Introduction
The question of Somaliland’s recognition remains one of the most complex and underexplored issues in contemporary international relations. Declared independent from Somalia in 1991 following the collapse of the Siad Barre regime, Somaliland has since functioned as a de facto state with its own government, constitution, currency, security forces, and regular elections. Yet, more than three decades later, it remains unrecognised by the international community.
What makes the issue even more intricate is the internal division within Somaliland itself—political, clan-based, territorial, and strategic—which complicates the debate over recognition. As an International Relations analyst, it is impossible to examine Somaliland solely through the lens of legal independence; one must also consider its internal cohesion, regional dynamics, and global political calculations.
This article explores the idea of recognising a divided Somaliland, analysing the political landscape, relevant case studies, theoretical perspectives, and the implications for regional and international order. It argues that recognition is not merely a legal act, but a deeply political decision shaped by power, stability, and precedent.
Understanding the Landscape
Somaliland occupies the northwestern part of the internationally recognised Federal Republic of Somalia. Historically, it was the British Somaliland Protectorate, which briefly gained independence in June 1960 before voluntarily uniting with the former Italian Somalia. The union, however, proved fragile and increasingly contested, culminating in civil war and Somaliland’s unilateral declaration of independence in 1991.
Internal Divisions
Despite its reputation for relative stability, Somaliland is not monolithic. Several forms of division shape its internal politics:
-
Clan Dynamics – While Somaliland has successfully integrated clan elders into governance through the Guurti (House of Elders), unresolved grievances remain, particularly in eastern regions.
-
Territorial Disputes – Areas such as Sool, Sanaag, and Cayn are contested between Somaliland and Puntland, undermining claims of clear territorial control.
-
Political Fragmentation – Electoral delays, leadership disputes, and opposition-government tensions periodically challenge democratic credibility.
-
Public Opinion – While independence enjoys broad support, opinions diverge on how recognition should be pursued and at what cost.
These internal fractures raise a critical question: can a state be recognised internationally while struggling to consolidate unity at home?
Case Studies
Somaliland vs. Somalia
Unlike Somalia, which has relied heavily on international peacekeeping and external support, Somaliland rebuilt its institutions largely from the ground up. This contrast has often been cited as evidence of Somaliland’s readiness for recognition. However, Somalia’s continued international recognition reflects global prioritisation of territorial integrity over effectiveness.
Kosovo
Kosovo’s recognition following its separation from Serbia is often invoked by Somaliland advocates. Kosovo gained recognition from many Western states despite opposition from Serbia and its allies. However, Kosovo benefited from strong geopolitical backing, NATO intervention, and UN administration—conditions absent in Somaliland’s case.
South Sudan
South Sudan’s rapid recognition in 2011 demonstrates that international endorsement does not guarantee long-term stability. The state descended into civil war shortly after independence, serving as a cautionary example for those arguing that recognition alone solves governance challenges.
Taiwan (De Facto Statehood)
Like Somaliland, Taiwan operates as a functional state without universal recognition. This model suggests that international engagement short of formal recognition can still deliver economic and political benefits.
Implications and Consequences
Regional Stability
Recognising Somaliland could redraw political dynamics in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia, Djibouti, and the Red Sea corridor all have strategic interests tied to Somaliland’s ports and security arrangements. Recognition might strengthen regional trade but also provoke tensions with Somalia and its allies.
Precedent Setting
One of the primary concerns for international actors is precedent. Recognition could embolden other secessionist movements across Africa, challenging the African Union’s long-standing principle of respecting colonial borders.
Security Considerations
Somaliland has been relatively successful in countering piracy and extremism. Formal recognition could enhance its capacity to cooperate with international security frameworks. Conversely, it could also become a new arena for proxy competition among global powers.
Economic Impact
Recognition could unlock international financing, development aid, and foreign investment. However, without internal cohesion, these benefits may be unevenly distributed, deepening internal divisions.
Theoretical Analysis
Realism
From a realist perspective, states act based on national interest rather than moral arguments. Somaliland’s lack of recognition reflects limited strategic value to major powers compared to maintaining relations with Somalia. Until recognition serves the interests of powerful states, legal arguments alone are insufficient.
Liberal Institutionalism
Liberals emphasise governance, democracy, and institutions. Somaliland performs relatively well by these standards, strengthening its normative claim to recognition. However, institutional legitimacy must be matched by inclusivity and territorial control.
Constructivism
Constructivist theory highlights identity and norms. Somaliland has cultivated a distinct national identity separate from Somalia. Yet, international norms still favour existing states, shaping how Somaliland’s identity is perceived globally.
Post-Colonial Theory
From a post-colonial lens, Somaliland challenges the arbitrary borders imposed by colonialism. Its claim is not about redrawing borders but restoring a previously independent entity—an argument that resonates but remains politically sensitive.
The Role of International Organizations
African Union (AU)
The AU has taken a cautious stance, acknowledging Somaliland’s stability while refusing recognition. Its fear of encouraging secession elsewhere continues to dominate policy.
United Nations
The UN recognises Somalia’s sovereignty, limiting Somaliland’s international space. However, UN agencies operate in Somaliland, creating a paradox of practical engagement without political recognition.
IGAD and Regional Bodies
Regional organisations increasingly engage Somaliland on trade, security, and migration. These interactions suggest a gradual shift toward functional recognition.
International Financial Institutions
Lack of recognition restricts Somaliland’s access to loans and grants, forcing reliance on remittances and limited bilateral support.
Strategies
Incremental Recognition
Rather than immediate full recognition, Somaliland could pursue incremental legitimacy—expanded diplomatic offices, trade agreements, and security partnerships.
Internal Consolidation
Resolving territorial disputes and enhancing political inclusivity would strengthen Somaliland’s case more than external lobbying alone.
Strategic Partnerships
Deepening ties with neighbouring states and emerging powers could alter the cost-benefit calculation for recognition.
Narrative Reframing
Positioning Somaliland not as a secessionist threat but as a stabilising partner in a volatile region may resonate with international stakeholders.
Engagement with Somalia
Dialogue with Somalia, even without agreement, demonstrates commitment to peaceful resolution and responsible statehood.
Conclusion and Summary
Recognising divided Somaliland is not a simple legal decision; it is a political, strategic, and normative challenge. Somaliland’s achievements in governance and stability present a compelling case, yet internal divisions and international reluctance continue to delay recognition.
From a theoretical standpoint, the issue reflects the tension between effectiveness and legality, identity and norms, and principles and power. The international community’s cautious approach underscores its fear of unintended consequences rather than a rejection of Somaliland’s achievements.
Ultimately, Somaliland’s path forward lies not only in seeking external validation but in strengthening internal unity and regional relevance. Recognition, if it comes, will likely be the result of gradual acceptance rather than a single diplomatic breakthrough. Until then, Somaliland remains a striking example of how statehood in the modern world is as much about politics as it is about law.
