Comment by sdiq | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sdiq | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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.

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.

Ceding territory and authority doesn’t benefit the constituents of the African Union, which are governments of states. Is it actually that surprising?

Prolonged guerilla insurgencies etc typically don't benefit the constituents either (unless you take the viewpoint of them being the crooked type).

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.

> 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.

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

>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.

This kind of thing happened everywhere, even in Asia or Africa or other regions.

> 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

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.

Czechoslovakia seems like a good model.

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.

Yugoslavia looks like a bad one :)

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

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)?

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.

Still, I can't see anyone thinking that the Ethiopian central government had a less firm hold on Eritrea than Mogadishu has on Somaliland.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com