Drought, famine, refugees, piracy and the violence and terrorism endemic to the shattered city of Mogadishu, a capital ruined by civil war: These are the images that flash through people’s minds nowadays when they think of the Horn of Africa. Such perceptions, however, are not only tragically one-sided, they are also short-sighted and dangerous.
Behind the stock images of a region trapped in chaos and despair, economies are growing, reform is increasingly embraced and governance is improving. Moreover, with Yemen’s government imploding across the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa’s strategic significance for maritime oil transport has become a primary global security concern. In short, the Horn of Africa is too important to ignore or to misunderstand.
Of course, no one should gainsay the importance of combating famine, piracy and terrorist groups like the radical and murderous al-Shabaab. However, at the same time, we have seen my homeland, Somaliland, witness its third consecutive free, fair and contested presidential election. And Ethiopia has emerged as one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, with GDP up 10.9 percent year-on-year in 2010 to 2011, leading Africa and rivaling China. Indeed, Ethiopia is one of the few countries in the world poised to meet the UN’s Millennium Development Goals on time and in full in 2015.
In the wider region, too, things are looking up. South Sudan gained its independence in July at the ballot box. And Uganda has discovered large new deposits of oil and gas that will help to lift its economy.
All of these changes reflect the fact that the Horn of Africa’s people are no longer willing to be passive victims of fate and their harsh physical environment. On the contrary, they are determined to shape their destinies through modernization, investment and improved governance.
After decades of stable enmities, the people and nations of the Horn of Africa are learning how to cooperate and align their interests. For example, Somaliland and Ethiopia are collaborating on the construction of a gas-export pipeline from Ethiopia’s Ogaden region, promising new jobs and income for people in one of the poorest and least developed parts of the world.
Although there is much that we can and will do to help ourselves, the Horn of Africa can still benefit from international assistance. However, the international community needs to do more than provide food and medicine to victims of famine and drought. Necessary as that is, we need pro-growth investments that will help provide jobs for our people and products and resources for the world. That means focusing on promoting market economies and stable government, rather than subsidizing failure and failed states.
Unfortunately, at least with respect to Somaliland, this is not the case. For 20 years, ever since we re-established our independence —we had voluntarily joined with Italian Somaliland to form Somalia in 1960 — the international community has closed its eyes to the successful democracy that we have built. Even more perverse, it appears to be demanding that we abandon the peaceful, tolerant society that we have established and submit to the control of whatever government — if there even is one — rules (or misrules) the remainder of Somalia from the rubble of Mogadishu.
Our successful democratic experiment is being ignored in part because of a hoary ruling a half-century ago by the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the precursor to today’s African Union (AU). Back then, with the recent demise of the colonial empires stoking fears of tribal rivalries and countless civil wars, the OAU ruled that the frontiers drawn up by the imperial powers should be respected in perpetuity.
That taboo still claims routine support from many African leaders. And yet Eritrea’s secession from Ethiopia did not lead to other breakaway movements in Africa. Likewise, South Sudan’s peaceful and internationally supported separation from Sudan has not led to new calls for Africa’s borders to be redrawn.
A 2005 report by Patrick Mazimhaka, a former AU deputy chairman, cast heavy doubt on the application of this rule in Somaliland. As Mazimhaka pointed out, the union in 1960 between Somaliland and Somalia, following the withdrawal of the British and Italian colonial powers, was never formally ratified, but his report has been left in a drawer ever since.
So when should a people be able to declare their independence and gain international recognition? The Palestinians’ decision to take their case to the UN has put this issue on the front burner. International law is of no help here; indeed, the World Court has offered only scant guidance.
The basic principles that I believe should prevail, and which Somaliland meets, are the following:
One, secession should not result from foreign intervention, and the two, 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;
Three, all minorities must be guaranteed decent treatment.
All three of Somaliland’s parties adamantly support independence, confirmed overwhelmingly by a referendum in 2001. So there is no question of one clan or faction imposing independence on the others. Yet, although Somaliland is deepening its democracy each day, our people are paying a high price because of the lack of international recognition.
World Bank and EU development money, for example, pours into the black hole that is Somalia, simply because it is the recognized government. Somalilanders, who are almost as numerous as the people of Somalia, are short-changed, getting only a fraction of the money invariably wasted by Somalia.
Justice demands that this change. The national interest of most of the world’s powers requires a Somaliland willing and able to provide security along its borders and in the seas off our coasts. Our people are willing. To paraphrase former British prime minister Winston Churchill: Give us the tools, and the international recognition, so that we can finish the job.
Ahmed Mohamoud Silyano is president of Somaliland.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose