Connect with us

Opinion

Turkey’s Selective Morality: From the Ruins of Gaza to the Red Sea

Published

on

By Saleban Dahir Abdillahi (Dogox)

As the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza continues to redefine the moral landscape of the 21st century, Turkey has positioned itself as the preeminent defender of Palestinian rights. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has skillfully utilized the global stage to denounce Israeli military actions, invoke the sanctity of international law, and challenge the “double standards” of the West. Yet, beneath this veneer of pan-Islamic solidarity lies a discordant pattern of selective morality, dictated not by justice, but by cold strategic self-interest.

This inconsistency was laid bare following the transformative events of December 26, 2025, when Israel became the first UN member state to formally recognize the Republic of Somaliland. Ankara’s response—a swift condemnation labeling the move as “interference in Somalia’s internal affairs”—reveals a profound contradiction. While Turkey preserves its right to maintain a complex, multi-layered relationship with Tel Aviv, it simultaneously denies the same diplomatic agency to Somaliland, a nation that has maintained democratic stability for over three decades.

The Pragmatism of Trade vs. The Rhetoric of Resistance

Turkey’s rhetorical support for Gaza is unmatched in its theatrical intensity, yet the material reality suggests a “managed recalibration” rather than a clean moral break. Despite the official trade suspension announced in May 2024, data from 2025 indicates that Turkish exports to Israel persisted via third-party channels, reaching nearly $394 million in the first half of the year alone.

For observers in Hargeisa, the takeaway is clear: Ankara views its own relationship with Israel through the lens of “strategic necessity” while framing Somaliland’s diplomatic outreach as an ideological betrayal. This widening gap between Ankara’s populist anti-Israel posturing and its continued economic pragmatism suggests that Palestinian solidarity has become a tool for domestic signaling rather than a consistent foreign policy priority.

The Spaceport and the Patronage of Mogadishu

Turkey’s role in Somalia is often presented as a model of altruistic Muslim solidarity. In practice, however, the relationship increasingly resembles a traditional patronage system designed to project Turkish power into the Indian Ocean. In January 2026, Turkey officially broke ground on its Somali Spaceport—an equatorial launch facility in the Jamaame region designed to grant Ankara independent access to orbit.

This deepening military-industrial entanglement explains Ankara’s hostility toward Somaliland’s developmental gains. Turkey does not merely seek the “unity” of Somalia; it seeks a monopoly of influence over the western shores of the Red Sea. When Turkey condemns the “destabilizing” nature of Israeli recognition for Somaliland, it conveniently ignores that its own expansion—including the massive TURKSOM military base and now a strategic spaceport—is equally transformative for the regional security architecture.

The Kurdish Mirror and Moral Credibility

Turkey’s claim to moral leadership is further eroded by its domestic record. The systematic repression of Kurdish political movements and ongoing military operations in northern Syria and Iraq contrast sharply with Ankara’s defense of self-determination in Gaza. A government that denies fundamental rights to millions of its own citizens struggles to present itself as a global champion of justice. This “Kurdish mirror” suggests that Turkey supports statehood and human rights only when they serve its specific geopolitical ambitions.

Asserting Somaliland’s Sovereign Narrative

In the wake of the December 26 recognition and the subsequent January 6, 2026, visit of Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar to Hargeisa, Somaliland must shift its diplomatic posture from seeking “permission” to asserting its restorative sovereignty. To counter Ankara’s selective morality, Somaliland should adopt a three-pillar strategy:

The 1960 Successor State: Hargeisa must emphasize that its recognition is not a “secessionist” act, but the restoration of its 1960 status as a sovereign state. By anchoring legitimacy in its original colonial borders, Somaliland aligns with the African Union’s own Charter regarding the sanctity of borders inherited at independence.

Sovereign Reciprocity: Somaliland should formally review the operations of Turkish-affiliated offices and cultural councils, such as the Maarif Foundation. If Ankara continues to leverage its Mogadishu-based projects to undermine Somaliland’s interests, Hargeisa is justified in re-evaluating the presence of Turkish entities within its borders.

Diplomatic Equality: Somaliland must demand that all international actors—including Turkey—interact through formal sovereign protocols. The era of “shadow diplomacy” is over; Hargeisa has demonstrated it is the only reliable, democratic partner in a volatile region.

Conclusion

Turkey’s reaction to Somaliland’s recognition reveals a broader pattern of control and contradiction. While Ankara speaks the language of justice, its actions—from its indirect trade with Israel to its spaceport in Jamaame—tell a story of calculated strategic gain. For Somaliland, the challenge is to assert its agency with the confidence of a state that has earned its place in the world. For Turkey, the question is more fundamental: can moral leadership truly be claimed when it is applied so selectively?

By Saleban Dahir Abdillahi (Dogox)

Opinion

Shared Scars: The Parallel Existential Struggles of Israel and Somaliland.

Published

on

The histories of Israel and Somaliland are etched with the profound trauma of genocide and defined by a continuous struggle for survival against hostile neighbors. Though separated by geography and culture, their historical converge on a stark common ground: both are nations forged in the fires of catastrophic violence, fighting for their very existence against adversaries dedicated to their erasure.

The Shadow of Genocide:

For both peoples, the term “genocide” is not an abstract historical concept but a lived, painful reality that shapes their national identity and geopolitical posture.

Israel and the Holocaust:

The foundation of modern Israel is inextricably linked to the Holocaust, the systematic murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. This unparalleled catastrophe demonstrated the existential vulnerability of the Jewish people without a sovereign state, a core motivation for Israel’s establishment and  reclaiming the homeland of their ancestors with the determination to ensure “never again.”

Somaliland and the Isaaq Genocide:

Between 1987 and 1989, the regime of Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre perpetrated a systematic campaign of annihilation against the Isaaq clan, the majority population of Somaliland. This campaign, officially recognized as a genocide by a United Nations investigation, included the near-total destruction of major cities. Hargeisa, Somaliland’s capital, was approximately 90% destroyed, leading to its grim nickname, “the Dresden of Africa”. The violence was executed with brutal efficiency, involving indiscriminate aerial bombardments. Notably, the Somali regime employed foreign mercenaries, including South African mercenary pilots who conducted airstrikes against civilian areas.

The regime’s propaganda of dehumanising the Isaaq people, labeling them as Jewish with derogatory epithets to justify their extermination.

The Perpetual Threat of Hostile Neighbours:

The trauma of genocide is compounded by an ongoing, fundamental conflict with neighboring entities that reject their right to exist.

Israel’s Regional Adversaries:

Israel’s primary conflict is with Hamas, which is formally dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Hamas launched a large-scale attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 firing thousands of rockets and sending fighters into Israeli towns, killing civilians and soldiers and taking hostages. This conflict is embedded within a broader regional confrontation with state and non-state actors, many backed by Iran, which also openly seeks to eliminate the Jewish state. This includes persistent threats from Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

Somaliland’s Struggle with Somalia:

Since restoring independence in 1991, Somaliland’s most pressing existential threat is the Federal Republic of Somalia and their Alshabab cohort. These entities are unreasonably against somaliland’s restoration of  sovereignty in 1991. Mogadishu wages a relentless diplomatic and, at times, military campaign to undermine Somaliland’s sovereignty. This includes supporting proxy forces within Somaliland’s borders. The Las Anod conflict in 2023 is a prime example, where Somali-backed SSC-Khatumo forces fought against the Somaliland National Army.  Mogadishu is constantly fuelling internal strife in Somaliland by providing military hardware to minority clans, viewing it as a strategy to destabilize the breakaway region.

Facing New Existential Fears:

The struggle for recognition and security is a daily reality, with recent developments exacerbating these fears.

For Somaliland, the prospect of a renewed large-scale conflict is a palpable fear. These anxieties were heightened in early 2026 when Somalia’s Defence Minister, Ahmed Moalim Fiqi, appealed to Arab nations, Turkey and Egypt , “especially Saudi Arabia,” to take action against Somaliland’s leadership. While Fiqi’s public comments focused on opposing Somaliland’s independence and its relations with Israel, his rhetoric—calling for international pressure and drawing parallels to other regional conflicts—is interpreted in Hargeisa as a direct threat to its survival, stirring memories of past genocide.

Conclusion: An Unending Fight for Existence

Israel and Somaliland, though vastly different in scale and international standing, are bound by a shared historical arc of suffering and resilience. The Holocaust and the Isaaq genocide are foundational tragedies that inform their unwavering focus on self-preservation. Today, both navigate a complex and hostile regional environment where neighboring powers fundamentally challenge their legitimacy. For Israel, the threats are well-documented and widely recognized. For Somaliland, the fight is for the world to acknowledge its historical trauma and its ongoing battle for survival against a neighbor that once sought to eliminate it and continues to deny its right to exist. Their stories are a sobering reminder of how the scars of genocide shape a nation’s destiny and its perpetual struggle for a secure future.

Mo Saeed

Somaliland legal research (SLR)

Continue Reading

Opinion

Diplomatic Recognition and the Weight of Legal History: Re-examining the Case for Somaliland

Published

on

A critical examination exposes not only the weakness of the arguments against Somaliland but also how major powers like Turkey are leveraging a weakened Somalia to enforce a strategic deadlock that contradicts legal history and regional stability.

The Legal Vacuum at the Heart of the Union

The debate is not merely political but rests on a foundational legal question: was the 1960 union lawful.

Evidence shows it was not, making Somaliland’s re-emergence a restoration of sovereignty, not an act of secession.

Following independence on June 26, 1960, the State of Somaliland passed “The Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law” to formalize the merger with the soon-to-be-independent Somalia. The plan was for an identical international treaty to be signed by both sovereign states.

However, the southern legislature in Mogadishu did not ratify this document. On June 30, 1960, it approved an Act of Union “in principle” but requested the governments “establish a definitive single text” for later approval. This definitive, mutually-signed treaty was never created. Legal scholar Paolo Contini concluded that “the Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law did not have any legal validity in the South,” and the “in principle” approval was “not sufficient to make it legally binding”. Subsequent attempts to formalize the union retroactively in 1961 could not erase this initial legal defect.

The distinction between “restoration” and “secession” is fundamental to understanding the dispute:

Basis of Claim

Restoration of Sovereignty (Somaliland’s Argument)

Secession / Breakaway (Opponents’ Framing)

Legal Foundation

Reassertion of a pre-existing, independently achieved sovereign status.

Attempt to carve a new state from an existing, sovereign nation.

Key Event (1960)

A voluntary union based on a defective, non-ratified treaty that failed to legally extinguish sovereignty.

A completed political merger creating a new, singular sovereign entity (the Somali Republic).

International Law

Argues state continuity was merely interrupted, not terminated.

Violates the principle of territorial integrity (uti possidetis juris) of the post-1960 Somalia.

This unresolved legal ambiguity is central to Somaliland’s case for international recognition. Its 1991 declaration was not a bid for novelty but a return to a sovereign status that, it argues, was never lawfully surrendered.

Turkey’s Strategic Calculus: Acting as Guarantor While Exploiting Vulnerability

Turkey’s vehement opposition to Somaliland’s recognition must be scrutinized beyond diplomatic solidarity. 

Since 2011, Turkey has embedded itself as Somalia’s foremost external patron, providing over $1 billion in humanitarian aid, building its largest global embassy in Mogadishu, and operating a major military base that has trained thousands of Somali troops. This positions Turkey as Somalia’s de facto security guarantor, a role solidified by a 2024 defense pact where Turkey agreed to rebuild and train the Somali Navy in exchange for 30% of maritime resource revenue. Turkey has also mediated critical disputes for Mogadishu, such as the 2024 agreement with Ethiopia.

However, this guarantor role operates alongside deep economic investments that critics argue amount to exploitation of a fragile state. Turkish companies hold critical infrastructure contracts, including the management of Mogadishu’s airport and seaport. A plan is underway for Turkish Airlines to take a strategic stake in Somali Airlines and build a $1 billion “New Mogadishu International Airport”. Furthermore, a confidential energy deal grants Turkey rights to explore and potentially extract Somalia’s offshore oil and gas reserves. This creates a pattern where strategic influence is converted into long-term economic control over Somalia’s key assets.

This deep involvement unfolds against a dire humanitarian backdrop in Somalia, marked by conflict, climate shocks, and severe funding cuts. Projections indicate nearly half of all Somali children under five could face acute malnutrition by mid-2026. The stark contrast between high-level security and infrastructure deals and the suffering of Somalia’s population fuels allegations that external powers are prioritizing strategic and resource competition over the welfare of the Somali people. Critics view Turkey’s policy as exploiting Somalia’s weakness—its need for a security guarantor against internal and external threats—to secure preferential access to resources and geopolitical influence, all while publicly championing Mogadishu’s sovereignty to block Somaliland’s recognition.

Conclusion: Toward a Principles-Based Diplomacy.

The diplomatic storm over Somaliland’s recognition is a clash between historical legal fact, contemporary humanitarian need, and raw political expediency. Dismissing Somaliland’s claim requires ignoring the documented legal failures of its 1960 union with Somalia. Meanwhile, the opposition from powers like Turkey, while framed as protection of sovereignty, often serves to consolidate their own influence within a dependent Mogadishu, even as the basic needs of Somalia’s population go unmet.

A truly principled approach would require the international community to engage seriously with Somaliland’s substantive historical and legal case, separate from the geopolitical gamesmanship of external powers. It would also demand that those acting as guarantors for Somalia be held accountable for aligning their security and economic engagements with the urgent humanitarian needs of the Somali people. The alternative—upholding a fictional unity while states jockey for resources amidst widespread suffering—serves only the interests of those who profit from sustained ambiguity and continued crisis in the Horn of Africa.

Mo Saeed

Somaliland legal research (SLR)

Continue Reading

Opinion

When Envy Becomes a Disease: Somalia’s Sick Obsession with Somaliland

Published

on

If you ever wondered why Somalia remains arguably the worst-governed country on Earth after 30 years of turmoil, look no further than the leaders who have run the show for the past two decades. It’s no secret—Somalia’s political class is suffering from a mental disorder that might best be called the “Somaliland Syndrome.”

This affliction manifests as an obsessive, pathological envy of Somaliland’s success, coupled with an absolute inability to replicate any of it.

While Somaliland quietly builds peace, stable governance, and economic progress, Somalia’s leaders appear trapped in a delusional loop, fixated on erasing Somaliland rather than improving their own failed system. Their diagnosis? “Somaliland is the disease. If only we could destroy it, everything would be fine.” Reality? Somaliland’s stability is the cure Somalia desperately needs.

This sickness explains a lot: rampant corruption, terrorist infiltration, foreign puppeteering, and endless power struggles are just symptoms.

The Somali state’s leadership—most glaringly the Himilo Qaran political party led by former President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed—is the textbook case.

Here you have a man once tied to the Islamic Courts Union and arguably the spiritual father of Al-Shabaab, now championing national unity and elections. The irony could not be thicker.

How can a leader with “Somaliland Syndrome”—who spends more time fixating on Somaliland republic that has nothing to do with him—preside over a system so thoroughly entwined with terrorist groups and corruption? It’s like a sick man lecturing the healthy on how to run a marathon.

The recent clashes in Gedo—where the federal government’s forces face off with Jubbaland militias—highlight this dysfunction.

Himilo Qaran shamelessly blames Mogadishu for “escalating” violence, yet fails to acknowledge that the very government it opposes is the only entity attempting to assert order over a fractured state. Instead, it warns of “enemies approaching Mogadishu,” as if Somalia’s greatest enemy isn’t internal chaos and kleptocracy.

And who is behind these “enemies”? The party’s leadership has long been entangled with forces that either flirt with or actively support militant Islamism. It’s no surprise they decry federal military deployments as “political,” while using rhetoric that fans division.

Somalia’s government, meanwhile, accuses Jubbaland leader Ahmed Madobe of launching “criminal attacks” to resist federal authority. This tit-for-tat violence reflects a failed system where regional warlords operate as de facto rulers, and central governance is a fragile illusion.

So while Somaliland invests in governance, infrastructure, and diplomacy, Somalia remains mired in “Somaliland Syndrome,” a deadly cocktail of denial, envy, and self-destruction. The rest of the world watches, bemused and horrified, as Somalia’s political class preaches about elections while their country falls apart.

The bitter truth is that Somalia’s political sickness will only be cured by acknowledging Somaliland’s success—not by vilifying it. Until then, expect more chaos, more terrorism, and more tragic irony from a leadership too sick to heal their own nation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect WARYATV’s editorial stance.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Djibouti: The Small Nation Carrying Global Weight

Published

on

Continue Reading

Opinion

In the Horn of Africa, Unity Offers Power, Division Risks Peril

Published

on

More than 3.4 billion people worldwide now live in countries that spend more on interest payments than on health. For the Horn of Africa, the arithmetic of survival tilts heavily toward integration over isolation. The deficit of trust across the region often suffocates collective action. Young people, unconvinced that tomorrow will be better, vote with their feet, crossing borders or seas in search of opportunities that home economies cannot yet provide.

The Horn of Africa has reached a hinge moment in a turbulent century. Pandemics, climate shocks, financial tremors, and geopolitical rivalries are rearranging global power, forcing countries to decide whether to hunker down behind borders or ride out the storm together.

For the Horn, the question is haunting. The refrain, whether to retreat behind borders while each country fends for itself, echoes from highlands to coasts. Isolation can soothe short-term fears; however, partnership is now the objective measure of strength. Regional integration is no longer a lofty dream. It is the complex calculus of survival.

Alarmingly, the costs of fragmentation are already visible. Border frictions delay trucks and convoys, adding days to delivery times and scaring off investors. Regulatory mismatches snarl digital start-ups and block power grids from linking. A deficit of trust suffocates collective action, while young people, unconvinced that tomorrow will be better than today, leave to seek opportunities abroad.

Nonetheless, most damaging is the disunity that turns the Horn of Africa into a strategic chessboard on which outside powers manoeuvre, each move widening the region’s fault lines. No state, however large or resource-rich, can flourish for long in such an environment.

Djibouti has chosen a different path. Its leaders insist on openness, dialogue, and connection. More than a logistics platform, Djibouti aspires to be a catalyst for cooperation, hosting peace talks, laying fibre-optic cables, and keeping its ports open to all.

If the geography of the Red Sea lanes, shared watersheds, and cross-border pastoral routes ties the Horn of Africa together, then political will can turn geography from a curse into a blessing.

The Horn of Africa is not condemned to crisis. It possesses the raw materials to become a laboratory of African solutions to Africa’s problems and a driver of shared prosperity. Ports can serve entire corridors, not just one flag. Peace can rest on dialogue, not fear. National pride can bind people together instead of driving them apart.

The region is not a powder keg. It can be a collective powerhouse if we choose unity.

Imagine a region powered by pooled energy grids, stitched together by seamless roads and rail, and wired through interoperable digital platforms. Envision supply chains that shrug off climate shocks because farmers, traders, and relief agencies coordinate forecasts, seeds, and storage. Imagine a workforce of young women and men who swap ideas instead of arms.

Indeed, such a future is attainable, but only if firm foundations are laid. There should be leadership that breaks cycles of grievance and institutions trusted to mediate disputes. Regular forums, such as councils, joint commissions, and early-warning systems, that replace rumour with facts should be encouraged. While joint investment in public goods, such as infrastructure, innovation, and climate resilience, needs to be reinforced, the most elusive aspect, a culture of trust, should be built patiently, transaction by transaction, election by election, and deal by deal.

Sovereignty and solidarity need not collide. When interdependence is managed, bridges guard national interests better than walls can.

Djibouti’s claim to neutrality should be viewed as a responsibility, not an indifference. Three pillars support it.

It originates from an exceptional geography, serving as a gateway that links Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Its diplomatic credibility is earned by outreach to every camp without surrendering judgment. It has an enduring stability, upheld by institutions that facilitate political dialogue and provide predictable governance.

The African Union (AU), IGAD, the Arab League, the United Nations (UN), and global partners acknowledge these endowments. Djibouti, however, recognises that credibility erodes if it rests on inertia. Djibouti wants, and can go further, not on the ways of competition, but contribution and cooperation.

Its leaders outline three initiatives to match these pillars with action. The Arta Centre for Regional Mediation & Peace would train mediators, advance strategic research, and weave elders, youth, and women into peacemaking. An Annual Forum on Security, Peace, & Cooperation in the Horn of Africa, a Davos for Peace, so to say, would gather leaders, businesses, civil society, scholars, and mediators to compare notes before crises mature.

Lastly, a set of neutral trilateral diplomacy mechanisms would provide off-ramps from binary confrontations, thereby lowering the temperature of regional disputes before they escalate.

This agenda is based on the principles of neutrality as a duty, stability as a regional public good, and African solutions to African challenges. As global multilateralism wanes, principled regional leadership becomes increasingly vital. Djibouti’s vocation is to connect, convene, and integrate, never to dominate.

There is no concealed agenda here, only a sincere desire to build a community of shared destiny.

Much of this outlook bears the imprint of President Ismail Omar Guelleh, hailed at home and abroad as a charismatic statesman whose lifelong dedication blends wisdom, foresight, and an unwavering commitment to regional peace. For more than two decades, he has steered Djibouti through the Horn of Africa’s minefields, betting consistently on dialogue over discord and integration over isolation.

Neighbours in search of mediators often arrive in Djibouti City first, confident they will find a steady hand and a discreet ear.

The moment, though, belongs not to any single leader but to the region’s citizens. They should offer a clear wager. Those who invest in peace, dialogue, and shared prosperity are most welcome. Profiteers from mistrust should not be.

Unity should no longer be a slogan but the only viable security policy. The Horn of Africa’s future will be decided by those willing to trade suspicion for cooperation. The choice, therefore, is urgent, and still ours to make.

Ilyas M. Dawaleh
Minister Of Economy & Finance,in Charge of Industry, Republic of Djibouti. Secretary General of RPP
@Ilyasdawaleh

Continue Reading

Opinion

Somaliland could be a powerful friend: It’s time for Britain to recognise that

Published

on

The time to recognise Somaliland is now, and Britain is the right country to do it first

Portrait 13 e1755733474553

Sir Gavin Williamson

MP for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge

Imagine a country that saw its early years tainted by war and genocide. Imagine a country that has received almost no foreign aid and operates on a budget of £250 million.

Imagine a country that, despite these setbacks, has held six democratic elections in the last 35 years and has established a level of stability its neighbours could only dream of. That country is Somaliland.

Somaliland is the poster child for everything Britain encourages its partners to be. It is democratic, it is stable, and it stands on its own two feet. It has also proven its worth as a capable ally in the fight against terrorism and piracy. And yet, as it marks 65 years since Britain granted its independence, we still haven’t recognised it as separate from Somalia.

This is all the more puzzling given that the two states could not be more different from each other. While Somaliland has established itself as an oasis of stability and security, Somalia has taken somewhat of a different path. Not content with being a haven for pirates and members of al-Shabaab, Somalia is also home to a dictator who upholds basic human rights with the same diligence as Vladimir Putin.

Meanwhile, Britain gives this dire state of affairs the diplomatic “thumbs up” by funnelling hundreds of millions of pounds into Somalia and refusing to recognise Somaliland as a separate nation. Even the most sympathetic of observers would struggle to see how the Foreign Secretary can call this policy either “progressive” or “realistic”.

But the case for recognising Somaliland is not just a moral one. At a time when budgets across Whitehall are being stretched and development funding is being slashed, recognising Somaliland is a policy that would give Britain bang for its buck.

Unlike its neighbour, Somaliland is open for British business. Its crown jewel is the Port of Berbera, which looks out onto the Gulf of Aden and offers a front-row seat to some of the world’s busiest shipping routes. The state also has vast untapped oil and gas reserves, which have already attracted the interest of several British companies.

The country’s economic and strategic significance has not gone unnoticed to the likes of China and Russia, the former of which has poured money into neighbouring Ethiopia. However, in a sign of defiance to Beijing’s debt-trap diplomacy, Somaliland chose to recognise Taiwan and established itself as a counterbalance to Chinese influence in the Horn of Africa. It is utterly baffling that we continue to turn our back on such a ready and willing ally in one of the most geopolitically pivotal regions.

While Britain falls asleep at the wheel, attitudes in Washington DC are changing fast, and whispers of Trump moving to recognise Somaliland grow louder each day. But unlike our friends across the pond, our ties run deeper than contemporary geopolitics.

Whether it is the Somalilanders who sailed on British ships before forming a diaspora in port cities such as Liverpool, or those who fought side by side with British troops in the World Wars, their past is also our past. Bound by this shared history, it would be a shame for Britain to play second fiddle to the US in the story of Somaliland’s independence.

The time to recognise Somaliland is now, and Britain is the right country to do it first. In a world that is more volatile than it was yesterday, Britain needs all the partners it can get. And an independent, recognised Somaliland would be more than a partner – it would be a friend.

UK MP Accuses Somalia of Supporting Terrorism, Calls for Somaliland Recognition

Gavin Williamson’s Call for Somaliland Recognition and the Geopolitical Implications

Gavin Williamson: Trump Administration Signals Possible Recognition of Somaliland

Is Somaliland Being Played by the British?

UK Strengthens Ties with Somaliland to Combat Al-Shabaab Threats

MP Alexander Stafford Exposes: Somaliland Recognition on the Horizon

Continue Reading

Opinion

Should Trump Administration Formally Recognize Somaliland?

Published

on

By Arthur C. Schaper

President Trump ran for office to Make America Great Again. He wanted our borders respected, our language restored, and our culture reinvigorated. He is accomplishing all three at breakneck speed. Even his foreign policy forays are working in the United States’ best interests.

Peace in the Middle East, fighting for every chance to bring peace to the Russia-Ukraine war, and weakening China’s globalism are big wins for America. Speaking of borders, language, and culture, President Trump has another chance to make history: eliminate pirate forces, undermine Islamic fundamentalism, and establish his bona fides as a peace-maker, a deal-maker, and a nation-builder who doesn’t send young American men to die in pointless wars. This potential diplomatic measure wouldn’t cost him anything but a simple declaration.

President Trump, it’s time to recognize Somaliland as a separate, sovereign country from Somalia.

Somaliland, judging by the name, has close kinship with Somalia. The failed state, home to vile modern-day pirates who have waged war on tourists and shipping lanes alike, has stifled efforts for their northern neighbors to break away officially and obtain the rights reserved among all other nations in the world. And yet, Somaliland, for all intents and purposes, is its own country.

First, some background.

Somaliland existed as a British protectorate until 1960, when it was granted freedom from the mother country. The French Somali region also won independence and became Djibouti. The Italians controlled the southern section of the Eastern Horn of Africa, which became a free Somalia following caretaker status under the United Nations.

The former British and Italian dominions joined together in 1960, but Somaliland (in the northwestern section) was getting the short end of an already short stick under the dictatorship of Mohamed Siad Barre. Civil war broke out (and hasn’t ended!), and Somaliland broke away in 1991.

For over thirty years, Somaliland has existed as a quasi-independent state. They have their own government, currency, and military. Unlike their failed state neighbors, Somaliland has retained considerable order and stability. The country has enjoyed ethical elections and peaceful transitions of power. They have forged strong relationships with the United States and the United Kingdom. They are growing their relationships with other African states, including Ethiopia.

They just don’t have official status … yet.

President Trump needs to take the lead on this and recognize Somaliland as an official country.

This move has a number of benefits for the United States, somewhat mirroring the wins for the United States following the brokerage of peace agreements with Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo:

President Trump would assert American influence and dominance in the region. Global power players insist on playing timid, despite the great power and authority granted to them by their voters or the power structures in their respective countries.

Trump has not been afraid to think big, ask bigger, and get the biggest deal possible to benefit the United States. Stepping in and asserting the will and interest of a local people group to their own nation will bolster America’s resurgence on the world stage. Supporting a stable region by offering it official recognition will help stem the migrant crisis overwhelming Europe and the United States.

Instead of dishonoring failed states or pushing away the rising tides of teeming masses, why not provide support to breakaway regions which can run their affairs without too much trouble, and provide those regions as alternative refugee destinations? President Trump is deporting illegal aliens to South Sudan. He could work out a deal with Somaliland to receive them, too.

Supporting the creation of an independent Somaliland would press the rest of the Eastern Horn of Africa to get its act together. If Somalia won’t take the hint to get its act together, the United States could abandon its dubious military standing in Somalia and invest its military operations in the new country.

Trump’s move would further destabilize Islamic militancy in the region. Rebel groups are still frustrating.

As an added bonus, recognizing Somaliland would irritate Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia) and her fellow progressive “anti-colonialist” adherents, who has pledged to stop further independence efforts from the breakaway region.

There are some concerns from national leaders and power brokers in Africa and throughout the rest of the world. If President Trump recognizes this separated region, how will the other separatist groups in Africa, Europe, and elsewhere respond? They will start clamoring for recognition, fire up their military operations, and engage in more subversive tactics to undermine their home countries. Recognizing one stable region could lead to more instability?

Trump and other nations can navigate these concerns fairly easily. Somaliland has already established much of the key infrastructure needed for any country to stand on its own.

Somaliland is an independent state, in contrast to the relentless dysfunction and destruction of the Republic of Somalia. Many breakaway militias and separatist groups in other regions around the world do not have similar infrastructures in place. Aside from diligent partisans who hold meetings dreaming of their own separate country, the widespread separatist groups don’t have anything else in place.

Trump could ally all fears by saying to other regions clamoring for independent recognition (Catalonia, Eastern Ukraine, Gaza, and Judea and Samaria): “When you can build yourself up to be an independent state like Somaliland (with currency, military, and stable elections) in all but official recognition, give us a call.” If Trump makes the Somaliland announcement this year, thirty-four years will have passed since the region broke away from Somalia as a whole.

Trump could joke that other budding nations should take the same length of time!

Nation-building can work in our favor if it doesn’t cost us anything. This opportunity is too good to pass up, and President Biden refused to take advantage of something so easy to accomplish. Of course, no one respected him (not even his own staff, who did most of the governing). President Trump needs to step out and help establish the self-rule of this region.

Arthur C. Schaper is a blogger, writer, and commentator on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance.

Continue Reading

Maritime Security

Somaliland’s Maritime Awakening in the Gulf of Aden

Published

on

Securing the Gulf of Aden: Somaliland’s Strategic Maritime Role.

As global maritime chokepoints grow increasingly volatile, Somaliland—a quiet but stable actor along the Gulf of Aden—stands at the threshold of regional leadership in maritime security. With piracy, illicit trafficking, and sabotage returning to regional waters, the time for Somaliland to rise as a maritime guardian is now.

Somaliland controls a critical stretch of the Gulf, where over 20,000 commercial vessels pass annually. Unlike neighboring states mired in instability, Somaliland’s democratic governance and functional institutions position it uniquely to lead on security. But leadership requires strategy.

A Somaliland Maritime Security Strategy would focus on four pillars: regional coordination, advanced surveillance, a national maritime policy, and international engagement. Satellite tracking, drone monitoring, legal reform, and multinational exercises are no longer optional—they’re essential.

The world cannot afford to overlook this under-recognized actor. Somaliland’s role in securing sea lanes can deliver ripple effects far beyond its shores—from reducing insurance costs for global shippers to deterring terrorist threats along the Horn of Africa.

In the era of asymmetric threats, Somaliland’s emergence as a maritime power may be the stabilizing force the region urgently needs.

By Mahad Ahmed
Independent Maritime Security Advisor, Hargeisa, Somaliland
📧 mahaddayr@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Most Viewed

error: Content is protected !!