[By Geneva S.K. Togbah-ID: GP95070
Student at the Global Affairs Department, Cuttington University School of Graduate Professional Studies]
Introduction: Unrepresented Nations and Peoples in the International System
The contemporary international system contains numerous communities that identify as distinct nations yet remain unrepresented or underrepresented in global governance structures. These groups, often possessing unique ethnic, cultural, linguistic, or historical narratives, seek varying degrees of political recognition, ranging from autonomy to full statehood (Crawford, 2006). Their political aspirations are frequently rooted in historical statehood, colonial era treaties, forced annexations, or violations of self-determination principles as articulated in the UN Charter and subsequent international instruments (United Nations, 1945; Cassese, 1995).
The Organization of Unrepresented Nations and Peoples (UNPO), founded in 1991, emerged as an institutional platform enabling these communities to articulate their claims peacefully and advocate for rights otherwise inaccessible through state centric international bodies. UNPO does not grant recognition but provides advocacy, capacity building, documentation, and international visibility to its members, many of whom lack access to formal intergovernmental forums (UNPO, 2023).
Against this backdrop, this research examines three UNPO associated cases: Somaliland, West Papua, and Barotseland. The study analyzes the historical foundations of their claims, contemporary political dynamics, and the legal basis for self-determination. The research concludes with a consolidated policy position for the Republic of Liberia.
Somaliland: Historical Statehood, Union, and Contemporary Quest for Recognition
Colonial and Early Independence History
Somaliland’s political claim to sovereignty is fundamentally anchored in its recognized period of statehood in 1960, prior to unification with the Italian-administered Trust Territory of Somalia. On 26 June 1960, the British Protectorate of Somaliland gained internationally recognized independence as the State of Somaliland. It was acknowledged by more than thirty states, including the United Kingdom and Israel (Drysdale, 1994).
Five days later, on 1 July 1960, Somaliland voluntarily entered a union with the former Italian Somalia to create the Somali Republic. The legal process of unification was irregular because the Act of Union approved by Somaliland’s legislature was not identical to that approved by Somalia, and the unification lacked the procedural completion normally required for a binding interstate merger (Hess, 1966; Bradbury, 2008). This legal irregularity has become a central pillar of Somaliland’s contemporary argument that the union was never properly consummated.
Collapse of the Somali Republic and Somaliland’s Reassertion of Sovereignty
The Somali state collapsed in 1991 following civil war and the fall of Siad Barre. Somaliland withdrew from the union and declared the restoration of its 1960 independence on 18 May 1991. Since then, Somaliland has operated as a de facto state with its own constitution, currency, political institutions, and security structures. Despite sustained internal stability that often exceeds that of many internationally recognized states in the region, it remains without formal recognition due to concerns about the precedent it may set for other secessionist movements (Clapham, 2017).
Contemporary Diplomatic Developments and Emerging Recognition Dynamics
In recent years, Somaliland’s pursuit of international recognition has entered a more active diplomatic phase shaped by shifting regional and global interests. A significant development occurred on 1 January 2024 when Somaliland and Ethiopia signed a memorandum of understanding under which Ethiopia would secure access to the Port of Berbera in exchange for eventual recognition of Somaliland as a sovereign state. For Ethiopia, a landlocked country with growing economic and security demands, access to a stable and proximate maritime outlet represents a strategic priority. For Somaliland, the agreement marked a potential diplomatic breakthrough by signalling willingness from a United Nations member state to move toward formal recognition. Although the memorandum has faced strong opposition from the Federal Government of Somalia and has become the subject of regional diplomatic mediation, Somaliland maintains that the agreement reflects its sovereign capacity to enter international arrangements and reinforces the legitimacy of its statehood claim (International Crisis Group, 2024; African Affairs, 2024).
Alongside regional engagement, Somaliland has intensified diplomatic outreach to the United States. Somaliland’s leadership has consistently framed its case around democratic governance, regular elections, relative peace, and strategic importance along the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. These arguments have resonated with segments of the United States Congress and policy community, where Somaliland is increasingly viewed as a potential partner in maritime security, counterterrorism cooperation, and regional stability in the Horn of Africa. While the United States has not extended formal recognition, growing congressional advocacy and expanded political engagement reflect a gradual shift from diplomatic isolation toward conditional engagement, driven largely by strategic rather than purely normative considerations (Pham, 2023; U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2024).
West Papua: From Indigenous Polities to Indonesian Annexation
Pre-Annexation Governance and Evolution under Colonial Rule
West Papua, formerly Netherlands New Guinea, is inhabited by Melanesian peoples who historically maintained distinct political structures separate from the Malay Indonesian sphere (Saltford, 2003). Under Dutch colonial administration, West Papua underwent a process of political development that included local elections in 1959, the formation of the New Guinea Council in 1961, and preparations for full independence. The Council adopted a national flag, the Morning Star, a national anthem, and a national name. These were clear expressions of an emergent Papuan national identity (Drooglever, 2009).
Integration into Indonesia and the Contested Self-Determination Process
Despite these developments, Indonesia claimed West Papua based on the Netherlands’ prior rule over the broader Dutch East Indies. The dispute culminated in the 1962 New York Agreement, brokered by the United Nations. The Agreement transferred administration to a UN authority (UNTEA) and later to Indonesia, on the condition that an act of self-determination, named the Act of Free Choice, would be conducted in 1969.
The 1969 process, however, involved the selection of 1,026 representatives who, under documented coercion, intimidation, and the absence of universal suffrage, voted unanimously for integration with Indonesia (Saltford, 2003; King, 2015). Numerous scholars and human rights organizations have since considered the process inconsistent with international self-determination standards.
West Papua remains one of Southeast Asia’s most militarized regions, with persistent reports of human rights violations, restrictions on political expression, and clashes between security forces and pro-independence groups (Human Rights Watch, 2022).
Barotseland: Treaty-Based Authority and the Violation of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964
Historical Context and the Barotseland Agreement
Barotseland, located in the Western Province of present-day Zambia, was historically an autonomous kingdom with established governance institutions led by the Litunga. It entered into the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 with the soon-to-be independent Republic of Zambia. The Agreement, signed by Kenneth Kaunda, Litunga Sir Mwanawina III, and the British Government, guaranteed Barotseland substantial autonomy within Zambia (Caplan, 1968).
Specific Terms Violated and Nature of Violations
The Agreement’s key guarantees included autonomy over local governance, jurisdiction over land and natural resources, authority over local taxation, and preservation of Barotseland’s traditional judicial structures.
Beginning in 1965, the Zambian government initiated policy changes that dismantled these protections. These included the Local Government Act of 1965, the 1969 constitutional amendments that removed all references to the Agreement, and the centralization of control over land and natural resources, all of which contradicted the original treaty provisions (Caplan, 1968; Makolobe, 2014). The Barotse Royal Establishment and civil organizations argue that these unilateral actions constitute a fundamental breach of a treaty that Barotseland never consented to dissolve.
Consolidated Policy Analysis: Liberia’s Position on the Three Cases
Support for Somaliland’s Recognition
Given Somaliland’s historically recognized independence, the procedurally flawed unification process, its sustained record of effective governance, and its emerging international engagements, Liberia may reasonably support Somaliland’s recognition within the African Union framework. Such a position aligns with principles of historical statehood, constitutional legality, and respect for democratic governance.
Monitoring the West Papua and Barotseland Situations
Liberia should continue monitoring developments in West Papua and Barotseland, emphasizing peaceful dialogue, human rights protection, and adherence to international legal norms. These cases involve complex regional dynamics that warrant cautious diplomatic engagement while maintaining Liberia’s broader commitment to self-determination and international law.
Conclusion
The situations of Somaliland, West Papua, and Barotseland illustrate the enduring challenge faced by unrepresented nations in a state-centric international system. Each case demonstrates distinct historical and legal foundations for claims to autonomy or independence. Somaliland’s claim remains the strongest on legal, historical, and governance grounds, reinforced by its recent diplomatic engagements with Ethiopia and increasing attention from the United States.
West Papua and Barotseland present compelling but complex claims that require continued international scrutiny. Through balanced and principled engagement, Liberia can contribute meaningfully to advancing the dialogue on self-determination, human rights, and equitable participation in international governance.
This article is a partial completion of the requirement for concepts of International Relations, taught by Dr. Akiah P. Glay, with a cover provided by Cllr. Phil Tarpeh Dixon.
References
African Affairs. (2024). Ethiopia, Somaliland, and the politics of recognition in the Horn of Africa. African Affairs, 123(491).
Bradbury, M. (2008). Becoming Somaliland. James Currey.
Caplan, G. (1968). The Barotseland Agreement: Origins and significance. Journal of African Studies, 5(2), 185 to 200.
Cassese, A. (1995). Self-determination of peoples: A legal reappraisal. Cambridge University Press.
Clapham, C. (2017). The Horn of Africa: State formation and decay. African Affairs, 116(463), 197 to 199.
Crawford, J. (2006). The creation of states in international law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Drooglever, P. (2009). An act of free choice. One World.
Drysdale, J. (1994). Whatever happened to Somalia. HAAN Publishing.
Hess, R. (1966). The Somali Republic: Federation or unitary state. Middle East Journal, 20(1), 55 to 62.
Human Rights Watch. (2022). World report: Indonesia.
International Crisis Group. (2024). Somaliland, Ethiopia, and the risks of recognition.
King, P. (2015). West Papua and the Act of Free Choice. Pacific Affairs, 88(4), 719 to 741.
Makolobe, B. (2014). Barotseland’s Legal Status in Post-Colonial Zambia. African Studies Review, 57(3), 89 to 103.
Pham, J. (2023). Strategic implications of Somaliland recognition. Journal of African Security.
Saltford, J. (2003). The United Nations and the Indonesian takeover of West Papua. RoutledgeCurzon.
United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations.
UNPO. (2023). About UNPO.
U.S. Congressional Research Service. (2024). Somaliland and U.S. policy in the Horn of Africa.
About the Author
