A Multi-State Solution That Works?

Jay Bahadur had a recent op-ed at the New York Times that advocated for the international recognition of Puntland, a self governing region in the former country of Somalia.  Considering the region formerly known as Somalia is interesting only in regards to terrorists or pirates, his “sell” on the issue of recognition is centered on Puntland being a partner in fighting the latter.  This is an interesting thought but not one I want to explore.  Rather, are there cases when splitting up a sovereign entity, or the remains thereof, makes not only good practical sense but is also a good precedent for international law?

Before I jump in here, a few points that need to be laid out.  One, I don’t consider Somalia to be a country any more, hence my previous snark.  The “government” we support is a bunch of men who exerted little control when they were backed by Ethiopian tanks and now have even less.  Their relevancy to the actual population consistently hovers at 0.  So while it’s helpful to refer to Somalia for the geographic connotations, for me the idea of Somalia has eroded from 1991 to the ineffectual dreams of Western and African policy makers to end the chaos with as little change to the status quo as possible.  I’m not sure in this case that the status quo is anything bad, but it certainly doesn’t seem to spend much time in reality.

Secondly, I tend to err on the side that two state solutions and other kinds of partitions are rarely successful.  India and Pakistan and Israel and Palestine are two cases that spring immediately to mind.  Peaceful partitions that did little more than generate a bunch of wars.  I tend to blame the United Kingdom for this.  If you look at some land conflicts in Latin America, Venezuela-Guyana, Nicaragua-Colombia, Guatemala-Belize, and Argentina-UK (Falklands)–you can see that when the British split up territory, they never quite ended the conflict before leaving.  The counter argument, of course, is that colonial borders that brought together diverse and even enemy populations cannot succeed as sovereign entities, much of Africa, Iraq, and Afghanistan all appear to strengthen that case.  Even a relatively successful democracy like Kenya can’t seem to get over ethnic tensions, so maybe splitting them up does work.

Which brings us to Somalia.  Somalia doesn’t really exist, but Puntland has a representative democracy, functioning (but poor) government, and at least some capacity to defend and police its country.  In many respects, it fits not only the definition of a nation state, but that of a democracy, which is quite astounding in a region that isn’t necessarily known by its democratic credentials.  Moreover, I think there is a strong case here that if we support something viable, which Puntland seems to be, we have a better chance of influencing the destiny of the Horn of Africa than we would if we, say, supported an ineffectual sham government who has only held on to Mogadishu for two years, and tenuously at that.

So practical wisdom says back the horse in Puntland, it’s a sure winner, right?

Unfortunately, one of the nagging parts of international law is that it’s all precedent based.  The short hand is that if a majority of the countries consider something to be normal practice, then it is international law.  The only “written” law is contained in UN conventions and bi- and multi-lateral treaties.  There is, of course, a bunch of ways to avoid being accountable to international law, such as refusing to sign conventions, refusing to join international groups, and to make vociferously clear in both written statement and and spoken pronouncement your reservations, understandings, and declarations about how you intend to (not) follow international law.  But in general, your best bet is that if you don’t like the implications for your sovereignty, you don’t support something.

This is what makes the Puntland case a little frustrating.  In northeastern Somalia there is a region that has everything we want and maybe more from an African ally, but if we support it, the implications are not something we’ll like.  Consider that we fought a civil war based on the principle that the South had no legal right to secede from the Union.  In more contemporary terms, an internationally recognized Puntland has some troubling implications for Morocco, India, Turkey, the Sudan, and a host of other nations.  After all, the compelling arguments for Puntland’s recognition could easily be extended to a place like Kurdistan, which would be most inconvenient for Turkey, the US, and any ambitions for a federal Iraq.

Which leaves us, the international community, in quite a bind.  On the one hand, there are many practical but situational specific solutions that would make stabilizing developing countries much easier than it is today.  Giving Puntland money to fight Somali piracy makes our warships in the Gulf of Aden much more likely to be successful. On the other hand, sometimes process is more than just a ritual to make us feel like we’ve had a say.  Process breeds order, and to upset order threatens more than formality.  The very underpinnings of how the world functions today, how countries interact, how trade happens, and why there are relatively few wars of aggression between nations, are all related to a respect of process and thus, order.

So Puntland cannot be it’s own nation, though in the de facto sense, we really have nothing to counter that reality.  In the grand scheme of things, perhaps this is small potatoes.  However, it does beg a question of the current world order–how useful is international decorum and process when it is opposed to practical realities?  Is a genocide in Sudan something we’re willing to allow because we can’t get consensus in the Security Council?  And conversely, are we as a nation really able to act morally and sensibly outside of international consensus?

2009–An Early Review

I suppose the list of top things in 2009 has got me to thinking that I should have an evaluation of the year and a prediction for the next–well I won’t!  Not until next month at least, when I’ve had a chance to come up with a theme that can describe the year.  In the meantime, here are a few unordered thoughts:

In the US, we’ve seen:

-A failure to commit to democracy, either in Latin America or South Asia.  The Coming Anarchy (a normally fantastic collection of international political analysis, most recently of the Dubai default threats) posits that this is good politicking, “thinking pagan while acting Victorian” to paraphrase.  I am inclined to disagree–what we have here is a supreme failure of our international morals and just as the tales of Salvador Allende and Hugo Chavez’s 2002 coup were getting old, we handing our neighbors the tragedy of Mel Zelaya.  So far the acrimony with the rest of the planet caused by our support of two undemocractically elected leaders (neither election was free or fair, feel free to dispute Honduras, but when the US ambassador laments the drastic deterioration of human rights and opposition media is mercilessly shut down, you don’t have much to stand on) has remained low, but we are steadily chipping away at the foundation of our image.  Perhaps we could never live up to it.  But so far what is only a public diplomacy nightmare will spread into real diplomacy.

–We will deal at any cost.  This is the mantra of the Obama administration and while so far he’ll get some plaudits for it from the moderates in the media–we have a healthcare bill, we will have a global warming deal, we have a strategy for Afghanistan, etc.–the reality is that the White House is every day looking like a pawn shop that is getting outplayed by its sellers.  They have quickly accepted the lowest common denominator on pretty much every dispute that has crossed their path.  I think the actual value of this has yet to be seen.  They might be making all the right deals and generations from now we might be studying the brilliancy of the Obama administration.  So I don’t want to be too gloom and doom on this point.  But sometimes there’s a value to playing hardball.  Cheney and Bush proved that.

–The NFL is entering a period of shaming and disgrace.  Didn’t expect that one, did you?  But personally, I think this concussion thing will hit them hard, not as hard as doping in MLB, but perhaps the implications are worse.  Major League Baseball players put their bodies at risk illegally for gain.  The league turned a blind eye to such behavior, but while it may have been tacitly encouraged, I don’t think any one thought for a moment it was above board, honest behavior.  The NFL has basically left some of its most talented players out to dry and refused to face a health risk that people have known about for a long time.  What’s worse is that this negligence has trickled down to every level of the sport.  I don’t think it will chip away at the dominance of the sport (thankfully) but I consider 2009 the year that Goodell got an asterisk next to his tenure.

–2010 will probably be a year of backlash.  I am expecting a ton of inappropriate blame to be placed on reality TV for all sorts of moral ills.  No more Kardashians will be able to get shows, VH1 will probably not deal with millionaires any more, and the White House and airports will reach the top levels of competition for security theater.  The result will be overall positive, but when it comes to larger issues about the American culture, this cure will probably have the same effect as self-flagellation did against the bubonic plague.  More finger pointing will abound in the media, and our sense of self-respect, common decency, and high culture will continue to suffer.

–Simplicity will become the new zeitgeist.  Ostentatious shows of wealth will be considered in poor taste, and anti-wealth populism will replace the new age Gospel of Wealth.  This will be a slow trend but it has already begun.  Barring anything short of a miraculous economic recovery, the Great Recession (stupid name) will dictate our new cultural modes.

There’s probably more I could say, but I’m getting ahead of myself, especially with these predictions.  In any event, more to come and Happy New Year.