By Saeed Mohamed Ahmed
Introduction: A Loud Silence on Somaliland
As the Horn of Africa transforms into a multipolar theater—contested by global and regional actors—Somaliland remains a paradox. Peaceful, democratic, and self-governing since 1991, the former British Protectorate has delivered where others faltered. It governs without foreign troops, builds institutions from the ground up, and anchors a vibrant civil society. Yet, its reality remains diplomatically denied. With the United Kingdom reasserting itself through its Global Britain strategy, Somaliland represents not just a historical ally but a modern-day partner. This article argues that the international community’s continued denial of Somaliland’s statehood is legally inconsistent and geopolitically counterproductive, advocating for a differentiated diplomatic approach, particularly spearheaded by the United Kingdom, to normalize Somaliland’s unique reality.
The Somaliland vs. Chapter VII Somalia Paradigm: Rebalancing International Logic
An analytical view of the Horn of Africa post-1991 reveals a paradox. On one side stands Somaliland—a peaceful, democratic, and functioning entity that withdrew from a failed union. On the other lies Somalia—recognized internationally but historically plagued by internal strife, extremism, and persistent foreign intervention. Despite this, Somalia is the one internationally recognized, while Somaliland remains in limbo.
A comparative analysis unequivocally exposes the legal and political inconsistency at the heart of current international engagement. Below, the comparative summary follows:
Dimension |
Somalia (Chapter VII) |
Somaliland |
Legal Status |
Internationally recognized; under binding UN measures |
De facto independent; contests applicability of Chapter VII |
UN Peacekeeping |
Hosts foreign forces (ATMIS, U.S. drone bases) |
No foreign troops or UN mandates allowed |
Sanctions/Embargoes |
Subject to arms embargo and targeted sanctions |
Sanctions largely not implemented within Somaliland |
Security Status |
Fragile, terrorism-prone, reliant on external forces |
Stable, self-governing, with community-based policing |
Diplomatic Effect |
Internationally subsidized and supervised |
Uses contrast to argue for sovereignty and recognition |
This stark divergence demands a fundamental reorientation of diplomatic logic—not only for the sake of fairness and international legal consistency but, crucially, for effective regional policy and stability.
From Union to Undoing: A Legal and Moral Case for Reinstatement
Somaliland’s 1991 declaration of withdrawal was not an act of secession; rather, it constituted the lawful restoration of an independence that had existed on June 26, 1960. This pre-union sovereignty was recognized by over 30 UN member states and was never legally dissolved. The purported Union with Italian Somaliland demonstrably lacked a jointly ratified Act of Union and was, in essence, a merger based on political aspiration rather than definitive legal clarity.
As the Somali Republic collapsed in 1991, Somaliland legitimately reverted to its pre-union sovereign status, invoking established principles of self-determination and uti possidetis juris—the preservation of colonial borders upon independence. Multiple authoritative legal analyses, including the 1992 Indian Lawyers’ Study and scholarly work by figures such as Bhala and Claybrook, consistently confirm Somaliland’s compliance with the Montevideo criteria for statehood:
-
Defined territory
-
Permanent population
-
Effective government
-
Capacity to enter into relations with other states
Significantly, no international court has ever refuted this claim, further strengthening the legal foundation for Somaliland’s current status.
Global Britain and the Somaliland Opportunity
Unlike the United States, whose regional presence is predominantly driven by counterterrorism and security imperatives, the United Kingdom possesses a unique historic legitimacy in Somaliland. Britain was the first nation to grant Somaliland independence, and today, the robust Somali diaspora in the UK remains a significant transnational force.
Britain’s Global Britain policy can strategically benefit by supporting Somaliland’s democratic trajectory. This can be achieved not through dramatic recognition pronouncements immediately, but via:
-
Sectoral partnerships in crucial areas such as port development, education, and digital transformation.
-
Quiet diplomacy and coordinated efforts with key allies like the European Union, the United States, and Gulf nations.
-
Enhanced parliamentary engagement and Track 1.5 diplomacy, fostering deeper understanding and ties.
The UK’s nuanced handling of the Chagos Archipelago return to Mauritius, while strategically maintaining its base at Diego Garcia with the U.S., illustrates a pragmatic approach where sovereignty considerations and strategic interests can be effectively harmonized—a precedent applicable to Somaliland.
A Realigned Engagement Model: from Denial to Differentiation
The previous two-tiered model, which treated all Somali polities as equivalent “levels” of state-building, is demonstrably flawed. That framing must evolve to reflect the on-the-ground realities. A recalibrated Three-Tier Diplomatic Differentiation Model is herewith proposed:
-
Tier I: Somaliland
-
Objective: Full de jure sovereignty and international recognition.
-
Tools: Bilateral trade and development partnerships, maritime demarcation, observer status in the African Union (AU) and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and strategic diaspora diplomacy.
-
Rationale: Meets established statehood criteria and has been governed independently since 1991.
-
Tier II: Puntland
-
Objective: Transition into a decentralized federal component within a loose Somali federation.
-
Tools: Economic corridors, robust regional autonomy guarantees, and joint peace/security arrangements.
-
Rationale: Possesses demonstrable experience with local governance and actively seeks stability through a semi-sovereign status.
-
Tier III: South-Central Somalia
-
Objective: Long-term stabilization, comprehensive state reconstruction, and conflict de-escalation.
-
Tools: UN-led peacebuilding initiatives, extensive security sector reform, and inclusive reconciliation processes.
-
Rationale: Still recovering from prolonged conflict and lacks nationwide governance capacity.