Diplomacy or Intrusion? The Controversial Ethiopia-Somaliland MoU Analyzed. By Abdi Roble

In “Ethiopia, Somaliland MoU Is No Different from Related Agreements in the world,” Prof. Ayele Bekrie characterizes the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Ethiopia and Somaliland as a conventional diplomatic agreement, aligned with international norms. He contends that historical connections and mutual interests are central to this MoU, portraying it as an extension of established trade and cooperation patterns.

However, this interpretation requires deeper examination, particularly considering Somaliland’s status as an unrecognized entity and the complex dynamics of the Horn of Africa. Does this MoU represent a standard diplomatic initiative, or is it a more intricate and potentially intrusive engagement by Ethiopia in a region fraught with sensitivity?

Our analysis delves into the multifaceted nature of the Ethiopia-Somaliland MoU, contrasting Prof. Bekrie’s historical and cultural viewpoint with broader aspects of international law, regional stability, and principles upheld by the African Union (AU) and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). We aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of this agreement within the context of international diplomacy and law.

While the historical ties between Ethiopia and Somaliland, especially regarding ports like Zeila, are significant, they don’t automatically translate into contemporary legal or political rights. The international system, founded on principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, generally respects established borders and governance structures, casting doubt on the applicability of historical usage in the current legal context.

The MoU’s unique characteristics and its place in international law warrant substantial scrutiny. Unlike standard international treaties between recognized sovereign states, this agreement involves Somaliland, an entity without widespread international recognition. This fact significantly complicates the MoU’s legal standing globally.

Somalia’s firm assertion of Somaliland as an integral part of its territory, supported by international recognition and the prevailing geopolitical framework, further complicates matters. This stance, steadfastly maintained by the Somali Federal Government, underlines the contentious nature of any direct agreement with Somaliland. Engaging exclusively with Somaliland, bypassing the Somali Federal Government’s consent, substantially challenges Somalia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. This approach makes the MoU highly sensitive and controversial, likely sparking international debate and raising significant questions about its legitimacy and regional impact. Such unilateral actions contravene established norms of international diplomacy and risk exacerbating tensions in a geopolitically complex environment, emphasizing the importance of respecting sovereign entities and adhering to established international protocols.

The establishment of Ethiopian military and naval bases in Somaliland, noted by Prof. Bekrie, is a cause for serious concern. Such actions might be viewed as violating international norms regarding state sovereignty, suggesting Ethiopia’s undue influence over a region that is legally a part of Somalia. This could lead to regional tensions, undermining Somalia’s sovereignty, and unity, and contradicting the principles of the AU and IGAD, which emphasize respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ethiopia’s military presence in Somaliland could destabilize the region, potentially being seen as a form of regional hegemony and undermining efforts to promote stability and cooperation. Moreover, this military involvement might challenge the status quo of existing borders in the Horn of Africa, risking friction among member states and setting a precedent for separatist movements or border disputes, leading to increased regional instability and conflicts. . Such precarious involvement risks escalating into an open conflict with neighboring Somalia, drawing Ethiopia into a more complex and challenging geopolitical scenario. In light of these considerations, the need for cautious and strategic diplomatic action is paramount, underscoring the importance of careful navigation in a volatile regional context. In addition, this move could inadvertently provide a fertile ground for Al-Shabaab, the terrorist organization, to recruit new members under the guise of defending their territory from Ethiopian influence, thus exacerbating an already volatile situation.

The potential benefits of the MoU for regional integration and economic prosperity must be evaluated carefully against broader implications. Engaging exclusively with the regional leadership of Somaliland, effectively an implicit act of annexation, directly challenges Somali sovereignty, undermines national unity, and heightens regional tensions. A diplomatic approach that respects the established international order and the authority of the Somali Federal Government is crucial.

Ethiopia’s decision, as outlined in the MOU, to secure access to the Red Sea for commercial activities, including constructing new facilities under a fifty-year agreement, poses a significant threat to the functionality of Berbera Port, a critical economic lifeline for Somaliland. This initiative could render the port redundant, representing a major shift in the region’s economic landscape. Such a transformative decision extends beyond the scope of what could be considered within the purview of a Somali president, and certainly that of a regional ⁷leader in Somaliland. This move has already led to divisions within Somaliland, sparking local unrest and broader dissatisfaction among the Somali population. The emergence of tensions in the Awdal and Selal regions is a clear indication of the potential for further destabilization in an already fragile situation.

As Professor Bakrie points out, while Ethiopia’s strategy is aimed at reducing its dependence on foreign aid and enhancing its foreign policy autonomy, its involvement with an unstable, internationally unrecognized entity like Somaliland, without the consent of the Somali Central Government, carries substantial risks. This approach may draw Ethiopia into unpredictable regional dynamics, negatively impacting its international relations and strategic objectives.

Moreover, the MoU appears to conflict with principles upheld by the AU and IGAD, emphasizing respect for member states’ sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the sanctity of colonial-era borders. If perceived as endorsing Somaliland’s sovereignty claims, the MoU could conflict with the AU’s stance on maintaining established borders and respecting Somalia’s territorial integrity.

In conclusion, the Ethiopia-Somaliland MoU requires a nuanced and thorough examination. It raises significant questions about historical claims versus modern legal realities, engagement with a non-recognized entity, sovereignty concerns, regional stability, and adherence to international law and regional organizational principles. Amidst the delicate balance of power in the Horn of Africa and the broader international legal framework, this agreement demands a comprehensive assessment to ensure alignment with international norms and regional stability objectives. This assessment is not merely a matter of diplomatic expediency but a crucial step towards maintaining regional harmony and respecting the established tenets of international relations.

Abdi Roble- Political analyst

Email: politicsdisc@gmail.com