Somaliland is a State: Time to recognise reality…and morality

[Deeq A.]

Somaliland is a State. Not for reasons of morality or aspiration, but merely as a statement of fact. It has its own government, army, tax collection service and currency. Put simply, it runs its own affairs independently. Choosing not to recognise this is as lunatic as failing to recognize any element of reality.

This contrasts sharply with the much feted international recognition of Palestine. Palestine has no borders, currency or ability to enforce tax collection. Most damningly of all, it has no legitimate government. The internationally-recognised PA rules over a mere segment of the claimed territory (basically Ramallah) and does so without democratic legitimacy. No matter how much one may or may not wish for Palestine to attain the status of the State, the pure, unvarnished fact of the matter is that it doesn’t fulfill the necessary criteria.

Similarly and ironically, Somalia itself doesn’t fulfill the criteria of genuine statehood. It is the very exemplar of a non-functioning political entity with no government maintaining control of the entire territory. As is well known , the nominal government is unable to maintain authority over vast swathes of a country that is widely crushed under the tender hands of Islamist terror outfit al-Shabab.

The issue here being raised is that international recognition is a factual – not moral – issue. I don’t much care for the governmental system of Saudi Arabia, but that it is a State is unquestionable; the Al-Saud regime evidently maintains control over the entire territory. It isn’t in the gift of any country to unrecognise Saudi Arabia given its factual, real-world footprint.

Yet the international community treats recognition as an exercise in virtue signaling. Despite “Iraqi” Kurdistan, Taiwan and Somaliland acting like States, they are widely denied that status in international forums. Meanwhile patent non- states from Palestine to Somalia are recognised in an act of fiction worthy of Dickens.

Morality isn’t a criteria of statehood recognition in and of itself, but in the event, the three above listed non-recognised States have a far greater moral claim to statehood than Palestine and Somalia. Somaliland specifically is an imperfect, but functioning, democracy, with opposition parties, regular elections and peaceful transitions of power. This contrasts sharply with the chaos of its southern neighbour. If self-determination genuinely is a factor in recognising statehood then the ability of ordinary citizens to select their own government is surely a manifestation of that principle.

Furthermore, the case for Somaliland self-determination is strengthened by the blood-stained history of (Southern) Somali violence against their former region. The state-sponsored mass killing of the Isaaq clan in then Northern Somalia demonstrates the need for Somaliland protection under the shield of statehood. For surely the right to protect a previously persecuted minority is the most compelling case for international state recognition?

Finally, Somaliland isn’t a breakaway region. It’s a free agent in a recent and mutually agreed union, in much the same way that England and Scotland were joined as one union in 1707 — and thereby have the right to become independent at any time should either so choose.

Somaliland was a British colony, while Somalia was Italian, and just as they chose to join together freely upon independence in 1960, they may legally part with the same ease. The difference between the UK and East African case studies is that the British Union is of far older vintage —and therefore a split would be more emotionally and economically difficult to bring about. The similarity is that the UN obsession with maintaining borders is inapplicable in either case — Somaliland, Scotland and England have the established right to independence without international permission.

The main objection to the recognition of Somaliland is the claim that it will cause instability in the East African region. This statement can best be described as laughable, for Somaliland is, ironically, the only example of stability in an otherwise wretched region. As we speak, Somalia is a hotbed of piracy and Islamist instability, Ethiopia is embroiled in one of the most bloody (and unreported) civil wars in recent times and Eritrea maintains “stability” through mass national enslavement. In such an environment, serene Somaliland is precisely what the Horn of Africa needs.

The second objection has been that Israel’s recognition is in its own interests. This isn’t quite the killer argument that everyone thinks it is because surely every country (bar Starmer’s Britain) acts in their own interests – and so they should. The question in terms of international recognition is whether those narrow national interests align with the greater good of the global order. So whilst America annexing Greenland or Russia invading Estonia would fatally damage international order (and so should be rejected), Anthony Eden fighting to maintain free international shipping on the Suez Canal was an action in Britain’s interests that would also benefit the world. Which is why America’s betrayal of Eden was unforgivable while the world’s condemnation of American/Russian/Chinese annexation plans is entirely justified.

In the same way, having a Somaliland ally on the Bab Al-Mendez Straits would definitely benefit Israel (and the UAE and landlocked Ethiopia), but the question for the rest of us is whether such a move would benefit the international order? Would it benefit India, China, Europe and America – as well as Israel – for the international waters between Yemen and Somaliland to be free from terrorism? Would it stimulate international trade and reduce food prices? Would it improve stability in Suez Canal-dependent Egypt? Would it help in the fight against piracy? Would it enforce a basic principle of international law, namely freedom of the high seas? If the answer to all these questions is yes, then the international community is foolish not to follow Israel’s lead.

So, to summarise:

1. Somaliland statehood is a fact of reality.
2. It has the additional right to liberate itself from a freely-chosen Union.
3. It has the additional right to self-determination on the basis of protecting a minority population from genocide (a universal obligation under international law).
4. It is demonstrating true self-determination through its free, democratic system.
5. International recognition would introduce a stabilising influence in East Africa.
6. Somaliland’s independence will help the fight against the Houthis, enforcing the basic right under international law to freedom of trade from terrorism and piracy. Simply put, it would reinforce the international order.

Finally, as a functioning, stable, non-Islamist, Sunni Muslim-majority State, Somaliland sets a wonderful example to other Muslim (and African) polities, specifically that:

1. Muslim countries are capable of democracy.
2. Muslim countries are capable of freedom.
3. Muslim countries are capable of friendship with a Jewish state.
4. Muslim countries can be sources of stability and human rights.

It’s an inspirational message — and one that would be reinforced through the recognition of an independent, overwhelmingly Muslim Kurdistan.

One can’t help but feel that the only reason that the world (Western, Eastern and Islamic) is against this move is because it has been spearheaded by Israel —and because, once again, it shows that only former British colonies are prepared for sustained democracy. Why else would they oppose something that is beneficial for all? Why else would they oppose a stability in the Bab al-Mendez Straits that would counter inflation, lower food prices, reduce piracy, terrorise terrorism and reinforce international law?

The mind boggles. But, one thing’s for sure: it’s got nothing to do with the territorial integrity of Somalia….!

Source    danielclarkeserret.

 

 

 

Qaran News