7 ms·

Why? Whether historically right or wrong, Somaliland is officially a part of Somalia. Granting diplomatic recognition to what is essentially a breakaway region

Why? Whether historically right or wrong, Somaliland is officially a part of Somalia. Granting diplomatic recognition to what is essentially a breakaway region seems counterproductive when Somalia is still recovering from decades of civil war.

alexey-salmin 3y ago
> Granting diplomatic recognition to what is essentially a breakaway region seems counterproductive when XXX is still recovering from decades of civil war. This seem to happen fairly often though
resolutebat 3y ago
(British) Somaliland was briefly independent before it chose to join Somalia. I don't see why they can't just choose to leave again.
- DialMarshalls 3y ago
  > (British) Somaliland was briefly independent before it chose to join Somalia. A valid point. The unification of British and Italian Somaliland is itself a controversial topic. > I don't see why they can't just choose to leave again. If it was as simple as separating the two into co-existing countries, then sure Somaliland would have gained international recognition at some point in the last thirty years.
  - mcv 3y ago
    So what's the real reason the international community won't recognise it? What reason do they have to keep it part of Somalia?
- bawolff 3y ago
  Even if it wasn't, regions secede. Its not like the set of countries and borders is permenently fixed and its impossible to make new ones.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    The only universal thing countries seem to agree on is that they’re really really really don’t like to encourage secession.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      They agree they dont like it when it happens to themselves. They typically don't mind when it happens to other countries (see for example the UN's position on self-detrrmination)
- baud147258 3y ago
  I think international institutions are wary of recognizing any breakaway state, because they want to avoid encouraging copycat attempts elsewhere.
  - toyg 3y ago
    Correct. The Wilson Doctrine has never been popular among established powers, for obvious reasons. Every country has some wannabe breakaway group, from Texas to Catalunya, from Scotland to South Tyrol, from Corsica to Bavaria, from Kosovo to Kurdistan etc etc. Some claims are somewhat-justified but many (most?) are not.
knallfrosch 3y ago
Civil war means that you get shot by "your" "government." I guess it's quite normal to want to break away then. And it's only called a "civil war" because the government can't extend its control to the breakway region. So recognizing that region doesn't actually change that much facts on the ground anyway.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  That’s the definition of a failed state, not all civil wars are fought between with break away territories.
- samus 3y ago
  By gettings its independence recognized, a region becomes a subject of international law though. It can become part of the UN and officially enter alliances and such with other states. The civil would become an international matter and can't be declared a purely domestic affair anymore. It becomes vastly more easy to bring money into the region and get an independent economy going. It would have its own exterior politics and officially opens it up to the influence of other countries. The state the region seceded from might not be friendly with some of them.
bawolff 3y ago
I think we should recognize the reality of the situation not what whatever group wants it to be. Does somaliland have independent control of the land they claim? That should be what matters.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  "I think we should recognize the reality of the situation not what whatever group wants it to be." I am not so certain. Do we recognize Crimea or Mariupol as Russian, because they are de facto under Russian control? In case of pure self-determination, which is the case of Somaliland, there may be an exception. But a totally realistic approach gives bad actors one more incentive to conquer their neighbours by force.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    Unpopular opinion, but i kind of think yes. I might not like that russia controls crimea, but wishful thinking isn't going to change that.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      It is not that much about facts on the ground, rather than about diplomatic consequences thereof. Currently, there are sanctions and other punishing measures enacted against Russia because it occupies someone else's territory. Once you say, well, they conquered it, its theirs, there isn't really a reason why not to normalize the relations. It's theirs, end of story. Now this used to be the international norm prior to the Briand and Kellogg pact: might was right and conquered territories were ruled by the right of the conqueror. We would just revert to that previous standard, which was fairly ancient. I would, nevertheless, consider such reversion unwise. It rewards aggression against neighbours and thus increases the likelihood of wars. Combined with current weapons, which are far more destructive than 100 years ago, it is a game with fire where the entire globe is at stake. In a world where might makes right, runaway nuclear proliferation is well possible.
      - 3y ago
boxed 3y ago
They have had a democratic government, and controlled their claimed territory for decades. Longer than East Timor has existed for example. And East Timor broke away from a functioning state, while Somaliland is breaking away from a FAILED state, which cannot militarily control even the non-somaliland parts of its claimed territory.
mcv 3y ago
Why? South Sudan has also been recognised. Why is Somaliland different? From what I understand, it's been operating independently from Somalia for decades and stayed out of the civil war that wrecked Somalia.

alexey-salmin 3y ago

> Granting diplomatic recognition to what is essentially a breakaway region seems counterproductive when XXX is still recovering from decades of civil war. This seem to happen fairly often though

resolutebat 3y ago

(British) Somaliland was briefly independent before it chose to join Somalia. I don't see why they can't just choose to leave again.

DialMarshalls 3y ago
> (British) Somaliland was briefly independent before it chose to join Somalia. A valid point. The unification of British and Italian Somaliland is itself a controversial topic. > I don't see why they can't just choose to leave again. If it was as simple as separating the two into co-existing countries, then sure Somaliland would have gained international recognition at some point in the last thirty years.
- mcv 3y ago
  So what's the real reason the international community won't recognise it? What reason do they have to keep it part of Somalia?
bawolff 3y ago
Even if it wasn't, regions secede. Its not like the set of countries and borders is permenently fixed and its impossible to make new ones.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The only universal thing countries seem to agree on is that they’re really really really don’t like to encourage secession.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    They agree they dont like it when it happens to themselves. They typically don't mind when it happens to other countries (see for example the UN's position on self-detrrmination)
baud147258 3y ago
I think international institutions are wary of recognizing any breakaway state, because they want to avoid encouraging copycat attempts elsewhere.
- toyg 3y ago
  Correct. The Wilson Doctrine has never been popular among established powers, for obvious reasons. Every country has some wannabe breakaway group, from Texas to Catalunya, from Scotland to South Tyrol, from Corsica to Bavaria, from Kosovo to Kurdistan etc etc. Some claims are somewhat-justified but many (most?) are not.

knallfrosch 3y ago

Civil war means that you get shot by "your" "government." I guess it's quite normal to want to break away then. And it's only called a "civil war" because the government can't extend its control to the breakway region. So recognizing that region doesn't actually change that much facts on the ground anyway.

edgyquant 3y ago
That’s the definition of a failed state, not all civil wars are fought between with break away territories.
samus 3y ago
By gettings its independence recognized, a region becomes a subject of international law though. It can become part of the UN and officially enter alliances and such with other states. The civil would become an international matter and can't be declared a purely domestic affair anymore. It becomes vastly more easy to bring money into the region and get an independent economy going. It would have its own exterior politics and officially opens it up to the influence of other countries. The state the region seceded from might not be friendly with some of them.

bawolff 3y ago

I think we should recognize the reality of the situation not what whatever group wants it to be. Does somaliland have independent control of the land they claim? That should be what matters.

inglor_cz 3y ago
"I think we should recognize the reality of the situation not what whatever group wants it to be." I am not so certain. Do we recognize Crimea or Mariupol as Russian, because they are de facto under Russian control? In case of pure self-determination, which is the case of Somaliland, there may be an exception. But a totally realistic approach gives bad actors one more incentive to conquer their neighbours by force.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Unpopular opinion, but i kind of think yes. I might not like that russia controls crimea, but wishful thinking isn't going to change that.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    It is not that much about facts on the ground, rather than about diplomatic consequences thereof. Currently, there are sanctions and other punishing measures enacted against Russia because it occupies someone else's territory. Once you say, well, they conquered it, its theirs, there isn't really a reason why not to normalize the relations. It's theirs, end of story. Now this used to be the international norm prior to the Briand and Kellogg pact: might was right and conquered territories were ruled by the right of the conqueror. We would just revert to that previous standard, which was fairly ancient. I would, nevertheless, consider such reversion unwise. It rewards aggression against neighbours and thus increases the likelihood of wars. Combined with current weapons, which are far more destructive than 100 years ago, it is a game with fire where the entire globe is at stake. In a world where might makes right, runaway nuclear proliferation is well possible.
    - 3y ago

boxed 3y ago

They have had a democratic government, and controlled their claimed territory for decades. Longer than East Timor has existed for example. And East Timor broke away from a functioning state, while Somaliland is breaking away from a FAILED state, which cannot militarily control even the non-somaliland parts of its claimed territory.

mcv 3y ago

Why? South Sudan has also been recognised. Why is Somaliland different? From what I understand, it's been operating independently from Somalia for decades and stayed out of the civil war that wrecked Somalia.