By AA,Expert in LLM,December 12, 2024.
Ethiopia presented clear and focused demands during its recent negotiations with Somalia, mediated by Turkey in Ankara, while Somalia’s position remained broad and ambitious. Ethiopia’s objectives were explicitly outlined in the communiqué, reflecting its strategic priorities.Ethiopia’s Demands:1. Recognition of Ethiopia’s Military Role in Somalia:The FGS’s decision to exclude Ethiopia from the Troops Contributing Countries in the new mission (AUSSOM) and its push for Ethiopia’s withdrawal from Somali territory, while condemning certain military maneuvers in parts of the country, appeared to downplay Ethiopia’s role and neutrality in Somalia. As a result, Ethiopia sought to leverage the communiqué to prompt Somalia into acknowledging of its military influence and strategic leverage over the country, positioning this as a basis for its involvement in the new mission.The communiqué emphasizes the significance of the point in a standalone line, stating:“Somalia recognizes the sacrifices of Ethiopian soldiers within the African Union Missions.”Notably, it does not specifically refer to ATMIS or AMISOM, but rather uses the term “African Union Missions” to encompass both past and potential missions.2. Access to the Somali Sea:Ethiopia emphasized the need for assured and secure access to the Somali sea, framing this as a strategic priority. The communiqué included the following language:“They acknowledged the potentially diverse benefits that could be derived from Ethiopia’s assured access to and from the sea.”It further elaborated:“They agreed to closely work together to finalize mutually advantageous commercial arrangements through bilateral agreements, including contract, lease, and similar modalities, which will allow the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia to enjoy reliable, secure, and sustainable access to and from the sea.”3. Expeditious Technical Arrangements on Sea Access:Ethiopia sought to expedite technical negotiations with the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) to formalize the sea access agreement. This urgency was underscored by its intention to secure agreements with Somalia before revising its arrangements with Somaliland. The communiqué stated:“They decided to start technical negotiations in good faith for these purposes no later than the end of February 2025, with the facilitation of Türkiye, to be concluded and signed in four months.”Somalia’s Position:1. Ethiopia’s Withdrawal from the MoU with Somaliland:Somalia long sought Ethiopia’s explicit retraction of its Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Somaliland, which Somalia considers illegal. However, the communiqué made no direct reference to this demand. Instead, it adopted broad and general language, stating:“They agreed, within a spirit of friendship and mutual respect, to forgo and leave behind differences and contentious issues and collaborate in a cooperative manner to pursue shared prosperity.”Ethiopia deliberately refrained to explicitly express cancelling the MoU with Somaliland, likely to serve as plausible deniability in case of any future uncertainties with Somalia, and to avoid a direct confrontation with Somaliland. On the other hand, Somalia critically failed to unequivocally assert this vital position, which lies at the heart of the communiqué and represents the primary source of conflict between the two countries.2. Reaffirmation of Somaliland’s Status as Part of Somalia:Somalia also wanted Ethiopia to explicitly reaffirm that Somaliland remains an indisputable part of Somalia This position stemmed from Ethiopia’s actions, which implied recognition of Somaliland as a sovereign state (Tacit Recognition). Under international law, a state’s actions and statements on such matters carry legal implications and contribute to establishing its official stance. However, the communiqué did not directly address this issue. Instead, it used broad language regarding the relationship between the two nations:“The Leaders of Somalia and Ethiopia reaffirmed their respect and commitment to one another’s sovereignty, unity, independence, and territorial integrity, as well as the principles enshrined in international law, the Charter of the United Nations, and the Constitutive Act of the African Union.”This indicates that Ethiopia deliberately avoided any explicit mention of Somaliland, while Somalia failed to effectively articulate this point, instead relying on general language in the communiqué.Conclusions:1. Ethiopia was precise and strategic in articulating its demands within the communiqué, whereas Somalia’s position was broader and lacked specificity, particularly regarding critical sovereignty issues.2. Ethiopia’s inclusion of terms such as “assured access,” “reliable, secure, and sustainable access” reflects its long-term strategic interests. These terms could significantly influence future negotiations with Somalia, particularly concerning maritime access and sovereignty.3. Somalia needs to be more strategic and articulate in the upcoming technical discussions, ensuring that potential agreements with Ethiopia align with the Somalis commercial interests.
[Courtesy].
WDM 