Hacker News Reader

Comment by elgenie | Hacker News Reader

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)?

View on HN

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