
When is a nation not a nation? Somaliland’s dream of independence - unmole
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/20/when-is-a-nation-not-a-nation-somalilands-dream-of-independence
======
sdiq
The blue Somali flag has a star that with each of the points of the star
representating a Somali inhabited region: French Somaliland which is Djibouti;
British Somaliland, which is the focus of the article; Italian Somaliland, the
Somalia with Mogadishu as its capital; the Ogaden in Ethiopia and Northern
Frontier District NFD in Kenya.I am an ethnic Somali from NFD though the name
has since changed. Last time it was called North Eastern Province before Kenya
abolished the provincial system. The Ogaden as a name is also frowned upon.
Ironically, I am also from the Ogadeni clan. Ethiopian Somalis, and Ethiopians
in general, prefer calling the same as Somali Regional State.

Anyway, Somalia, before the union and merger of the British and Italian
Somalilands, claimed sovereignty over all these other Somalilands. This dream
was known as Greater Somalia. But, the same is know probably dead. The
collapse of the Somali government didn't help matters.

Interestingly, rather than Somalis ultimately uniting in one country, after
the war, the numerous other Somalilands came to the aid of the fleeing Somali
regions.

My home county in Kenya has been host to one of the largest refugee camps in
the world - Dadaab. Well, that was before Syria happened.

Somaliland, the one in the article, seems to be functioning much better than
Somalia - an entity it is tied to in a marriage that wasn't supposed to work
from the beginning. Somaliland should have negotiated for a better deal before
unconditionally joining Somalia.

Also, the Africa Union is probably not going to recognise Somaliland as an
independent state. This, for fear of opening a Pandora's box. There are many
other African communities not happy of being part of the countries they have
been forced to be a part of.

Anyway, I do support the independence of Somaliland though the border issues
would need to be sorted out. Some clans are happy with being in Somalia. I
support their independence because of the potential for their prosperity. They
are currently being forced for Somalia to sort out its issues which I think is
unfair.

~~~
losvedir
Very interesting comment, thanks.

 _Also, the Africa Union is probably not going to recognise Somaliland as an
independent state. This, for fear of opening a Pandora 's box. There are many
other African communities not happy of being part of the countries they have
been forced to be a part of._

This kind of surprises me. I've sometimes thought it might be in Africa's long
term interest to have this happen. The current countries were created
arbitrarily by Europeans based on what they wanted to control, without regard
for the underlying peoples with their languages, cultures, and histories.
Perhaps a rethinking of borders would be positive in the long run.

~~~
pram
Ceding territory and authority doesn’t benefit the constituents of the African
Union, which are governments of states. Is it actually that surprising?

~~~
zokier
Prolonged guerilla insurgencies etc typically don't benefit the constituents
either (unless you take the viewpoint of them being the crooked type).

~~~
wahern
Pre-colonial borders weren't all static and stable. Redrawing the borders to
the status quo ante wouldn't magically erase border conflict.

Even if the status quo ante was stable and conflict-free, there have been
hundreds of intervening years of shifting alliances.

------
Raphmedia
Reminds me of the confusing situation of Québec, Canada:

"Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The
answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no
and the answer will always be no," Harper told the House on Wednesday.

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecers-form-a-nation-
withi...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecers-form-a-nation-within-
canada-pm-1.624141)

~~~
sharpercoder
Countries within nation states are not uncommon. For example, the Kingdom of
The Netherlands consists of multiple countries: The Netherlands, Curacao, Sint
Maarten and Aruba. The same can be said for example for the United Kingdom.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Countries within nation states are not uncommon.

If it has more than one distinct nation within it, it is a multinational
state, not a nation-state. Nation-states have been the dominant (but not
universal!) norm for so long that people use “nation-state” when they just
mean “state”.

~~~
ghkbrew
Unfortunately, "state" can't be used unambiguously to mean a sovereign
political entity, because there are so many states that aren't sovereign (e.g.
New York). I would guess "nation-state" has acquired it's current popular
meaning because it is one of the few terms that unambiguously implies
sovereignty, which is what the speaker is usually trying to emphasize.

~~~
hammock
When the United States were created, they were intended to be sovereign
(Articles of Confederation)

~~~
ghkbrew
Sure, that's how they were more or less envisioned. But they are not, leaving
us with at least two meanings for the term "state".

~~~
deaddodo
The US isn't the only place to use "states". Austria, Germany, Argentina,
Mexico, etc are all based around states.

There's an important distinction between "states" and "provinces" that people
tend to forget. Provinces are subdivisions of a larger entity, usually a
unitary State, and inherit their powers from it. States, on the other hand,
grant a central arbiter powers via cession; almost exclusively in the form of
a federation or confederation.

------
Robotbeat
Fairly safe compared to its neighbor in the South. I know a lot of the Somali
refugees in Minnesota who have gotten back on their feet financially have been
investing in Somaliland and some are moving back.

~~~
barry-cotter
You could say the same regarding investing and moving back about Mogadishu,
where the UN puppet government has its capital and it is not safe. People just
have real affection for their home.

~~~
jeromegv
Except if you read the article you would see it's a fairly safe place,
compared to the rest of Somalia.

~~~
barry-cotter
If all you know about Somaliland comes from reading that article look at the
Wikipedia article on Somaliland. More detail, less colour. Ditto for Puntland,
which is also safer than any region settled by ethnic Somalis bar Dijibouti.

Mogadishu is safe enough that one of my friends spent two months there trying
to find business opportunities and her most memorable story was of an argument
with a “government” soldier. It’s safer than Congo.

~~~
Simon_says
> It’s safer than Congo.

Uh ... OK

------
sandov
Fun fact: Somaliland recognizes Liberland[1] as a country.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland)

~~~
Uberphallus
Fun fact extension: most unrecognized countries recognize each other. One of
my favourite moments in Tiraspol (Transnistria, de facto independent of
Moldova) was finding the joint embassy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

~~~
hokobomo
All these are simply russian puppet quasi-states, so the "embassies" there are
no wonder

------
21
I was discussing this with my Catalan friend, that from the outside world
their declaration of independence looks comical, because Catalonia doesn't act
like a real country in any shape or form, unlike Somaliland here.

Now I get it that Catalonia is inside a powerful state and you can't just do
"country things", but still.

~~~
dudul
Can you elaborate a little what you mean by "doesn't act like a real country"?
My understanding is that provinces in Spain actually enjoy quite a lot of
autonomy in regards to how they organize their operations/policies. Catalonia
promotes its own language in schools, they even have some form of foreign
affairs with other governments. What do you think is missing?

And just to be clear, I also thought the declaration of independence was
really comical :)

~~~
vinceguidry
My understanding is that it's a bit like Texas or California or New York
dreaming that they could be their own separate countries. If you live in one
of these places it's easy to put on rose colored glasses and dream. But are
they really going to put up a border wall, close off economically, form their
own military, _et al, et al?_

Their prosperity is based in large part on integration into the union. They
will always be dependent on it in some form, even if they achieved political
independence.

Unlike Somaliland, which really has no use for it's neighbor and the realities
on the ground reflect that.

~~~
matthewmacleod
As a determined supporter of Scottish independence, I obviously disagree with
that assessment :)

Independence doesn’t mean that countries become completely detached from their
neighbours. In Catalonia for example the assumption is that both the new
country and the remainder of Spain would remain members of the EU and the
associated intergovernmental machinery that brings. That means no border
guards or economic walls!

In the Scottish case, for example, it’s worth bearing in mind that as a
country it already has an entirely separate government, legal system,
healthcare and education systems. Is it such a big leap to imagine that a
separate foreign policy and military organisation might be feasible?

~~~
21
But what do you think would have happened if Scotland declared independence
against the will of the UK government? Unless you were willing to fight for
it, I don't see how the outcome would have been different than the Catalan
one.

~~~
dnomad
I think you're really underestimating how tenuous the UK's claim on Scotland
really is. Frankly, there is no model in which the UK deploys military assets
to forcefully retain Scotland. This would almost certainly delegitamise the
entire "Great Britain" concept.

Catalonia is different because it, frankly, was never really an independent
nation. And while Spain recognizes a certain autonomy it does not grant
anything like an independent legal system.

That said the case of Catalonia is interesting. There's nothing quite like it
in France. France has never even entertained autonomy, instead emphasizing at
every opportunity the "supremacy" of the Parisian government. There's probably
a lesson to be learned from Spain and the UK which may have unwittingly given
"hope" to these separatist movements.

~~~
21
I don't know much about UK politics, but I thought UK did use the military to
prevent Northern Ireland from splitting off.

But I agree that in $CURRENT_YEAR military intervention against Scotland would
be highly unpopular even in England.

~~~
isostatic
> I thought UK did use the military to prevent Northern Ireland from splitting
> off.

You may be thinking of the UK military being in Northern Ireland to try to
keep the peace from a population that were attempting to kill each other in
the 70s?

However if you're talking about the 1916-1922 period:

Some people in Dublin declared independence in the "Easter Uprising" (in the
middle of a war) over 100 years ago, it was dealt with by the UK military. The
second attempt in 1918 was far better -- there was a massive democratic will
for independence expressed through the ballot box. The UK government (100
years ago) resisted this independence initially, which was wrong, just as
wrong as Spain resiting Catalan independence.

Eventually the UK government relented, and granted independence to Ireland
after free and democratic elections in 1921, when 98% of the voters in what's
now called "Ireland" voted for the pro-indepedence Sinn Fein (it was unopposed
in almost every constituency)

However in the north, many residents did not want to become independent from
the UK. The election there returned 67% in favour of the unionist party. As
such independence was offered to the entire island, but the north could opt
out by having it's parliament ask to (through it's democratically elected
parliament). They did - the day after the Irish Free state came into being.

So people who lived in each area got to choose where they wanted to be, and
all was well. That's how it should be for Scotland, and Catalonia.

The messy business of unpicking a country began (including a brief 'civil'
war), but by 1937 the Irish government in Dublin ratified a constitution. This
constitution claimed sovereignty over the north as well, despite the
population in the North not wanting that, which wasn't exactly a good way to
make friends and influence people.

It was only in 1998 that Dublin agreed to remove this claim from their
constitution, and agree that whether the north should be moved from Britain to
Ireland was a matter for people who live in the north (and indeed one for
those in the south, who would have to agree to take them)

------
freedom_squared
Somaliland is a customer of mine; I build national software and Somaliland is
my second oldest customer. It’s cool to hear about their continued success on
Hacker News. I like to think I played a small part in it. I hope that one day
they achieve their dream of independence.

~~~
genieyclo
How can I reach you to talk about this? From the area

------
roryisok
I had literally no idea that Somaliland existed, and I consider myself to be
pretty up to date with the political world map. It's fascinating to read about
a country you knew nothing of, even an unrecognised one. No, _especially_ an
unrecognised one

~~~
grecy
I was fascinated to learn about Western Sahara when I drove through.

It was at one point a fully-fledged country, now it's listed by the UN as an
"occupied territory". i.e. Morocco invaded and have taken over. They're
adamant it's simply Morocco, and they get _really_ mean to anyone that says
otherwise, or even if you have a map that shows it as a separate country.

Driving through it's just like you never left Morocco, except there are
military roadblocks every 100km, there is a lot of new construction, and gas
is noticeably cheaper than the rest of Morocco (i.e. Morocco attempting to
spur development and help "claim" it)

It's fascinating to me a country can be invaded and occupied by their neighbor
and the world does nothing about it.

~~~
bumholio
> a country can be invaded and occupied by their neighbor and the world does
> nothing about it.

Western Sahara was never a sovereign, recognized state. Spain relinquished
it's colonial claim over it and Morocco and Mauritania rushed to claim parts
of the territory (Mauritania has since renounced too).

The closest thing to a nationally representative organization was the
Polisario Front, a military-political structure based on ethnic Sahrawi
affiliation. It didn't help that the area is so sparsely populated and could
barely sustain an independent state in the 70s, let alone a state capable of
withstanding the territorial advances of such a powerful neighbor like
Morocco.

~~~
dmurray
> Spain relinquished it's colonial claim over it and Morocco and Mauritania
> rushed to claim parts of the territory

Is this a case where the colonial power should have been more firm when
drawing arbitrary lines in the sand? The opposite of what they usually get
criticised for.

------
tanbog
In political theory and International Relations studies, there is a reasonably
well established set of theories regarding the difference between "A nation",
"A state" and a "Nation-State" the three are not synonymous and it irks me
somewhat how even in an article like this the three seem to be conflated as I
think it adds t everyone's confusion about things.

Having said that, there is no "hegemon" (arbiter/judge/police/enforcer-of-
rules) at international level so what is, or is not, a state is somewhat
arbitrary and contingent on whatever power structures are at play at the time.

------
m23khan
Perhaps allow a major Western military power to come and establish a huge
permanent base, and pray for some natural resources to be found might shorten
the long road to independence.

That and paying huge wads of cash to celebrity-turned-activists ($$$ not
Somaliland cash bricks!!) to come and create heartbleed documentaries could
potentially help their cause.

Just sayin...

------
phobosdeimos
If other countries recognize your independence you are there. The US gained
recognition from the Netherlands and France day one. Nobody gives a shit about
Somaliland nor does anyone gain anything for supporting it.

------
NedIsakoff
When no country important recognizes you as a country? eg. Taiwan

~~~
rtkwe
Taiwan (ROC) is a bit of an odd duck because so many places treat them as
different but don't do it 'officially' because China demands that they don't
as part of maintaining relations with the PRC. For example the US sells them
arms after all, it's not like the US completely refuses to admit they exist.
Many countries have quasi-embassies in the form of Taipei Economic and
Cultural Representative Offices (TECRO) which are definitely totally not
embassies just act like them in pretty much every way.

