20-mile long inlet located in the narrowest point of the Red Sea, between the shores of the Horn of Africa and Yemen.

It is no secret to Somaliland though, the former president, Mr Ibrahim Haji Egal addressed the very issue in a letter to the former Israeli head of state, Mr Yitshak Rabin in 1995. Fifteen years ago, Mr Egal saw the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and the importance of Bab El-Mandeb.

Mr Egal, who became prime minister of Somaliland at the age of only 30, wrote: “Today, however, although the West had won the cold war and the threat of communism appears to be vanishing in many parts of the world, we, in the Horn of Africa, are being threatened by a more sinister and pernicious enemy in the form of encroaching Islamic influence.”

Mr Egal continues, “my government firmly believes that owing to this region’s strategic geopolitical importance as a result of its propinquity to the oil routes and the narrow Bab El-Mandeb entrance, as well as its proximity to the Gulf, the Middle East and the access to the Indian Ocean.”

Egal, who was a champion politician, died May 3rd 2002 in the South African capital Pretoria. He was succeeded by the current leader, Mr. Dahir Rayale, who is said to have avoided approaching Israel in order not to harm Somaliland’s current fragile relations with the Arabs and Muslim world, which it heavily relies on for it’s only surviving economic engines – livestock.

However many of the youths in Somaliland believe ties with Israel is better for Somaliland’s economic environment because of it’s economical and technological achievements. Many argue livestock is not sustainable economy because of health issues, climate change and urbanisation and prefer developing economy based on service and high-tech sector, similar to that one of Israel and Taiwan.

Somaliland, like Israel, finds itself politically isolated, in the middle of a hostile region and at a thorny crossroads and if anyone is to reach out to the unrecognized republic, it would be Israel. It too knows how it feels to be denied it’s statehood and self-determination. While Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, Somaliland is the only Muslim democracy in the region.

Somaliland has it’s own hybrid system of governance under a constitution was former British protectorate which gained independence 26th June 1960 and was recognized by 34 countries including Israel and the United States. It later joined South Somalia in a union that was never rectified which lasted until 1991.

Somalilandpress, 11 February 2010

http://somalilandpress.com/11628/israel-says-ready-to-recognize-somaliland/