By recognizing Somaliland’s 1960 sovereignty, Israel exposes the African Union’s legal contradictions and its capture by narrow interests.
Historical Sovereignty, Not Secession
When Israel engaged with Somaliland, the African Union responded with predictable condemnation, invoking the principle of “border intangibility” as if a reckless secession were underway. The truth is the opposite: Somaliland isn’t breaking away from Somalia—it is reclaiming the sovereignty it briefly held in 1960, before a fragile union with Italian-administered Somalia collapsed in 1991. Recognition of that historical fact is not a diplomatic rebellion; it is an exercise in legal realism.
Somaliland’s case is unique. On June 26, 1960, the former British Somaliland Protectorate became fully independent and was recognized by 35 UN member states, including major global powers. It voluntarily joined Somalia five days later—a union that never fully functioned in law or practice. When the Somali state disintegrated decades later, Somaliland did not secede; it simply reverted to the borders it legally held before the union. The African Union itself acknowledged this in a 2005 fact-finding mission, describing Somaliland’s claim as “unique and self-justified.” That report, however, has been quietly shelved, ignored not because of flawed reasoning but because of a lack of political courage in Addis Ababa.
Israel’s recognition, whether formal or de facto, sidesteps the emotive and misleading “secession” frame entirely. By anchoring its position in Somaliland’s historical sovereignty, Israel is not violating African norms—it is aligning with them more faithfully than the AU itself has dared to do. And that alignment exposes a more uncomfortable truth: the African Union’s rigid stance is less about law and principle than about narrow commercial interests and the geopolitical anxieties of a single member state.
Ports Over Principle
If Somaliland’s legal case is so clear, why does the African Union continue to reject it? The answer is less about law than about docks. Djibouti, a tiny nation with outsized strategic influence, has long opposed recognition under the guise of “Somali unity.” The real concern is economic: over 90% of landlocked Ethiopia’s trade flows through Djibouti’s port, giving the country a lucrative monopoly. Meanwhile, Somaliland’s port of Berbera—modernized by UAE’s DP World with Ethiopia as a strategic partner—offers a credible alternative. Recognition of Somaliland would shift regional trade and power, undermining Djibouti’s dominance. The AU’s rigid stance, in other words, is not a principled defense of borders; it is a protective shield for commercial interests masquerading as continental doctrine.
Rewarding Failure, Punishing Success
This logic has created a perverse incentive on the continent. For more than three decades, Somaliland has built what most African states lack: a stable, functioning democracy with peaceful transfers of power, a competent security apparatus that contains extremism, and a society largely self-financed through taxation. Meanwhile, the internationally recognized Somali federal government, despite massive aid and international attention, struggles for authority beyond parts of Mogadishu. By sidelining Somaliland, the AU rewards chaos and punishes success—sending a troubling signal that effective self-governance can lead not to recognition but to isolation.
The result is a crisis of credibility. When the African Union clings to policies its own experts have discredited, dictated by narrow commercial interests, it loses the moral authority to set the rules of the game. External actors—from the UAE and Turkey to now Israel—fill the vacuum, forging partnerships that serve their strategic and economic goals rather than African interests. Israel’s engagement with Somaliland is not just a bilateral matter; it is a stark reminder that the AU’s failure to confront reality diminishes African agency and invites outside influence.
A Path Forward for African Agency
A credible African response would not be blanket rejection. It would involve principled, practical engagement. The AU could start by formally recognizing Somaliland as a distinct political entity, in line with its 2005 fact-finding report. Technical cooperation—on security, counter-piracy, and public health—could follow, acknowledging the realities on the ground. Ultimately, a structured, time-bound adjudication process should evaluate Somaliland’s claim based on law, history, and the will of its people. Such steps would restore African leadership and demonstrate that the continent can resolve disputes on its own terms, rather than allowing them to be settled by outsiders.
The choice for the African Union is stark: it can continue defending a legal fiction to protect a port monopoly and watch its influence erode, or it can separate commercial anxieties from constitutional law and confront Somaliland’s status with the honesty its own experts recommended nearly two decades ago. Israel’s approach is rooted in legal realism; Africa’s response, if it is to matter, must be rooted in institutional integrity. The world is watching to see whether the AU can still meet that standard—or whether it will remain a hostage to outdated principles and narrow interests while effective self-governance continues to flourish outside its recognition.
About the Author Mohamed Marshall Omer is a geopolitical analyst and former diplomat based in Addis Ababa. He specializes in the Horn of Africa security, governance, Red Sea geopolitics, and regional economic integration, drawing on his experience in diplomacy, entrepreneurship, and policy research.
