Indonesia is right to reject Israel’s recognition of Somaliland

On 26^th December 2025, the State of Israel made a singular diplomatic declaration: it became the first nation in the world to recognize Somaliland as an independent, sovereign state. The breakaway region in the Horn of Africa — which declared itself separate from Somalia in 1991 but has never been granted formal international status — was suddenly catapulted into geopolitical significance.

But beneath the language of “historic partnership” lies a far more troubling reality, one that jeopardizes international law, regional stability in Africa, and offers a worrying glimpse of how recognition can be wielded not as a tool for peace but as leverage for geopolitical ambition.

Indonesia’s response has been unequivocal. Jakarta has strongly rejected Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, aligning with a broad coalition of Arab, Islamic, African, and global actors who see the move as a violation of Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Indonesian diplomats have underscored that Somaliland remains an integral part of the Federal Republic of Somalia, and that any external attempt to unilaterally redefine borders is a disruption to regional stability and a violation of international law.

This position reflects a commitment to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter — respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and peaceful resolution of disputes. It also resonates with core values widely held in the Global South: that power should not be exercised unilaterally by states acting in their own interest, particularly when those interests serve a strategic agenda rather than genuine peace. Upholding these norms matters not only for Somalia but for dozens of fragile states across Africa and beyond.

What makes Israel’s recognition particularly problematic is its context. Israel’s own history — one of contested legitimacy and displacement — should inspire a deep respect for sovereignty and self-determination. Yet, in this case, the recognition of Somaliland appears untethered from any broad international consensus or a negotiated resolution between Hargeisa and Mogadishu. Instead, it feels like another unilateral step in a pattern of actions that prioritize strategic positioning over legal norms and human rights.

For decades, Somaliland has operated de facto independently. Its capital, Hargeisa, governs a relatively stable polity with its own institutions compared with the rest of Somalia. Somaliland’s leaders have long sought recognition, hoping that formal status will unlock diplomatic engagements and economic development. But legitimate aspirations do not justify bypassing international processes or the rights of a sovereign state. Recognition cannot be a political favor; it is a legal act with consequences that ripple far beyond the parties directly involved.

Indeed, the broader international community has recoiled at Israel’s move. At least 21 Arab, Islamic, and African countries issued a joint statement condemning the recognition as a “serious precedent” that threatens international peace and security and violates the principles of international law. The African Union has called for its immediate revocation, reaffirming its commitment to Somalia’s unity and borders. Major powers such as China, the European Union, and the United States have also signaled that they will not follow Israel’s lead.

For Indonesia, these responses are not rooted in abstract solidarity alone; they reflect a principled concern about what is at stake. Indonesia’s own diversity — spanning thousands of islands, hundreds of ethnic groups, and multiple regional tensions — makes the defense of territorial integrity an existential issue. Jakarta cannot champion self-determination when it aligns with its values and dismiss it when it does not. A consistent foreign policy must resist arbitrary standards that serve geopolitical ends.

Moreover, the timing of Israel’s recognition — unfolding amid what many governments, human rights organizations and legal experts have described as a genocide in Gaza, alongside the prolonged occupation of the West Bank — casts the move in an even darker light. At a moment when Palestinians face mass civilian death, widespread displacement, and the systematic destruction of homes, infrastructure and basic means of survival, and when international courts are weighing allegations of genocidal conduct, Israel’s decision to unilaterally redraw diplomatic lines risks appearing as an attempt to normalize impunity and erode the force of international law under the veneer of “strategic partnership.”

Critically, this decision also carries potential knock-on effects. Setting a precedent where powerful states unilaterally recognize breakaway regions could embolden other separatist movements and weaken norms that protect existing nations from fragmentation. Africa, with its colonial legacy of arbitrarily drawn borders, has long upheld the principle that uti possidetis — the sacrosanct respect for inherited boundaries — must stand to preserve peace and stability. Undermining that principle is not a trivial matter; it could unleash a domino effect of destabilization.

In rejecting Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, Indonesia has not only stood with Somalia but with a broader international order that values law, equity, and justice over narrow strategic interests. Jakarta’s stance sends an important message: sovereignty cannot be negotiated in closed meetings or through transactional diplomacy; it must be affirmed through inclusive processes that respect the rights of all peoples and states.

As the world watches how this controversy unfolds, one hope persists: that recognition of statehood is not reduced to a tool of geopolitical convenience. For the principle of sovereignty to retain meaning, for international law to remain relevant, and for smaller nations to feel secure in their borders, global actors must recommit to a framework that privileges justice over opportunism — and respect for all peoples over the ambitions of a few.

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