Terence McNamee

Executive Summary

On 9 July 2011, six years after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) ending Sudan’s decades-long civil war was signed, South Sudan formally went its own way, creating Africa’s 54th state. In the years leading up to South Sudan’s independence, both African and non-African leaders voiced fears that it could destabilize parts of the continent and lead to a domino effect of other nationalist secessions, most worryingly in large, conflict-ridden states like the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Nigeria. Six months on from achieving statehood, there is no evidence that South Sudan’s secession has made independence more likely for other would-be states in Africa, such as Somaliland or Cabinda. The idea of self-determination is not on the wane in Africa – South Sudan’s long struggle will surely embolden existing secessionist groups and may inspire new movements – but the obstacles to independent statehood appear as formidable as ever.

This Discussion Paper draws on the extensive discussions between senior policy makers and academics at a high-level workshop convened by the Brenthurst Foundation in collaboration with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in September 2011, as well as additional research. It examines why Africa’s borders are likely to remain stubbornly resistant to change despite Sudan’s historic split. Part of the explanation is historical, a by-product of Africa’s decolonization and the values instilled in the continent’s founding political structures, namely the Organization of African Unity (OAU); other reasons relate to the international community’s predilection for the status quo; also pertinent are the particular circumstances that paved the way for South Sudan’s secession. The first part of this Paper suggests why South Sudan is more exception than precedent, and then reflects on its troubled start as an independent state, which if anything has hardened international opinion against secession. The latter part of the Paper examines some of the increasingly problematic issues around self-determination in Africa.

Although the South Sudan case is likely to remain an exception rather than a precedent, the Arab Spring is a salutary reminder, if any was needed, that events have a way of building on themselves. For all the powerful constraints on secession highlighted in this Paper, the much-feared balkanization of Africa must never be dismissed as fanciful. Changing the status of borders to create new states will always carry grave risks, as the new triggers for violence in Sudan and South Sudan attest. Drawing a new international border will never be a panacea – it certainly didn’t prevent Eritrea and Ethiopia from waging all-out war – for intractable intra-state conflicts. Nevertheless, the formation of new states may over the long term be part of the solution in some very specific cases, where the interests of national and international security are best served by changes to the territorial status quo.

In most states confronted with self-determination movements in Africa, however, there is scope to improve governments’ responses in ways that might dissuade secessionists from seeking full statehood. Several policy pointers are highlighted in the Paper:

Recognize fault lines for what they are: On matters of self-determination and secession, there is a critical role for the international community in providing guarantees, not least in the aftermath of secession, should that be the end result. The instruments that international mediators might use to help ameliorate tensions between groups will not work if the fault lines within societies are not identified and understood for what they are. In South Sudan, Somalia and many other fragile states, the failure of foreign interveners to fully appreciate the root causes of conflict and take cognizance of the realities on the ground exacerbated divisions in the past, sometimes with disastrous consequences for the populations. It is vital to recognize local and regional interests; neighboring countries have a legitimate right to ensure border areas are not negatively impacted by secessionist movements in other countries.

Think innovatively about autonomy: Done well, federalist-type arrangements, with the appropriate processes and institutions, in particular viable revenue-sharing arrangements, can produce successful long-term responses to internal divisions. This may be especially so in relation to the ethnic-type conflicts that have scarred parts of Africa. Yet central authorities in countries such as Ethiopia and Uganda, which have adopted federal arrangements, have been highly reluctant to empower their regions and peripheries in ways that enable grievances and societal fissures to be managed effectively at their source. Europe has devised numerous ways to accommodate minority regions within existing state structures, through access to resources, power and varying degrees of autonomy. Similar models built around the concept of subsidiarity – which privileges the local and decentralized authority – might help in the stabilization of restive parts of Africa.

Adopt pragmatic practice: In managing seemingly intractable intra-state conflict between groups, there is a need to be as flexible and pragmatic as possible. This may mean elements of recognition and engagement with functional state-like structures, as in the case of international engagement with Somaliland and recognition of the Somaliland passport. In some cases, the establishment of robust state-like structures by self-determination movements could also serve as ‘building blocks’ to reconstitute a failed state. Another important and successful example of pragmatic practice is the contested boundary between Nigeria and Benin. Last demarcated in 1912, both sides have resolved to mediate between themselves and accept that until the border issue is resolved, in areas where there are competing claims both sides agreed not to place any attributes of their respective states – flags and so on.

What happens after independence is equally important to formal recognition: The recent history of Eritrea provides the most sobering evidence that even the most exemplary liberation movements often fail as governments of newly independent states. The ingredients for a successful independence struggle, such as a refusal to compromise in pursuit of a singular goal, are ill-suited to running a modern state. Good governance demands inter alia inclusivity, openness to different ideas, balancing the interests of opposing groups and maintaining good relations with your neighbors, even when they’re not your friends. Moreover, there is a marked tendency among liberators to believe that their victory confers special rights and an exclusive form of ownership of the state. This phenomenon is evident in most liberation movements to varying degrees.

Connect the map to the territory: Conciliation efforts between different groups within Africa occur within a rigid framework of national sovereignty, as expressed in the AU Charter. Essentially, that means a discussion about the map. Yet underneath the ‘map’, the ‘territory’ often reveals very different things, particularly about the nature of conflict and the relationship between locals and their leaders in the capitals. Often there is no shared vision of what constitutes ‘self-determination’ between locals and their putative representatives who sit at the AU table or regional fora. They often do not control the territories they purport to represent. Not so much ungoverned spaces as spaces governed by the ungoverned. What is required is a much greater understanding of how local realities can impact the strategic level.

Establish national integration projects: Whether or not some of Africa’s fragmented states, such as the DRCRC or Nigeria, are one day compelled to accept changes to their boundaries to address intractable divisions within their territories, renewed importance should be given to national integration projects across Africa. Once assumed to flow naturally from decolonization, the integration of peoples and tribes in many of the newly-independent states never came; the social underpinning to the new political dispensation did not develop, in some cases because authoritarian leaders prevented it. With the number of conflicts on the continent in decline, democracy in the ascendant and economic growth leading the world, the time is ripe for African states to become societies – in the best sense of the word.

Source: The Brenthurst Foundation

Homeee | Contact uss | Links | Archives | Search