Why Somaliland is a red line for African sovereignty

The question of Somaliland is not a footnote in African politics; it is a raw nerve. It cuts through history, law and memory, exposing how easily powerful states can reopen wounds they never had to live with. To write about Somaliland is to write about Somalia itself – a country fractured by war, famine and foreign interference, yet still recognised, without ambiguity, as a single sovereign state by the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union and Australia. That consensus is not cosmetic. It is the thin legal skin holding a traumatised body together.

Somaliland declared independence in 1991, as Somalia collapsed into civil war. Since then, it has built a functioning administration, held elections and maintained relative stability compared with the south. These facts are real and deserve respect. But facts alone do not make a state. Sovereignty is not a reward for competence; it is a legal status conferred collectively, because the alternative is chaos. This is why, more than three decades later, not a single UN member state – until Israel’s recent move – had formally recognised Somaliland. The EU has been explicit: Somaliland remains part of Somalia. So has the AU, repeatedly and unequivocally.

Numbers matter. Somalia is home to more than 18 million people. Somaliland accounts for roughly 4 to 4.5 million of them. Recognition of secession would not affect only Hargeisa; it would reshape the political psychology of the entire Horn of Africa. Ethiopia alone has more than 80 ethnic groups and several restive regions. Kenya has its own Somali-inhabited areas with historical grievances. Djibouti balances on delicate clan politics. Once one border is peeled open, others begin to itch. This is why the AU, born out of the trauma of colonial partition, treats borders as untouchable even when they are unjust.

Israel’s decision to recognise Somaliland occurred despite this history, challenging a long-standing norm that Somalia’s unity, however fragile, should not be unilaterally undermined. Framed as pragmatic and strategic, the move prompted an immediate backlash. Somalia’s federal government called the decision a violation of its sovereignty and of international law. Egypt, Turkey and Djibouti echoed that view. The Arab League and the African Union stood firm. This was not diplomatic theatre. It was a collective alarm.

Some analysis indicates that Israel’s interest in recognising Somaliland is primarily strategic rather than symbolic: Somaliland’s location along the Gulf of Aden offers proximity to the Bab al-Mandeb chokepoint, enabling enhanced maritime surveillance, intelligence reach, and logistical access at a time of heightened Red Sea insecurity, particularly from Houthi threats. 

Analysts argue this could strengthen Israel’s ability to protect shipping lanes and counter Iranian-aligned actors, while expanding its strategic footprint into the Horn of Africa. Critics, however, warn that any such move risks diplomatic fallout by undermining Somalia’s sovereignty and reinforcing perceptions of selective adherence to international law.

At the heart of that alarm is precedent. Somalia’s borders were inherited at independence in 1960, when British Somaliland and Italian Somalia voluntarily united. That act of union is part of Africa’s decolonisation story. To unravel it without Somali consent is to suggest that post-colonial agreements can be revised by external actors when convenient. For countries that endured decades of foreign manipulation, that suggestion is intolerable.

There is also an emotional truth often missed in strategic analysis. For many Somalis, Somaliland’s secession is not experienced as an abstract legal debate but as a loss layered on top of loss. Since 1991, Somalia has endured famine that killed hundreds of thousands, piracy born of desperation, and militant violence that still claims lives weekly. To see a powerful state recognise a breakaway region during this long recovery feels less like support for self-determination and more like abandonment at the moment unity is most needed.

READ: Somalia’s president says Somaliland agreed to resettle Palestinians, host Israeli base for recognition

International law, for all its flaws, was designed to prevent exactly this dynamic. The right to self-determination exists, but it is balanced against territorial integrity. In Africa, that balance has been struck conservatively because the cost of getting it wrong is written in blood. Eritrea’s independence from Ethiopia, one of the few exceptions, came after a 30-year war and a UN-backed referendum. Even then, it led to renewed conflict that killed tens of thousands. South Sudan’s independence, endorsed globally in 2011, was followed by civil war that has killed an estimated 400,000 people. These are not cautionary tales from distant textbooks; they are recent, lived catastrophes.

Supporters of Somaliland’s recognition often argue that its stability sets it apart. Yet stability in one region cannot be purchased by destabilising the whole. Somalia today is struggling, but it is not static. Federal institutions exist. Elections, however imperfect, are held. International debt relief has begun. The IMF and World Bank have re-engaged. Fragmentation now would not freeze Somaliland’s success in amber; it would harden divisions elsewhere and complicate reconciliation indefinitely.

There is also a moral inconsistency that resonates deeply across the Global South. Many of the same states that argue fiercely against recognising Palestine without negotiations now champion unilateral recognition for Somaliland. That contradiction does not go unnoticed. It feeds a sense that international law bends differently depending on who is asking and who is affected. For Somalis, whose state collapsed under the weight of Cold War proxy politics, this selective principle is bitterly familiar.

Meanwhile, twenty-one countries, spanning the Middle East, Africa and South Asia, issued a rare joint statement rejecting Israel’s recognition of Somaliland and reaffirming Somalia’s sovereignty, underscoring broad support for territorial integrity. The United States has also held its line, with President Donald Trump saying Washington was “not ready” to follow Israel’s move, maintaining the long-standing position that Somaliland remains part of Somalia despite regional pressure.

Australia has traditionally understood this — not only as a bilateral concern, but as part of a wider Indo-Pacific commitment to territorial integrity and post-colonial stability.

Canberra has supported Somalia’s territorial integrity while funding humanitarian aid and capacity-building in Somaliland. That balance recognises reality without destroying legality. It accepts that engagement does not require endorsement of secession. It is a patient approach, and patience is unfashionable in a world addicted to bold gestures. Yet patience is often what prevents wars that never make headlines because they never happen.

Emotion in diplomacy is often dismissed as weakness. In the Somali case, it is the opposite. Emotion is memory, and memory is policy. The memory of colonial borders drawn with rulers, of proxy wars fought by others, of promises made and broken. Recognition by an external power of Somaliland reactivates those memories with devastating force.

Somalia’s unity is not romantic. It is fragile, contested and incomplete. Yet it is recognised, and that recognition is one of the few stabilising anchors the country still has. To pull at it now, without a Somali-led process, risks turning a hard recovery into another chapter of loss. 

In the end, the Somaliland question is not about whether its people deserve dignity and development. They do. It is about whether the international system is prepared to sacrifice one wounded state to gain leverage on a strategic map. History suggests that such bargains are never paid by those who strike them. They are paid by those who live with the consequences long after the diplomats have moved on.

OPINION: Israel and the politics of fragmentation: The hidden hand behind secessionist projects in Yemen, Somalia, and Libya

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.