Somalia & Democracy: An Oxymoron?

August 24, 2012 by Yasin Ali in International Affairs with 11 Comments

It takes years of learning, patience and dedication to achieve a full democracy and it is the hope of every Somali to see Somalia holding fully democratic elections in 2016—a hope that can be achieved.

On August 20th, Morgan Lorraine Roach of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington based think-tank, wrote an article titled Somalia’s Government Transition Maintains the Status Quo. In her article, she argues that the process of creating the new permanent government that is to replace the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) was flawed and undemocratic. She further argues that due to the flawed and undemocratic process that created the new permanent government, the Obama Administration should not reward poor governance by: withholding bilateral assistance to the new government, continuing to support the African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and recognizing Somaliland. This article serves as a response to her arguments.

A Flawed and Undemocratic Process

Due to the Somali people not being able to vote for the members of the new permanent government of Somalia the process of creating the new government of is in no doubt undemocratic. Due to the security situation in some parts of the country and Al-Shabab controlling the southern regions of Somalia, a countrywide election could not have been possible. Instead of a democratic election, a system was used that is undoubtedly the next best option given the constraints and the desire to form to a representative government.

For a very long time Somali elders have been the leaders of Somalia. For centuries they have served as judges under the Somali customary legal system known as Xeer, and most recently during the last twenty years of the Somali civil war due to the absence of proper judicial institutions. Respected by many, they are considered to derive their authority as the guardians of their various communities, and the Somali nation. With the absence of direct elections due to security issues, the Somali elders are the next best solution in terms of creating a representative government and it is indeed a step forward to a full democracy in Somalia.

The creation of the new permanent government was guided by the Somali elders, from appointing the 885 members of the National Constituent Assembly (NCA) which approved the draft constitution, to the selection of the new members of parliament. This is not to say the process was perfect—far from it in reality. There have been reports of corruption during the appointment of the members of the new parliament, and threats that have been issued to the members of the Technical Selection Committee (TSC) which is charged with ratifying and overseing the selection of the new legislators.

But, compared to the previous members of the parliament selected in Kenya and Djibouti, the members of this new parliament are considered to be the most qualified and educated MPs Somalia has had during the last three decades. This is due to the TSC requiring the new legislators to be at least high school graduates, free from having ties with any warlord, and not to have committed any atrocity during the civil war. The TSC have so far rejected close to 70 parliamentary nominees who have not met the above criteria.

International Community Support

The United Nations, United States, European Union and other international partners have welcomed the inauguration of the new Federal Parliament of Somalia, and rightly so. “The Somali people have waited 20 years for peace to take root in their country. Now is the time to begin a new chapter in their history,” said the spokesman of the Secretary General of the U.N. The congratulations come after the international community has supported and funded the TFG during its mandate.

Although senior members of the TFG have been accused of corruption, the government has achieved some progress in its fight against Al-Shabab. For the first time since the civil war, Mogadishu has managed to regain some normalcy. It is in the interests of the international partners, including the United States, to see this success replicated to other parts of the country under Al-Shabab rule.

At the present, the major concerns of the U.S and other international partners of Somalia is not bad governance but the threat of Al-Shabaab and the problem of piracy in the region. The author’s proposal of the Obama Administration to withhold bilateral aid to the new government directly goes against these U.S interests. The withholding of bilateral assistance to the new government will significantly weaken the government’s aim to rebuild the institutions of the country and its fight to liberate the areas controlled by Al-Shabaab. Funding only AMISOM forces and not Somalia’s security forces will also cause major problems. If history can tell us one thing it is that Somalis do not allow foreign armies to be in their country for a long period of time. As soon as AMISOM manages to liberate the territories under Al-Shabab rule, there is a high likelihood of Somalis demanding AMISOM to withdraw from Somalia. Withholding aid to train and fund the Somali security forces will only ensure that there will be no well-trained Somali forces to take over the command. Further, withholding of bilateral assistance to the new government will not stop corruption and bring good governance, but collapse a government that badly needs international support to succeed.

These interests aside, the international community has a responsibility to ensure that the resources and funding allocated to the Somali nation are used as intended. The creation of the Joint Financial Management Board at the London Conference on Somalia by the international community is a step forward in tackling corruption, increasing accountability and transparency. As the Somali institutions develop, it will then be up to the Somali people themselves to ensure corruption is eradicated.

On the issue of Somaliland’s recognition, the U.S and the other members of the international community recognizing Somaliland will only cause conflicts and division in Somalia. There is no doubt that Somaliland has achieved some success during the last twenty years, but the only way to avoid a fresh conflict and the bloodshed of the Somali people are direct talks and negotiations between the new government and Somaliland leaders.

A Significant Milestone for Somalia

“Somalia’s new system of governance is set up for failure.”

Morgan Lorraine Roach.

One thing the author seems to be getting wrong is that this is not a new governance system for Somalia but a significant milestone and a path to a representative democracy. Many democratic systems around the world, including the United States, weren’t built overnight. It took learning, patience and dedication to achieve a full democracy. It is the hope of every Somali to see Somalia holding elections in 2016—a hope that can be achieved. But for now, considering the situation Somalia is in, the system in place is the next best thing to a representative government.

Tagged African Union, Al-Shabaab, Democracy, Djibouti, Kenya, Morgan Lorraine, National Constituent Assembly, Piracy, Somalia, Somaliland, The Heritage Foundation, UN, Xeer

Share this post

About Yasin Ali

Yasin Ali is a student at Wake Forest University studying Politics and International Affairs. He is currently researching the role of Somali youths in rebuilding Somalia. Follow him on twitter @iamyazi

View all posts by Yasin Ali →

John QAugust 24, 2012 at 8:46 pmReply

Nice piece, thanks for brining some of that to light. I’m interested in your perspective on the argument some people make (Mary Harper for example), that while they had a lot of problems, the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) did provide stability in many parts of the country and could be called a positive force. What is your interpretation of how the UIC ruled? Also, moving forward, is there a non-militant (or less militant) Islamist political force in Somalia? Do they have traction?

iamyaziAugust 24, 2012 at 9:46 pmReply

John Q Hi John. Thanks for taking the time to read the article. Yes, UIC did provide some stability in Somalia during its couple months in power. Actually they managed, for the first time, to eradicate warlords from Mogadishu and bring stability in the city for almost 6 months. Now, the UIC were mostly not radicals. They were basically Somali Islamic judges who stood up to the Warlords. Among them were radicals. But majority of them, including the present President who was apart of the leadership of the UIC were moderate Muslim judges. Another positive thing about these group is that it comprised of different clans and tribes from all over the country who banded together to form the Union. I believe Somalia will always have some Islamic elements in its politics, considering the fact that it is a Muslim country. But majority of Somalis are moderate Muslims who despise radical Islam.

FuqdinleyAugust 26, 2012 at 6:36 amReply

It is very
unfortunate to see a Somali young man studying political science and yet having
the mentality of those who have destroyed Somalia. The basic cause of the destruction
of the former Somali republic is the ethnic cleansing, human rights abuse and
all abominable deeds by the Dictator of Somalia in the 70’s and 80’s. More than
100,000 were slaughtered by the regime and their mains cities bombarded to the
ground just like what is happening in Syria today. The peoples uprising in
Somaliland (ex-British Protectorate) was beginning and end of that regime. The
people of Somaliland declared their re-birth of their lost independence. The
price paid was too high to go back to the Union again. For the last 20 years
Somaliland has had two Presidential elections; parliamentary elections and
local government elections. They have their own constitution written and approval
by 97% of its population. They have their own passports and currency. The writer
of this article should visit Somaliland and see what those people have
achieved. Somalilanders have no intention of relinquishing their independence
and I don’t think Somalia would dare attack Somaliland. We are asking our
brothers to try to accept that we are gone forever. We want friendly neighborhood.

iamyaziAugust 26, 2012 at 8:56 amReply

Fuqdinley First of all thanks for taking the time to read the article. I agree Somaliland has achieved considerable amount of success in terms of democracy in the region. Nobody disputes that. I also agree that the government of Siad Barre did commit abominable deeds not only to the people from the region of Somaliland, but to all Somalia. Listen, the only reason why I am living in the West at the moment is because of the foolish and stupid decisions these so called leaders took, disregarding the value of human life, for the sole reason of staying in power. And that is basically the only reason why millions of people have died and suffered during the last twenty years of the civil war. Now, if every region/tribe/clan who had problems with the government of Siad Barre declared their independence from Somalia, there will be no longer Somali nation as we know it. The international community has a duty to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Somalia. I haven’t proposed that Somalia attack Somaliland, because that will be Somalia declaring war on its own people. In addition, Somali people are tired of war. The last twenty years of the civil war is more than enough. Now the best way to find a solution to this problem is through negotiations and that is what I proposed. Leaders from the region of Somaliland and the Somali government coming together and having a candid discussion so that they could find a solution that would be of benefit to both parties. Declaring de facto independence from Somalia is not to the benefit of both parties. I will personally love the people of Somaliland to go down and teach their fellow brothers in the South one thing or two about democracy!

iamyaziAugust 26, 2012 at 10:16 amReply

Fuqdinley First of all thanks for taking the time to read the article. I agree Somaliland has achieved considerable amount of success in terms of democracy in the region. Nobody disputes that. I also agree that the government of Siad Barre did commit abominable deeds not only to the people from the region of Somaliland, but to all Somalia. Listen, many Somalis today are living and suffering in refugee camps all over the world. The only reason why these people are suffering in refugee camps and why millions of people have died and suffered during the last twenty years of the civil war is because of the foolish and stupid decisions these so called leaders took, disregarding the value of human life, for the sole reason of staying in power. Now, if every region/tribe/clan who had problems with the government of Siad Barre declared their independence from Somalia, there will be no longer Somali nation as we know it. The international community has a duty to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Somalia. Somalia as a nation has a duty to do exactly that. I haven’t proposed that Somalia attack Somaliland, because that will mean Somalia declaring war on its own people. In addition, Somali people are tired of war. The last twenty years of the civil war is more than enough. Now the best way to find a solution to this problem is through negotiations and that is what I proposed. Leaders from the region of Somaliland and the Somali government coming together and having a candid discussion/talks so that they could find a solution that would be of benefit to both parties. Declaring de facto independence from Somalia is not to the benefit of either parties. I will personally love the people of Somaliland to go down and teach their fellow brothers in the South one thing or two about democracy!

FuqdinleyAugust 26, 2012 at 11:51 amReply

You still
don’t understand the position of Somaliland & Somalilanders. Somaliland
became independent 4 days before uniting with Italian Somalia. The opted for a
Union for the sake of Greater Somalia (Ethiopia Eastern Province; Djibouti;
Northern Frontier District of Kenya; Italian Somalia and British Somaliland.
The white star in the middle of the blue Flag represented these regions).
Somaliland was then recognized by 33 countries. As a matter of fact according
to the historical facts of that period the politicians of Italian Somalia were
not interested in the Union. They tried to sabotage the talks by demanding
every high post in the new government to be formed. This did not discourage the
Somaliland delegation.

The referendum
of the new constitution was boycotted by 70% of the voters in Somaliland.
Latter a coup was attempted by officers in Somaliland which failed. They could
not be tried by Somali Law because there was no ACT of Union signed.

What you
are confused about is the fact that Somaliland was a Sovereign State before joining
Somalia. You are dealing here with a nation with International Borders and a
population with its own administration, army and police. The case of Somaliland
is Unique and doesn’t contradict the AU conditions
that colonial borders should remain as per independence day of the African
nation. Please read the 2005 report of the AU on Somaliland’s independence.

Somalilanders
and their government are willing to help their brothers in Somalia. We want to be on our own just like the other
three Somali territories (Djibouti; Eastern Province of Kenya and Eastern
Province Ethiopia). We want a good neighbor and we wish the people of Somalia
all the best. We cannot forget but we can only forgive!!!

The
International Community has to respect the 97% of the Somaliland population
that has voted for this option. 70% of Somaliland’s population is under 30 and
don’t ever know what Somalia is. Goodbye my ex-compatriot.

iamyaziAugust 26, 2012 at 12:26 pmReply

Fuqdinley Walaal, I know my history very well. You cannot compare Djibouti and Somaliland. The State of Somaliland gave up its sovereignty when they opted to form a Union, Djibouti didn’t. My proposal still stands. The only way to find a solution to this problem is not through war or de facto declaring yourself Independent and seeking recognition for the last 20 years, but through negotiations. Lets agree to disagree my fellow countryman.

FuqdinleyAugust 26, 2012 at 1:30 pmReply

Lets agree to disagree my fellow ex-countryman. There are several Unions in Africa that have been formed and dissolved. Wakeup.

iamyaziAugust 26, 2012 at 3:30 pmReply

Fuqdinley Not true. Name one country in Africa that voluntarily gave up its sovereignty AFTER gaining Independence to form a new Republic and then decided to dissolve it? The only answer to that question that I can come up with is Somaliland. And please do not name Eritrea and Namibia. To begin with both occurred pre-independence. Secondly, both were annexed and occupied. The Union of South Africa annexing the present day Namibia and Ethiopia present day Eritrea. The short-lived State of Somaliland voluntarily gave up its sovereignty, and not annexed, to form Somalia. As matter of fact, British Somaliland were the ones championing for the union. Now that the ship has sank, you guys cannot just pack up your bags and leave. The State of Somaliland no longer exists, Somali Republic (Somalia) has sovereignty over it. In addition, the people residing on the east of the short-lived State of Somaliland do not support secession. If Somaliland are allowed to secede, then the inhabitants of Sool and the eastern Sanaag regions should be also allowed to secede from ‘Somaliland’. This creating mini-States based on clan-secession.You seem to portray this issue to be simple, when in fact there are more to it. Recognition of Somaliland by the international community without taking all the factors in play will cause a major conflict in a region that is already unstable. The only way to find a solution to this issue is through negotiation. This is my last response on here on the issue of Somaliland. There is a reason why in the article I only wrote a paragraph to begin with.

FuqdinleyAugust 28, 2012 at 11:06 amReply

The reason why Somalilanders were championing the Union was the forming of
“greater Somalia”. When it was clear that this goal couldn’t be reached
Somalilanders and their leaders tried to solve the problems created by the
Somali irredentism which made Somalia a pariah state in the Horn of Africa. The
NFD problem was solved in the “Arusha Agreement” and France was advised not to
allow Djibouti to join Somalia. For African Union the death of Somali
irredentism is a blessing. As for the population of Sool and Sanaag they are
part and parcel of the Somaliland International borders as per independence.
Borders don’t move but populations can move.

·Article 4 AU Charter calls: “Respect borders existing on achievement of
independence” . The AU should respect its own Charter!!

·The UN’s criteria for Statehood has been met by Somaliland: a sovereign
state defined territory in which it exercises external and internal
sovereignty;a permanent population; a
government; independence from other states and powersand capacity to enter agreements with other
sovereign states.

·The Union of Somaliland and Somalia was never ratified. Please come with
legal documents signed by leaders of these two countries to prove this.

Your argument on Sool and
Sanaag regions is lame. The Union of Somaliland and Somalia was between two
countries and not a clan agreement!!! Not all groups living in these regions
support the Union.
Last but not least-United Arab Republic was formed in 1958 as a result of the
Union of Syria and Egypt. It was dissolved in 1961.-Senegambia (Senegal and
Gambia) 1982-1989.-Mali Federation 1959 (Senegal and French Sudan) both
parts of French West Africa as an independent nation. Fell apart 1960 and
became Senegal and Mali!!!

iamyaziAugust 28, 2012 at 1:31 pmReply

I really do not know why I am responding to you right now. Senegambia was a loose confederation. They were two independent and sovereign states, they never formed a union. Actually the reason why Senegal dissolved the confederation was because Gambia was not interested in forming a union with Senegal. Mali Federation was not an independent nation. It was a semi-autonomous state under the French rule till June 1960 when it gained independence, two months AFTER, it split into independent states. The only country that may fit in the criteria that I previously asked is UAR, but Syria is not in Africa. Since you started commenting you have been using the same talking points Somalilanders have been using for the last two decades. It hasn’t given Somaliland international recognition. Somaliland has not met the U.N’s criteria for Statehood, and that is why Somaliland is not a member of the U.N or even recognized by any State. I still do not see why you are opposing talks and negotiations between the leaders from both. The international community thinks that is the only way to go, and Silanyo has agreed to it. It is either that, or Somaliland will be seeking recognition for a very longtime. And as soon as the government in Mogadishu gains more power, there is no doubt they will seek to exact authority over Somaliland, resulting to another conflict. The only way to do this, without shedding any more Somali blood, is for both parties to come together and talk about these issues and come to an agreement.

11 Comments

John QAugust 24, 2012 at 8:46 pmReply

Nice piece, thanks for brining some of that to light. I’m interested in your perspective on the argument some people make (Mary Harper for example), that while they had a lot of problems, the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) did provide stability in many parts of the country and could be called a positive force. What is your interpretation of how the UIC ruled? Also, moving forward, is there a non-militant (or less militant) Islamist political force in Somalia? Do they have traction?
- iamyaziAugust 24, 2012 at 9:46 pmReply
  
  John Q Hi John. Thanks for taking the time to read the article. Yes, UIC did provide some stability in Somalia during its couple months in power. Actually they managed, for the first time, to eradicate warlords from Mogadishu and bring stability in the city for almost 6 months. Now, the UIC were mostly not radicals. They were basically Somali Islamic judges who stood up to the Warlords. Among them were radicals. But majority of them, including the present President who was apart of the leadership of the UIC were moderate Muslim judges. Another positive thing about these group is that it comprised of different clans and tribes from all over the country who banded together to form the Union. I believe Somalia will always have some Islamic elements in its politics, considering the fact that it is a Muslim country. But majority of Somalis are moderate Muslims who despise radical Islam.
FuqdinleyAugust 26, 2012 at 6:36 amReply

It is very
unfortunate to see a Somali young man studying political science and yet having
the mentality of those who have destroyed Somalia. The basic cause of the destruction
of the former Somali republic is the ethnic cleansing, human rights abuse and
all abominable deeds by the Dictator of Somalia in the 70’s and 80’s. More than
100,000 were slaughtered by the regime and their mains cities bombarded to the
ground just like what is happening in Syria today. The peoples uprising in
Somaliland (ex-British Protectorate) was beginning and end of that regime. The
people of Somaliland declared their re-birth of their lost independence. The
price paid was too high to go back to the Union again. For the last 20 years
Somaliland has had two Presidential elections; parliamentary elections and
local government elections. They have their own constitution written and approval
by 97% of its population. They have their own passports and currency. The writer
of this article should visit Somaliland and see what those people have
achieved. Somalilanders have no intention of relinquishing their independence
and I don’t think Somalia would dare attack Somaliland. We are asking our
brothers to try to accept that we are gone forever. We want friendly neighborhood.
- iamyaziAugust 26, 2012 at 8:56 amReply
  
  Fuqdinley First of all thanks for taking the time to read the article. I agree Somaliland has achieved considerable amount of success in terms of democracy in the region. Nobody disputes that. I also agree that the government of Siad Barre did commit abominable deeds not only to the people from the region of Somaliland, but to all Somalia. Listen, the only reason why I am living in the West at the moment is because of the foolish and stupid decisions these so called leaders took, disregarding the value of human life, for the sole reason of staying in power. And that is basically the only reason why millions of people have died and suffered during the last twenty years of the civil war. Now, if every region/tribe/clan who had problems with the government of Siad Barre declared their independence from Somalia, there will be no longer Somali nation as we know it. The international community has a duty to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Somalia. I haven’t proposed that Somalia attack Somaliland, because that will be Somalia declaring war on its own people. In addition, Somali people are tired of war. The last twenty years of the civil war is more than enough. Now the best way to find a solution to this problem is through negotiations and that is what I proposed. Leaders from the region of Somaliland and the Somali government coming together and having a candid discussion so that they could find a solution that would be of benefit to both parties. Declaring de facto independence from Somalia is not to the benefit of both parties. I will personally love the people of Somaliland to go down and teach their fellow brothers in the South one thing or two about democracy!
- iamyaziAugust 26, 2012 at 10:16 amReply
  
  Fuqdinley First of all thanks for taking the time to read the article. I agree Somaliland has achieved considerable amount of success in terms of democracy in the region. Nobody disputes that. I also agree that the government of Siad Barre did commit abominable deeds not only to the people from the region of Somaliland, but to all Somalia. Listen, many Somalis today are living and suffering in refugee camps all over the world. The only reason why these people are suffering in refugee camps and why millions of people have died and suffered during the last twenty years of the civil war is because of the foolish and stupid decisions these so called leaders took, disregarding the value of human life, for the sole reason of staying in power. Now, if every region/tribe/clan who had problems with the government of Siad Barre declared their independence from Somalia, there will be no longer Somali nation as we know it. The international community has a duty to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Somalia. Somalia as a nation has a duty to do exactly that. I haven’t proposed that Somalia attack Somaliland, because that will mean Somalia declaring war on its own people. In addition, Somali people are tired of war. The last twenty years of the civil war is more than enough. Now the best way to find a solution to this problem is through negotiations and that is what I proposed. Leaders from the region of Somaliland and the Somali government coming together and having a candid discussion/talks so that they could find a solution that would be of benefit to both parties. Declaring de facto independence from Somalia is not to the benefit of either parties. I will personally love the people of Somaliland to go down and teach their fellow brothers in the South one thing or two about democracy!
FuqdinleyAugust 26, 2012 at 11:51 amReply

You still
don’t understand the position of Somaliland & Somalilanders. Somaliland
became independent 4 days before uniting with Italian Somalia. The opted for a
Union for the sake of Greater Somalia (Ethiopia Eastern Province; Djibouti;
Northern Frontier District of Kenya; Italian Somalia and British Somaliland.
The white star in the middle of the blue Flag represented these regions).
Somaliland was then recognized by 33 countries. As a matter of fact according
to the historical facts of that period the politicians of Italian Somalia were
not interested in the Union. They tried to sabotage the talks by demanding
every high post in the new government to be formed. This did not discourage the
Somaliland delegation.

The referendum
of the new constitution was boycotted by 70% of the voters in Somaliland.
Latter a coup was attempted by officers in Somaliland which failed. They could
not be tried by Somali Law because there was no ACT of Union signed.

What you
are confused about is the fact that Somaliland was a Sovereign State before joining
Somalia. You are dealing here with a nation with International Borders and a
population with its own administration, army and police. The case of Somaliland
is Unique and doesn’t contradict the AU conditions
that colonial borders should remain as per independence day of the African
nation. Please read the 2005 report of the AU on Somaliland’s independence.

Somalilanders
and their government are willing to help their brothers in Somalia. We want to be on our own just like the other
three Somali territories (Djibouti; Eastern Province of Kenya and Eastern
Province Ethiopia). We want a good neighbor and we wish the people of Somalia
all the best. We cannot forget but we can only forgive!!!

The
International Community has to respect the 97% of the Somaliland population
that has voted for this option. 70% of Somaliland’s population is under 30 and
don’t ever know what Somalia is. Goodbye my ex-compatriot.
- iamyaziAugust 26, 2012 at 12:26 pmReply
  
  Fuqdinley Walaal, I know my history very well. You cannot compare Djibouti and Somaliland. The State of Somaliland gave up its sovereignty when they opted to form a Union, Djibouti didn’t. My proposal still stands. The only way to find a solution to this problem is not through war or de facto declaring yourself Independent and seeking recognition for the last 20 years, but through negotiations. Lets agree to disagree my fellow countryman.
FuqdinleyAugust 26, 2012 at 1:30 pmReply

Lets agree to disagree my fellow ex-countryman. There are several Unions in Africa that have been formed and dissolved. Wakeup.
- iamyaziAugust 26, 2012 at 3:30 pmReply
  
  Fuqdinley Not true. Name one country in Africa that voluntarily gave up its sovereignty AFTER gaining Independence to form a new Republic and then decided to dissolve it? The only answer to that question that I can come up with is Somaliland. And please do not name Eritrea and Namibia. To begin with both occurred pre-independence. Secondly, both were annexed and occupied. The Union of South Africa annexing the present day Namibia and Ethiopia present day Eritrea. The short-lived State of Somaliland voluntarily gave up its sovereignty, and not annexed, to form Somalia. As matter of fact, British Somaliland were the ones championing for the union. Now that the ship has sank, you guys cannot just pack up your bags and leave. The State of Somaliland no longer exists, Somali Republic (Somalia) has sovereignty over it. In addition, the people residing on the east of the short-lived State of Somaliland do not support secession. If Somaliland are allowed to secede, then the inhabitants of Sool and the eastern Sanaag regions should be also allowed to secede from ‘Somaliland’. This creating mini-States based on clan-secession.You seem to portray this issue to be simple, when in fact there are more to it. Recognition of Somaliland by the international community without taking all the factors in play will cause a major conflict in a region that is already unstable. The only way to find a solution to this issue is through negotiation. This is my last response on here on the issue of Somaliland. There is a reason why in the article I only wrote a paragraph to begin with.
FuqdinleyAugust 28, 2012 at 11:06 amReply

The reason why Somalilanders were championing the Union was the forming of
“greater Somalia”. When it was clear that this goal couldn’t be reached
Somalilanders and their leaders tried to solve the problems created by the
Somali irredentism which made Somalia a pariah state in the Horn of Africa. The
NFD problem was solved in the “Arusha Agreement” and France was advised not to
allow Djibouti to join Somalia. For African Union the death of Somali
irredentism is a blessing. As for the population of Sool and Sanaag they are
part and parcel of the Somaliland International borders as per independence.
Borders don’t move but populations can move.

·Article 4 AU Charter calls: “Respect borders existing on achievement of
independence” . The AU should respect its own Charter!!

·The UN’s criteria for Statehood has been met by Somaliland: a sovereign
state defined territory in which it exercises external and internal
sovereignty;a permanent population; a
government; independence from other states and powersand capacity to enter agreements with other
sovereign states.

·The Union of Somaliland and Somalia was never ratified. Please come with
legal documents signed by leaders of these two countries to prove this.

Your argument on Sool and
Sanaag regions is lame. The Union of Somaliland and Somalia was between two
countries and not a clan agreement!!! Not all groups living in these regions
support the Union.
Last but not least-United Arab Republic was formed in 1958 as a result of the
Union of Syria and Egypt. It was dissolved in 1961.-Senegambia (Senegal and
Gambia) 1982-1989.-Mali Federation 1959 (Senegal and French Sudan) both
parts of French West Africa as an independent nation. Fell apart 1960 and
became Senegal and Mali!!!
- iamyaziAugust 28, 2012 at 1:31 pmReply
  
  I really do not know why I am responding to you right now. Senegambia was a loose confederation. They were two independent and sovereign states, they never formed a union. Actually the reason why Senegal dissolved the confederation was because Gambia was not interested in forming a union with Senegal. Mali Federation was not an independent nation. It was a semi-autonomous state under the French rule till June 1960 when it gained independence, two months AFTER, it split into independent states. The only country that may fit in the criteria that I previously asked is UAR, but Syria is not in Africa. Since you started commenting you have been using the same talking points Somalilanders have been using for the last two decades. It hasn’t given Somaliland international recognition. Somaliland has not met the U.N’s criteria for Statehood, and that is why Somaliland is not a member of the U.N or even recognized by any State. I still do not see why you are opposing talks and negotiations between the leaders from both. The international community thinks that is the only way to go, and Silanyo has agreed to it. It is either that, or Somaliland will be seeking recognition for a very longtime. And as soon as the government in Mogadishu gains more power, there is no doubt they will seek to exact authority over Somaliland, resulting to another conflict. The only way to do this, without shedding any more Somali blood, is for both parties to come together and talk about these issues and come to an agreement.