By: Silas Mwaudasheni Nande
Introduction
The Caprivi Strip, a slender and strategically vital panhandle in northeastern Namibia, stands as a testament to the intricate and often arbitrary nature of colonial cartography. Its unique geographical configuration has profoundly shaped its history, rendering it a recurring focal point in discussions surrounding Namibian sovereignty. While firmly integrated into the Namibian state since independence, the region has been sporadically challenged by secessionist aspirations, most notably those championed by figures like Mishake Muyongo. This comprehensive analysis delves into the multifaceted dimensions of the Caprivi Strip’s identity, meticulously tracing its historical origins, dissecting the claims made by secessionist movements, exploring the potential undercurrents of support for such movements, and finally, evaluating the profound political and geopolitical implications that these dynamics hold for Namibia and the broader Southern African region.
Who is Mishake Muyongo?
Mishake Muyongo is a Namibian politician who is a long-standing advocate for the independence of the Caprivi Strip (now Zambezi region).
Key points about him:
- He was a prominent figure in Namibian politics before and after independence.
- He was a member of the Constituent Assembly that drafted Namibia’s constitution (1989-1990) and served in the National Assembly (1990-1999).
- He ran as a presidential candidate in the 1994 general elections, placing second.
- He co-founded the Caprivi African National Union (CANU) in 1962 and later became Vice President of SWAPO (1970-1980).
- He founded the United Democratic Party (UDP) in 1985 and was its president, whose activities are today banned in Namibia.
- He also served as President of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (DTA) from 1991 to 1999.
- He is known for orchestrating a military rebellion in 1999 under the Caprivi Liberation Army (CLA) in an attempt to secede the Caprivi Strip from Namibia.
- The Namibian government swiftly quelled the insurrection.
- Mishake Muyongo is currently living in exile in Denmark. He was granted political asylum there after fleeing Namibia via Botswana in the aftermath of the failed Caprivi secessionist attempt in 1999.
- From Denmark, he continues to advocate for the independence of the Caprivi Strip (now Zambezi region). He has been described as an outspoken critic of the Namibian government and has in the past issued statements calling for the “liberation” of the Caprivi region. His political activities are primarily focused on maintaining the narrative of a separate Caprivian identity and the right to self-determination for the people of the region.
Historical Context: The Genesis of the Caprivi Strip
The peculiar inclusion of the Caprivi Strip within Namibia’s borders is a direct consequence of the scramble for Africa and the subsequent colonial negotiations among European powers. The pivotal agreement that carved out this distinctive territory was the 1890 Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty between the German Empire and Great Britain. This treaty, primarily concerned with colonial possessions in East Africa, also served to delineate spheres of influence in Southern Africa. In exchange for certain territorial concessions elsewhere, Germany was granted control over this narrow strip of land, strategically designed to provide German South West Africa (Deutsch-Südwestafrika), its primary colony in the region, with access to the Zambezi River. This access was envisioned to facilitate trade and potentially provide a navigable route to the East African coast, though the rapids of the Zambezi ultimately limited its utility.
Following Germany’s defeat in World War I, the League of Nations stripped Germany of its colonial possessions. German South West Africa was subsequently placed under the mandate of South Africa, which administered the territory as if it were an integral part of its own. Crucially, during this period, the territorial integrity of German South West Africa, including the Caprivi Strip, was meticulously maintained. The Caprivi was administered as an integral part of the mandate, reinforcing its perceived status as an inseparable component of the larger territory.
The long and arduous struggle for Namibia’s independence culminated in 1990. Upon achieving self-governance, Namibia, as a newly sovereign state, inherited all colonial territories and administrative units that constituted German South West Africa. This inheritance explicitly included the Caprivi Strip, which was seamlessly incorporated into the independent Republic of Namibia’s constitutional and administrative framework. From that point onward, the Caprivi has been consistently administered as one of Namibia’s thirteen (now fourteen) regions, with its governance structures, legal frameworks, and citizen rights fully aligned with those of the Namibian state. This uninterrupted administrative and legal integration further solidifies its status as an inalienable part of the nation.
Mishake Muyongo’s Secessionist Claims and the Failed Military Attempt
The most prominent figure advocating for the Caprivi Strip’s independence has been Mishake Muyongo. A former politician who once held a significant position within Namibia’s political landscape, Muyongo has persistently articulated a narrative of distinct “Caprivian” identity, asserting that the inhabitants of the Caprivi Strip are ethnically and historically separate from other Namibian groups. His arguments often hinge on a perceived historical marginalization and a romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “Caprivian kingdom.”
Muyongo’s secessionist movement reached its zenith in the late 1990s, culminating in a dramatic and ill-fated military rebellion. Under the banner of the Caprivi Liberation Army (CLA), Muyongo orchestrated an armed insurgency aimed at forcibly seceding the Caprivi Strip from Namibia. On August 2, 1999, CLA militants launched coordinated attacks on government installations in Katima Mulilo, the regional capital. However, the Namibian government, under the leadership of then-President Sam Nujoma, responded with overwhelming force and swift efficiency. The Namibian Defence Force (NDF) quickly quelled the insurrection, demonstrating the state’s resolute commitment to maintaining its territorial integrity. The failed rebellion resulted in numerous casualties, arrests, and a significant displacement of people, leaving a lasting scar on the region.
Muyongo’s arguments, while emotionally charged, are largely predicated on a selective interpretation of history and an overemphasis on ethnic distinctions. This narrative often conveniently overlooks centuries of inter-communal interaction, shared cultural practices, and, crucially, the continuous administrative and political integration of the Caprivi within the larger entity that became Namibia. His perspective, when scrutinized through a broader historical lens, appears to be a distorted view that fundamentally undermines Namibia’s territorial integrity and its constitutional law, which explicitly defines the nation’s borders and the rights of all its citizens.
Who Might Be Behind Muyongo’s Movement?
While Mishake Muyongo undoubtedly serves as the public face and ideological leader of the Caprivian secessionist movement, it is plausible that various other actors, with diverse motivations, may have provided support, influence, or even tacit encouragement. Understanding these potential external and internal factors is crucial for a comprehensive analysis of the movement’s persistence.
Diaspora Networks: A significant number of Namibian exiles, particularly those who fled the country following the 1999 insurrection or those with long-standing grievances against the Namibian government, have gravitated towards Caprivi separatist sentiments. These diaspora networks often operate from neighboring countries or further afield, utilizing international platforms to disseminate their ideology, raise awareness for their cause, and potentially solicit financial or logistical assistance. While their direct impact on the ground within Namibia may be limited due to government surveillance and control, they play a crucial role in maintaining the narrative of a separate Caprivian identity and lobbying international bodies.
Regional Interests: Speculation has long circulated regarding the potential involvement of foreign actors with vested interests in destabilizing Namibia’s territorial unity. Such interests could be driven by a range of motives, including:
- Economic Exploitation: The Caprivi Strip’s strategic location, bordering four other countries (Angola, Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), makes it a crucial transit corridor for trade and a potential hub for various economic activities. External actors seeking to gain preferential access to resources, trade routes, or specific economic concessions might view a destabilized or independent Caprivi as an opportunity to further their own agendas.
- Strategic Advantage: In the complex geopolitical landscape of Southern Africa, any disruption to existing borders could have ripple effects, potentially altering regional power dynamics. Certain states or non-state actors might perceive strategic advantages in fostering instability or supporting secessionist movements to weaken a particular government or to create a new, potentially more pliable, political entity.
- Resource Control: While not extensively proven, rumors have occasionally surfaced regarding the potential for undisclosed natural resources within the Caprivi Strip that could attract external interest.
- Local Dissidents and Grievances: While the 1999 rebellion was definitively crushed, it does not mean that all separatist sentiments within the Caprivi Strip have vanished. Movements such as the Caprivi Concerned Group (CCG), along with various localized protests and expressions of discontent, demonstrate that some segments of the local population continue to harbor grievances or identify with separatist aspirations. These sentiments can stem from a variety of factors, including:
- Perceived Marginalization: Some inhabitants of the Caprivi Strip may feel economically or politically marginalized within the broader Namibian state, leading to a sense of resentment and a desire for greater autonomy.
- Cultural and Linguistic Differences: The Caprivi is home to several distinct ethnic groups with their own languages and cultural practices, which some believe are not sufficiently recognized or respected within the national framework.
- Historical Narratives: The enduring narratives propagated by figures like Muyongo, even if historically questionable, can resonate with individuals who feel a strong sense of local identity and a connection to a perceived pre-colonial past.
Despite these potential influences and ongoing pockets of dissent, it is crucial to re-emphasize that the Namibian government maintains firm and undisputed control over the Caprivi Strip. Its security forces are actively present, and its administrative structures are fully functional, ensuring the region’s continued integration and reinforcing its status as an undeniable part of sovereign Namibia.
Political Impact on Namibia
Even in its weakened state, the secessionist movement in the Caprivi Strip continues to present several significant challenges to the Namibian state, necessitating ongoing vigilance and strategic responses.
National Unity and Cohesion: The persistence of Caprivian separatist claims, even if largely contained, can strain ethnic cohesion within Namibia. Such movements can foster a “us vs. them” mentality, potentially eroding public confidence in the state’s ability to govern fairly and inclusively across all ethnic and regional divides. This can lead to internal divisions, suspicion, and a weakening of the national identity that the Namibian government has diligently worked to forge since independence.
* Security Measures and Resource Diversion: The 1999 insurgency clearly demonstrated the state’s willingness to employ force to defend its territorial integrity. However, this commitment comes at a cost. The need to maintain a robust security presence in the Caprivi region, to prevent a resurgence of armed separatism, and to conduct intelligence gathering, diverts substantial national resources – both financial and human – that could otherwise be allocated to socio-economic development, education, healthcare, or other pressing national priorities. This continuous allocation of resources to security in one specific region can indirectly impact the overall development trajectory of the nation.
Legal and Diplomatic Efforts: Namibia has consistently engaged in a two-pronged approach to affirm its territorial integrity:
Domestic Legal Processes: The Namibian legal system has been instrumental in prosecuting individuals involved in the 1999 rebellion and other secessionist activities. This demonstrates the state’s commitment to upholding its laws and discouraging future attempts at armed insurrection. The trials of alleged secessionists have been lengthy and complex, highlighting the intricate legal challenges involved.
Regional and International Diplomacy: Namibia has also actively engaged in regional diplomacy, particularly through organizations like the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union (AU), to garner support for its position. Furthermore, Namibia consistently emphasizes its adherence to the principles of international law, particularly those concerning state sovereignty and the inviolability of colonial-era borders (uti possidetis juris), which are cornerstones of African interstate relations. This diplomatic offensive aims to secure international recognition and discourage any external support for secessionist movements.
Geopolitical Implications
The Caprivi secessionist movement, despite its localized origins, carries broader geopolitical consequences that extend beyond Namibia’s borders, impacting regional stability and international legal norms.
Regional Stability and the “Uti Possidetis Juris” Principle: Any successful secession attempt in the Caprivi Strip would send a dangerous precedent across the African continent. The principle of uti possidetis juris, which dictates that newly independent states should inherit the colonial administrative borders, is a cornerstone of African interstate relations. It was adopted by the Organization of African Unity (now the African Union) to prevent widespread territorial disputes and conflicts following decolonization. A successful Caprivi secession could ignite similar territorial claims in other African nations, potentially triggering a cascade of border disputes, ethnic conflicts, and regional instability, unraveling decades of efforts to maintain peace and order.
International Law and Recognition: Namibia’s sovereignty over the Caprivi Strip is firmly supported by fundamental principles of international law. The 1890 Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty, while a colonial construct, established the original legal basis for the territory’s inclusion. Furthermore, Namibia’s independence in 1990 was recognized by the United Nations and the international community as a whole, with its declared borders including the Caprivi Strip. Any attempt to alter these internationally recognized borders without the consent of the sovereign state would be a direct challenge to established international legal norms and could lead to significant diplomatic ramifications.
Economic Considerations and Regional Connectivity: The Caprivi Strip is not merely a geographical appendage; it serves as a vital strategic corridor for trade and regional connectivity. Its unique position as a gateway to Zambia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe, and potentially further into Central and East Africa, makes it an indispensable component of Namibia’s broader economic strategy. The Trans-Caprivi Highway, part of the Walvis Bay Corridor, is a crucial artery for trade, linking landlocked Southern African countries to Namibia’s Atlantic port. Any instability or a successful secession in the Caprivi Strip would severely disrupt these vital trade routes, undermine regional economic integration, and negatively impact the economic growth and development of not only Namibia but also its landlocked neighbors. Maintaining stability and security in the Caprivi is therefore paramount for regional economic prosperity.
Conclusion
In summation, the Caprivi Strip stands as an undeniable and integral part of the Republic of Namibia, grounded in a robust framework of historical precedent, legal legitimacy, and consistent national governance. While the persistent efforts of Mishake Muyongo and his dwindling number of supporters continue to advocate for separatism, their claims demonstrably lack both legal and historical legitimacy when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The narrative of a distinct Caprivian nation, while appealing to some, overlooks the centuries of shared history and the continuous integration of the region within the evolving political entity that became Namibia.
Namibia’s sovereignty over the Caprivi Strip is unequivocally reinforced by a confluence of factors: international recognition of its post-independence borders, the historical treaties that shaped its current configuration, and the unwavering application of national law and administration. The Namibian government’s resolute response to the 1999 insurgency and its ongoing commitment to maintaining peace and order in the region underscore its determination to safeguard its territorial integrity.
Moving forward, addressing the lingering secessionist rhetoric requires a multi-pronged approach. This includes not only robust security measures to deter any future armed attempts but also sustained efforts in public education to counter historical distortions and promote a shared national identity. Furthermore, continued engagement in regional and international diplomacy remains crucial to solidify international support for Namibia’s sovereignty and to discourage any external interference. By upholding its legal and historical claims, fostering national unity, and ensuring the continued development and prosperity of the Caprivi region, Namibia will undoubtedly ensure that its territorial integrity remains unquestioned and fully respected in the complex and interconnected geopolitical landscape of Southern Africa and beyond.
