5 ms·

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 Pan

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.
  - oblio 8y ago
    Yugoslavia looks like a bad one :)
    - anoncoward111 8y ago
      That's because Yugoslavia was torn apart by two larger imperial powers (the West and Russia). Czechs and Slovaks, for better or worse, were much more heavily under the sphere of influence of only the West
sdiq 8y ago
I support Somaliland's aspirations. However, I do also have this fear that granting this wish might not necessarily be a boon for the people of Somaliland. South Sudan, in the same region, has been a very good and recent example of what can go wrong. While initially the Arab Muslim north was the enemy, now the Dinkas and the Nuers do not seem to be in each others' good books. Even within Somaliland, while the article talks of the success of Somaliland in terms of relative stability being largely because of the one majority clan. Unfortunately, this, to me, feels like an untruth that is regularly peddled. Of the 5 regions (provinces) that initially made up Somaliland, the Isaaq (supposedly the only significant clan) are a majority in only 2 of these regions: North West and Togdheer. They had to sub-divide North West into 2 to come up with 3 regions. Awdal is inhabited by a different clan that produced Somaliland's second president, Dahir Rayale Kahin. The other 2 regions are also inhabited by 2 other clans. Now, granting Somaliland its wishes might potentially trigger the people of Awdal (the 2nd president's clan) to also demand secession from Somaliland. There could also be similar demands from the people living in some of the disputed border regions between Somaliland and Somalia (Puntland). So, while I support their agitation for independence, this might also potentially create problems for the same people of Somaliland. Likewise, the same argument could also be true for many other countries with regions within these countries aspiring to secede.
hammock 8y ago
>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. It's a European tradition, something they practice even on their home continent.
- oblio 8y ago
  This kind of thing happened everywhere, even in Asia or Africa or other regions.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> it might be in Africa's long term interest to have this happen A common thread in peaceful nations’ origin stories is a historical figure unifying disparate tribes and enforcing (usually by force) a common language, body of law and national identity. This drives internal economies of scale while reducing the tendency for disputes to escalate into violence. Lots of tiny, fragmented African nations isn’t a great outcome for the continent.
- gowld 8y ago
  Genociding the uncommon language, laws, and identity is too often (usually?) a major factor in that process.
zokier 8y ago
> Perhaps a rethinking of borders would be positive in the long run. Probably yes, but it is very long term, and the short and medium term for such rethinking would be very calamitous, as cataclysms tend to be. Personally I feel like trying to maintain status quo (on a large scale) and instead try to establish more foundational work for now is more prudent

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.
- oblio 8y ago
  Yugoslavia looks like a bad one :)
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    That's because Yugoslavia was torn apart by two larger imperial powers (the West and Russia). Czechs and Slovaks, for better or worse, were much more heavily under the sphere of influence of only the West

sdiq 8y ago

I support Somaliland's aspirations. However, I do also have this fear that granting this wish might not necessarily be a boon for the people of Somaliland. South Sudan, in the same region, has been a very good and recent example of what can go wrong. While initially the Arab Muslim north was the enemy, now the Dinkas and the Nuers do not seem to be in each others' good books. Even within Somaliland, while the article talks of the success of Somaliland in terms of relative stability being largely because of the one majority clan. Unfortunately, this, to me, feels like an untruth that is regularly peddled. Of the 5 regions (provinces) that initially made up Somaliland, the Isaaq (supposedly the only significant clan) are a majority in only 2 of these regions: North West and Togdheer. They had to sub-divide North West into 2 to come up with 3 regions. Awdal is inhabited by a different clan that produced Somaliland's second president, Dahir Rayale Kahin. The other 2 regions are also inhabited by 2 other clans. Now, granting Somaliland its wishes might potentially trigger the people of Awdal (the 2nd president's clan) to also demand secession from Somaliland. There could also be similar demands from the people living in some of the disputed border regions between Somaliland and Somalia (Puntland). So, while I support their agitation for independence, this might also potentially create problems for the same people of Somaliland. Likewise, the same argument could also be true for many other countries with regions within these countries aspiring to secede.

hammock 8y ago

>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. It's a European tradition, something they practice even on their home continent.

oblio 8y ago
This kind of thing happened everywhere, even in Asia or Africa or other regions.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> it might be in Africa's long term interest to have this happen A common thread in peaceful nations’ origin stories is a historical figure unifying disparate tribes and enforcing (usually by force) a common language, body of law and national identity. This drives internal economies of scale while reducing the tendency for disputes to escalate into violence. Lots of tiny, fragmented African nations isn’t a great outcome for the continent.

gowld 8y ago
Genociding the uncommon language, laws, and identity is too often (usually?) a major factor in that process.

zokier 8y ago

> Perhaps a rethinking of borders would be positive in the long run. Probably yes, but it is very long term, and the short and medium term for such rethinking would be very calamitous, as cataclysms tend to be. Personally I feel like trying to maintain status quo (on a large scale) and instead try to establish more foundational work for now is more prudent