That the international community hasn't recognized Somaliland is a travesty.
From Webster's dictionary, travesty means:
1. a debased, distorted, or grossly inferior imitation (example: "a travesty of justice")
2. a burlesque translation or literary or artistic imitation usually grotesquely incongruous in style, treatment, or subject matter
Anyway, I'm not being pedantic-- I really feel like I'm missing something, since I frequently see it used without any subsequent qualifications, and I never know what it's supposed to mean when it's a standalone word.
This seem to happen fairly often though
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.
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.
Does somaliland have independent control of the land they claim? That should be what matters.
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.
The situations are quite different though. Somaliland is a real functional country in every reasonable definition of the word (unlike Somalia!).
Somaliland is also an established military fact of self determination, not an occupying external force.
East Timor is a much closer and more reasonable comparison.
Even within Russia proper, "we just crushed them with our might and so they are ours" would be unpalatable to the population. Folks must believe in the rightneousness of their Tsar.
I might not like that russia controls crimea, but wishful thinking isn't going to change that.
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.
I mean, i dont know if its worse for the conqouring side to just win the land, but having stuff stay in limbo for decades also seems counterproductive to healing conflicts and moving forward. closure can be beneficial even if its towards a result we don't want.
Ethiopia will stay landlocked, no matter what war criminals like Muse Bihi or Abiye Ahmed desire.