5 ms·

The blue Somali flag has a star that with each of the points of the star representating a Somali inhabited region: French Somaliland which is Djibouti; British

by sdiq 8y ago

The blue Somali flag has a star that with each of the points of the star representating a Somali inhabited region: French Somaliland which is Djibouti; British Somaliland, which is the focus of the article; Italian Somaliland, the Somalia with Mogadishu as its capital; the Ogaden in Ethiopia and Northern Frontier District NFD in Kenya.I am an ethnic Somali from NFD though the name has since changed. Last time it was called North Eastern Province before Kenya abolished the provincial system. The Ogaden as a name is also frowned upon. Ironically, I am also from the Ogadeni clan. Ethiopian Somalis, and Ethiopians in general, prefer calling the same as Somali Regional State. Anyway, Somalia, before the union and merger of the British and Italian Somalilands, claimed sovereignty over all these other Somalilands. This dream was known as Greater Somalia. But, the same is know probably dead. The collapse of the Somali government didn't help matters. Interestingly, rather than Somalis ultimately uniting in one country, after the war, the numerous other Somalilands came to the aid of the fleeing Somali regions. My home county in Kenya has been host to one of the largest refugee camps in the world - Dadaab. Well, that was before Syria happened. Somaliland, the one in the article, seems to be functioning much better than Somalia - an entity it is tied to in a marriage that wasn't supposed to work from the beginning. Somaliland should have negotiated for a better deal before unconditionally joining Somalia. Also, the Africa Union is probably not going to recognise Somaliland as an independent state. This, for fear of opening a Pandora's box. There are many other African communities not happy of being part of the countries they have been forced to be a part of. Anyway, I do support the independence of Somaliland though the border issues would need to be sorted out. Some clans are happy with being in Somalia. I support their independence because of the potential for their prosperity. They are currently being forced for Somalia to sort out its issues which I think is unfair.

losvedir 8y ago
Very interesting comment, thanks. Also, the Africa Union is probably not going to recognise Somaliland as an independent state. This, for fear of opening a Pandora's box. There are many other African communities not happy of being part of the countries they have been forced to be a part of. This kind of surprises me. I've sometimes thought it might be in Africa's long term interest to have this happen. The current countries were created arbitrarily by Europeans based on what they wanted to control, without regard for the underlying peoples with their languages, cultures, and histories. Perhaps a rethinking of borders would be positive in the long run.
- pram 8y ago
  Ceding territory and authority doesn’t benefit the constituents of the African Union, which are governments of states. Is it actually that surprising?
  - zokier 8y ago
    Prolonged guerilla insurgencies etc typically don't benefit the constituents either (unless you take the viewpoint of them being the crooked type).
    - wahern 8y ago
      Pre-colonial borders weren't all static and stable. Redrawing the borders to the status quo ante wouldn't magically erase border conflict. Even if the status quo ante was stable and conflict-free, there have been hundreds of intervening years of shifting alliances.
- ucarion 8y ago
  The example of Pakistan/Bangladesh and India establishes a bad precedent. Nor is South Sudan doing terribly well. Though the Europeans inflicted a great deal of damage upon Africa, to submit the continent to a second round of revision would be adding insult to injury. At least until the international community finds a way of redrawing borders in a reliably peaceful way, and ensuring that the resulting nations thrive.
  - jonathankoren 8y ago
    Czechoslovakia seems like a good model.
    - ucarion 8y ago
      Sure -- though Bohemia had preceded modern Czechia for centuries, and was still a quasi-state in its own right under the Habsburgs. Such historical unity is rare in modern Africa.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
elgenie 8y ago
What troubling precedent would the African Union set by recognizing Somaliland that has not already been set by the recognition of South Sudan and Eritrea (also in East-Central Africa)?
- sdiq 8y ago
  South Sudan had oil and none has been discovered in Somaliland as yet. That could be the reason, I don't know. As for Eritrea, I think their story was different. The UN recognized their independence before Ethiopia overturned the agreement. They were also lucky, after a long armed struggle for independence, the collapse of the Derg government in Ethiopia somehow aided their agitation. A new government was in power in Ethiopia that itself forcefully overthrew the previous government. Maybe they just didn't want to extend the war at the time. I don't know some of these things but that is how I see it.
  - elgenie 8y ago
    Still, I can't see anyone thinking that the Ethiopian central government had a less firm hold on Eritrea than Mogadishu has on Somaliland.
- Mountain_Skies 8y ago
  In the case of South Sudan, it might be due to George Bush. He had a personal desire to see South Sudan become independent. He also made economic assistance to African nations one of his policy initiatives beyond what would be expected from a conservative president. Perhaps some in the African Union felt it was in their best interest to support the independence of South Sudan because it would put them on good terms with the American president.
- AnAfrican 8y ago
  Both South Sudan's and Eritrea's independance referendum happened with the agreement of Sudan and Ethiopia. => a peace treaty in the case of Sudan => a consitutionnal provision in the case of Ethiopia So they were legal. Somalia will have to agree to letting Somaliland go in order for the African Union to recognize Somaliland independance.
throwaway19911 8y ago
I was born in Mogadishu in 91. One parent is from "Somaliland". The Somali state was deliberately fragmented into numerous regions in a bid to pit different clans against each other to better control the region. Large swaths of Somali inhabited territories were unfairly given to Ethiopia and Kenya due to religious solidarity. The collapse of the Somali state and ensuing civil war was a direct result of this misallocation of land. i.e Ogaden war broke the Somali economy, shunned internationally, demoralised army collapsed and then turned on each other etc. >I support their independence because of the potential for their prosperity. They are currently being forced for Somalia to sort out its issues which I think is unfair. This is such a delusional statement that can only come from a paid shill from the "Somaliland" government. More than 50% of the population in territories the Somaliland government claims do not want to be part of "Somalialnd". "Somaliland" is a single clan attempting to create a one-clan state. Unification is the only solution. Somalis just have to get on with the 21st century and move beyond clan politics and develop a modern political system. Giving disgruntled clans their own country is just a band aid solution. The entire notion of two neighbouring countries: "Somalia" and "Somalialand" is just laughably absurd. They are the same people, look the same, speak the same language, have the exact same religion.......actually you couldn't find a more homogenous population in Africa, which is actually crazy when you think about it. Ethiopia has THOUSANDS of different clans, dozens of religions and languages, a population of over 100 million and they never needed to give every clan their own country. This is a weak article and props up in the media every now and then by PR firms paid by the "Somaliland government". This is how they spend their money that was supposed to be for water well.

by sdiq 8y ago

losvedir 8y ago

Very interesting comment, thanks. Also, the Africa Union is probably not going to recognise Somaliland as an independent state. This, for fear of opening a Pandora's box. There are many other African communities not happy of being part of the countries they have been forced to be a part of. This kind of surprises me. I've sometimes thought it might be in Africa's long term interest to have this happen. The current countries were created arbitrarily by Europeans based on what they wanted to control, without regard for the underlying peoples with their languages, cultures, and histories. Perhaps a rethinking of borders would be positive in the long run.

pram 8y ago
Ceding territory and authority doesn’t benefit the constituents of the African Union, which are governments of states. Is it actually that surprising?
- zokier 8y ago
  Prolonged guerilla insurgencies etc typically don't benefit the constituents either (unless you take the viewpoint of them being the crooked type).
  - wahern 8y ago
    Pre-colonial borders weren't all static and stable. Redrawing the borders to the status quo ante wouldn't magically erase border conflict. Even if the status quo ante was stable and conflict-free, there have been hundreds of intervening years of shifting alliances.
ucarion 8y ago
The example of Pakistan/Bangladesh and India establishes a bad precedent. Nor is South Sudan doing terribly well. Though the Europeans inflicted a great deal of damage upon Africa, to submit the continent to a second round of revision would be adding insult to injury. At least until the international community finds a way of redrawing borders in a reliably peaceful way, and ensuring that the resulting nations thrive.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  Czechoslovakia seems like a good model.
  - ucarion 8y ago
    Sure -- though Bohemia had preceded modern Czechia for centuries, and was still a quasi-state in its own right under the Habsburgs. Such historical unity is rare in modern Africa.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

elgenie 8y ago

What troubling precedent would the African Union set by recognizing Somaliland that has not already been set by the recognition of South Sudan and Eritrea (also in East-Central Africa)?

sdiq 8y ago
South Sudan had oil and none has been discovered in Somaliland as yet. That could be the reason, I don't know. As for Eritrea, I think their story was different. The UN recognized their independence before Ethiopia overturned the agreement. They were also lucky, after a long armed struggle for independence, the collapse of the Derg government in Ethiopia somehow aided their agitation. A new government was in power in Ethiopia that itself forcefully overthrew the previous government. Maybe they just didn't want to extend the war at the time. I don't know some of these things but that is how I see it.
- elgenie 8y ago
  Still, I can't see anyone thinking that the Ethiopian central government had a less firm hold on Eritrea than Mogadishu has on Somaliland.
Mountain_Skies 8y ago
In the case of South Sudan, it might be due to George Bush. He had a personal desire to see South Sudan become independent. He also made economic assistance to African nations one of his policy initiatives beyond what would be expected from a conservative president. Perhaps some in the African Union felt it was in their best interest to support the independence of South Sudan because it would put them on good terms with the American president.
AnAfrican 8y ago
Both South Sudan's and Eritrea's independance referendum happened with the agreement of Sudan and Ethiopia. => a peace treaty in the case of Sudan => a consitutionnal provision in the case of Ethiopia So they were legal. Somalia will have to agree to letting Somaliland go in order for the African Union to recognize Somaliland independance.

throwaway19911 8y ago

I was born in Mogadishu in 91. One parent is from "Somaliland". The Somali state was deliberately fragmented into numerous regions in a bid to pit different clans against each other to better control the region. Large swaths of Somali inhabited territories were unfairly given to Ethiopia and Kenya due to religious solidarity. The collapse of the Somali state and ensuing civil war was a direct result of this misallocation of land. i.e Ogaden war broke the Somali economy, shunned internationally, demoralised army collapsed and then turned on each other etc. >I support their independence because of the potential for their prosperity. They are currently being forced for Somalia to sort out its issues which I think is unfair. This is such a delusional statement that can only come from a paid shill from the "Somaliland" government. More than 50% of the population in territories the Somaliland government claims do not want to be part of "Somalialnd". "Somaliland" is a single clan attempting to create a one-clan state. Unification is the only solution. Somalis just have to get on with the 21st century and move beyond clan politics and develop a modern political system. Giving disgruntled clans their own country is just a band aid solution. The entire notion of two neighbouring countries: "Somalia" and "Somalialand" is just laughably absurd. They are the same people, look the same, speak the same language, have the exact same religion.......actually you couldn't find a more homogenous population in Africa, which is actually crazy when you think about it. Ethiopia has THOUSANDS of different clans, dozens of religions and languages, a population of over 100 million and they never needed to give every clan their own country. This is a weak article and props up in the media every now and then by PR firms paid by the "Somaliland government". This is how they spend their money that was supposed to be for water well.