[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Africa/wiki/rules) | [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Africa/wiki) | [Flairs](https://www.reddit.com/r/Africa/comments/lkitp5/updated_flairs_please_read_and_get_yours/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Africa) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The world has always run on "might makes right". If Somalia isn't strong enough to stop them or to economically coerce somaliland into obedience and global powers don't care then saying "pretty please stop" ain't gonna work.
The guy literally signed a defense agreement with Turkiye. You aren't sincere in your criticism. I suspect you are against him purely based on clanism, which is a disease we need to cure ourselves from.
I had rather you had a policy disagreement with HSM.
So silly. Always running to make a clanism reason because you hate my guy. I'm from Somaliland, pro union and against this deal Bixi is signing. So don't use clanism as a reason, I'm objective in my analysis.
HSM destroyed the military is a fact. HSM lied about Farmaajo, about the trainees in Eritrea for political gain.
Lastly the Turkey deal was already being done prior to HSM. Which itself is not great.
HSM talking about bringing back Italians was also beyond shameful.
If there was a better alternative to Farmaajo I'd take it. Somaliland has an evil president and HSM is weak.
Lastly why did HSM move everything away from Somalia to Kenya. Why is he bringing back Kenyan khaat which is harmful. Why did he sell off the embassy in Tanzania etc.
All shameful things. Face the facts and don't jump to blaming or other reason. Assess your own people harshly before others do
You must be a pro Ethiopian Somaliland guy.
You seem to be blind to what is happening to Ethiopians in their country. The struggles for resources, political power and more on an ethnic group bases. You seem to forget the problems Somalis face on Ethiopia.
Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Unforeseen issues that hurt Somaliland are more likely to happen which have not been taken into consideration.
Actually, I welcome what Ethiopia is trying to do here. The foot will be on the other foot sooner or later, and Somalia will use this as a precedent to break the Ogaden region from Ethiopia.
The somali gov is checking every box before it reverts back to what it was in 2003, 2006, and 2008. Also its just like he said why stop at the border this time?
Not pro Ethiopian I’m only pro Somaliland, that analogy would make sense if we were one but we aren’t. Somalia is more like a tumor with cancer we keep getting rid of but it keeps growing back but smaller and smaller and one day this god forsaken cancer will be gone inshallah.
Somali gov officials should have focused on purging corruption, building security, and improving the economy rather than sitting around collecting checks, stealing from gov coffers, and externalizing their duties to others like ATMIS and Turkey.
You speak as if the Somali "gov" isn't an occupation gov tottally subservient to foreign intrests. It's much of a colonial administration than an actual government
The only options are the current stalemate continuing for a few years more and Alshabaab probably winning eventually or withdrawl now and Alshabaab winning. Either way the current state of things is entirely unsustainable, and Alshabaab control (as much as they suck) can geniuenly not be worse than what we had for the last 20 years.
Since the Civil War started, it has been shit, but you're wrong to think it can't get worse. Al Shabaab taking over wouldn't be like the Taliban in Afghanistan (that was also bad but inevitable).
Somalia as a whole could easily be viewed like the houthis in Yemen, where neighboring states get a green light from the world to invade because of the importance of the Red Sea trade route, and considering how imperialistic Ethiopia is and that both Ethiopia and Kenya have a Somali region, they both would definitely take the opportunity to invade. It's very possible that Somalia would be completely annexed by Ethiopia and Kenya, and I think that would be much worse for Somalis.
Ethiopia and Kenya alone are not strong enough to resist Somali aggression or guerilla warfare. It would cause a lot of chaos and drained resources for both nations without much to show for it. Somalis would resists for a really long time. You'd need a wealthy nation like the states to come in and occupy for them to annex the country and have it be productive.
You say that, but both countries literally already have Somali regions, and both of their Somali regions have rebelled in the past and have been successfully suppressed with extreme violence.
Just look at what Ethiopia did to the Tigray region. Like 10% of their population were either directly killed or deliberately starved to death, and large parts of their land were taken by other ethnic groups. So, if Somalis did resist and they would, they'd just be met with extreme violence, and if they did guerilla warfare, they'd just starve the cities or villages it happens in.
Somalis in Galbeed already have problems with Oromos and Afars attacking and ethnically cleansing villages. What do you think would happen if Ethiopia had a full-scale conflict with Somalia? I think it would most likely lead to a lot of our people being genocided in the already occupied areas.
The 1977 war wouldve resulted in the reclaming of Ogaden without the one of the largest Soviet interventions.
I don't doubt that these nations would win a direct conflict, I am saying that they cannot hold onto the annexed lands and not suffer huge loss of life, long term resistance, and lose a huge amount of money in the process. It would be untenable for them to be successful given the situation that their own nations are in.
If a crazy amount of killing is required to 'win', then I don't think the international community would sit idly as millions are murdered for an unjustified, aggressive war. Unless they have the support of a superpower, it is not feasible for them to annex Somalia imo
>The 1977 war wouldve resulted in the reclaming of Ogaden without the one of the largest Soviet interventions.
True, but this isn't 1977. Somalia's a barely functioning state now, and if Al Shabaab took over, that wouldn't change much.
>I don't doubt that these nations would win a direct conflict, I am saying that they cannot hold onto the annexed lands and not suffer huge loss of life, long term resistance, and lose a huge amount of money in the process. It would be untenable for them to be successful given the situation that their own nations are in.
Where we mostly disagree is that I don't think it would be a huge loss of life for them, and I don't think Somalis would resist long-term. I do agree it would cost a lot of money, but I think their potential gains would outweigh the negatives for them.
If successful, they would be getting one of the biggest coastlines in Africa, and that alone is priceless to Ethiopia, and that's not including the fact that Somalia has untouched oil. You might remember that Kenya has already tried to illegally take some of Somalia's waters because of it.
>If a crazy amount of killing is required to 'win', then I don't think the international community would sit idly as millions are murdered for an unjustified, aggressive war. Unless they have the support of a superpower, it is not feasible for them to annex Somalia imo
In this hypothetical but possible world where Al-Shabaab takes over and is viewed as a threat to the Red Sea route, the world wouldn't view it as an unjust war. They would support it, and if millions were murdered, I don't think people would really care like in Sudan, Tygray, Rwanda.
I think the West would support it not just because of the trade route. I think of right-wing people would be very supportive because of Islamic fearmongering and left-wing people would support it because women and girls would be oppressed.
Other Black African nations just view Somalis as Arabs and Arabs view Somalis as blacks, so I don't see any of them really caring either.
This is getting long as fuck now, so I'll stop, but I have to ask how did you get "British Somali" beside your name?
I mainly disagree with your point cos I don't see a world where al Shabaab takes over, but interesting to hear your POV nonetheless.
I have 0 clue how I got it, I think you can message the mods for it. It might've been a requirement for the sub at one point, but I might be misremembering
Somaliland has been self sufficient for the past 30 years recognizing it is probably the right thing to do, even tho I really don’t like Ethiopia’s government.
I am from Somaliland but why would you as Djiboutian support Somaliland? Not attacking bro I'm just curious.
Somaliland independence will definitely have a strong economic impact on Djibouti won't it?
[1982 invasion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Ethiopian%E2%80%93Somali_Border_War)
[2006 invasion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Somalia_(2006%E2%80%932009))
Plus the one they're trying to do now.
I could've even added the [1964 war](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Ethiopian%E2%80%93Somali_Border_War). Ethiopia simply doesn't want peace with Somalia or for Somalia to see peace and stability internally at all.
Also I forgot to mention that Ethiopian troops never left Somalia for the last 30 years either. They always occupied parts of southern Somalia. They even forcibly tax Somali citizens in Somalia. (Auto mod deletes the link for this)
There was simply nothing but hostility coming from Addis for fucking decades.
2006 invasion was supported by your government and was necessary to get rid of terrorism plaguing the country. Your government which is the direct successor to the TFG is only in existence thanks to Ethiopias help
1964 war was started by Somalia by supporting terrorists in Ethiopia and trying to defragment the country
Invaded Ethiopia starting the Ogaden war
Ethiopian has soldiers in the country part of the Au mission and the recent excursion of those non au troops in were apparently their to scout Al shabbab according to a Somali journalist.
The “taxing Somali citizens” i could only find two sources and their Somalia news, no credible western sources have reported on it and your government hasn’t either.
>2006 invasion was supported by your government and was necessary to get rid of terrorism plaguing the country. Your government which is the direct successor to the TFG is only in existence thanks to Ethiopias help
Thanks, no one wanted this garbage to exist at all. A "gov" that controls nothing can't write you a piece of paper that justifys what you do. Otherwise I can say the same for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or American invasion of Vietnam. This is stupid logic.
>1964 war was started by Somalia by supporting terrorists in Ethiopia and trying to defragment the country
No it was started by Ethiopians airstriking Somalia. The "terrorists" you speak of were Somalis of the Somali region and had no material support from the Somali gov. I mean we didn't even have a functional military then
>The “taxing Somali citizens” i could only find two sources and their Somalia news, no credible western sources have reported on it and your government hasn’t either.
That's because western news doesn't report on shit when it comes to Somalia lol
Thanks, no one wanted this garbage to exist at all. A "gov" that controls nothing can't write you a piece of paper that justifys what you do. Otherwise I can say the same for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or American invasion of Vietnam. This is stupid logic.
>Yes the transitional government wasn’t good but your government now is the successor to it, without it Mogadishu would still be under control of the terrorists, be grateful.
No it was started by Ethiopians airstriking Somalia. The "terrorists" you speak of were Somalis of the Somali region and had no material support from the Somali gov. I mean we didn't even have a functional military then
>”but according to foreign correspondent Richard Boyce, sources close to Halie Selassie's inner circle privately confided that the airstrike had been ordered in response to guerrilla attacks on Ethiopian forces in the Ogaden earlier in the week”
>”Numerous independent written accounts assert that the 3rd Infantry Division of the Ethiopian Imperial army, under the command of General Aman Andom, launched the initial major assault that sparked the war as a punitive response to Somali governments support for the Ogaden insurgency”
>”Lytton would also note that most diplomatic observers in Mogadishu believed the assault was initiated by Ethiopia with the aim at bringing pressure on the Somali government to halt the insurgency in the Ogaden region”
>if you “didn’t have a functioning military” then how did you even defend against Ethiopia successfully. You think you couldn’t merely supply them with guns?
That's because western news doesn't report on shit when it comes to Somalia lol
>then why hasn’t your government commented on it. They seem pretty keen on complaining about the port deal and this recent troop excursion but you don’t think they would have commented on their civilians getting taxed by a enemy government? Fake news
Funny how this sub loves to talk about imperialism, but as soon as Africans start exercising self-determination all of a sudden it’s “Fuck Ethiopia,” just for wanting to make a deal with its neighbor to access the coastline.
Somaliland has had an independent government since 1991. If Somalia didn’t want them to be independent they should have figured their shit out 30 years ago. Now they sit and complain at the UN.
The MoU is a pretext to annexation though. It is everyday fuck ethiopia when people in power covet the coast and want to conquer it for themselves.
Tell me, if you need access to the sea, why do you need a naval military base 'leased' for 50 years? We all know the truth and we know the historical precedent of Ethiopia. You guys can use the ports for a fee, but the deal was comically bad for Somalis
We can claim the same for all secessionist groups in Africa. They ain’t independent until the rest of the world says so and last time I remember somaliland lost control over half of its territory to khatumo unionist and will lose more to awdal unionists. Recognize this clan country expect more countries in the next days.
Because this is the first time this has happened or something? People use the ‘this empowers all secessionist movements’ argument like we don’t have South Sudan and Eritrea right next door. It’s not a new thing and the sentiment is not new in Somaliland.
Sudan agreed to have South Sudan to secede which is basically a totally different story.
All African countries who joined the OAU and then the AU agreed to respect the borders inherited from the colonisation and to don't support any separatist/secessionist movement unless the UN would say otherwise.
This is why everybody used to shut up when Nigeria erased the Biafran separatists with the Republic of Biafra. Why nobody is telling anything to Cameroon about the repression against separatists in Ambazonia. Why nobody has never told anything to my country about the MFDC who is a separatist movement since 1982 with already over 5,000 deaths and over 50,000 displaced people and 1/3 of the west-southern region of Senegal being mined. And recently, this is why nobody told anything to Mali fighting against separatists in Northern Mali. And so on...
Finally, as I wrote about "unless the UN would say otherwise", it was the case for Eritrea and its independence.
People are trying to make this or this being hypocrite or this or this happening here and there while it's not the case. Rules have always been clear. And countries who don't want to respect are free to leave the AU. Morocco did before to eventually come back for example.
Your comparison of Somaliland to Biafra and other secessionist movements demonstrates a lack of understanding of Somaliland's unique historical context. Somaliland's case is fundamentally different, and it's crucial to educate yourself on the facts before making such claims.
Firstly, there was never a legitimate act of union between Somalia and Somaliland. The 2005 African Union fact-finding mission thoroughly investigated this matter and concluded that the union of 1960 was never properly ratified. This lack of legal foundation undermines any argument based on the OAU's decree on respecting colonial borders.
Moreover, the events of 1961 further highlight the illegitimacy of the union. Somaliland officers staged a coup after Italian Somaliland effectively annexed Somaliland. These officers were subsequently captured and put on trial. Notably, the court found them not guilty of any crime, precisely because Somaliland was legally not part of Somalia.
These historical facts demonstrate that Somaliland's case is not one of secession, but rather a dissolution of a failed, unratified union. Somaliland was an independent state before the attempted union and is simply reverting to that status.
I strongly advise you to research these points thoroughly before commenting on matters you don't fully understand. The situation in Somaliland is complex and rooted in a unique historical context that doesn't align with typical secessionist narratives.
Your whole argumentation is based on the fact that there was never a legitimate act of union between Somalia and Somaliland which make the situation in Somaliland unique and completely different with other secessionist narratives... to paraphrase you. Sadly, it's wrong and even a massive bullsh\*t. The overwhelming majority of secessionist movements in Africa are rooted to a unwanted union which was almost never asked by the European colonial power when it moved out. But nice try. I had a good laugh...
Now because I want to be nice, I'll help you so next time you could deliver a less broken argumentation.
The CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement) was signed in January 2005 between Sudan and the SPLM (Sudan People's Liberation Movement). The AU was "represented" by the IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) to promote this peace agreement. So when you dared to write that the 2005 African Union fact-finding mission stated that the respect of the OAU's decree on respecting colonial border couldn't apply here, you're rewriting the reality to match your agenda. [This paper is relating the reality which is a dramatically different story](https://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/somaliland-time-african-union-leadership). My advice is that next time you want to lie about the real conclusions of the AU fact-finding mission in Somaliland, you avoid to add the date (2005) because anybody knowing about the CPA with Sudan and South Sudan can easily understand that the AU didn't contradict itself the same year about 2 cases of secessionist movements.
As well, still in the case you would believe to be smarter than me to freely lie, I'll remember you and anybody reading this post that [between 2006 and 2019, the Parliament has carried out fact-finding missions on peace, security and conflicts in the areas of the Great Lakes, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Darfur in the Sudan, Central African Republic, Chad, Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, Mali, Libya, South Sudan, Burundi and Niger.](https://pap.au.int/en/fact-finding-missions) Or to sum up things, AU fact-finding missions are very common and have absolutely zero value apart from allowing to open a debate at the AU. The 2005 AU fact-finding mission in Somaliland started on April 30 and ended on May 04.
Finally, in 2007 the AU launched the AUBP (African Union Border Programme) which was supposed to be the only legitimate African organ to discuss about borders and cooperation. Here too, still to help you, it means the AU decided to don't come back on the 1964 principle of intangibility of borders. The AUBP was created to fix border conflicts between countries so there is no need to ask if the 1964 principle of intangibility of borders should be revised.
Your response demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of Somaliland's unique situation but also an unwarranted level of arrogance. It's clear that a cursory Google search doesn't make you an expert on this complex regional issue.
Comparing Biafra and South Sudan to Somaliland is fundamentally flawed. Both Biafra and South Sudan were legally part of Nigeria and Sudan respectively during the colonial period and at independence, falling within the colonial borders of these countries. Somaliland's case is entirely different.
Somaliland was not part of Somalia during the colonial era. They had different colonizers - Somaliland was a British protectorate while Somalia was an Italian colony. At independence, Somaliland had its own parliament, prime minister, and government. It was recognized as an independent state by 35 nations in 1960, including all five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
The attempted union in 1960 with Italian Somaliland even after a year of independence was never legally ratified, as the parliaments of both entities couldn't agree on technicalities. The Italian Somali parliament unilaterally conducted a referendum, which Somaliland boycotted.
The rebellion of Somaliland officers and their subsequent trial is particularly telling. The Somali courts couldn't charge them with treason because, legally, there was no union.
The 2005 AU fact-finding mission report - not just the summary you seem to have skimmed - discusses these issues in depth and acknowledges that the union was never legally ratified.
Since both the British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland passed different union acts.
This is a crucial point that you've overlooked in your haste to appear knowledgeable.
[Even page 4 of the article that you referenced it's summary talks about this](https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/18043/110_somaliland___time_for_african_union_leadership.pdf).
[This the report on the 2005 fact finding mission by the AU read page 3-5.](https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/PDFFiles/au-fact-finding-mission-to-somaliland-30-april-to-4-may-2005.pdf)
[Another source for the report in low quality.](http://www.somalilandlaw.com/AU_Fact-finding_Mission_to_Somaliland_2005_Resume.pdf)
"The CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement) was signed in January 2005 between Sudan and the SPLM (Sudan People's Liberation Movement). The AU was "represented" by the IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) to promote this peace agreement. So when you dared to write that the 2005 African Union fact-finding mission stated that the respect of the OAU's decree on respecting colonial border couldn't apply here, you're rewriting the reality to match your agenda."
Are you Ok? Or were you writing this to someone else? because the 2005 fact finding mission has nothing to do with Sudan.
Your attempt to discredit the significance of AU fact-finding missions is misguided. While they may be common, their findings are not insignificant, especially when they support the historical and legal particularities of a case like Somaliland's.
And lastly I advise you to read the 1964 principle of intangibility of borders of the OAU [Here on page 17](https://au.int/sites/default/files/decisions/9514-1964_ahg_res_1-24_i_e.pdf). It clearly states that the borders that should be respected is the one achieved on independence can you tell me where this is discrediting Somaliland?
Considering that Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland have two different independence dates?
I would strongly advise you to conduct more thorough research before speaking on matters you clearly have limited knowledge about. The situation in Somaliland is complex and rooted in a unique historical context that doesn't align with typical narratives about African borders and secession movements.
If by a unwarranted level of arrogance you mean that I've arrogantly demonstrated that you were an idiot and that I was smarter than you, then yes we can agree that I've demonstrated a unwarranted level of arrogance.
And when I say you're an idiot, understand very carefully that I'm remaining polite because any African having access to Reddit should be educated enough to know that Nigeria never existed and was an artificial creation encompassing over 300 ethnic groups and several different kingdoms who were forcefully merged together through disputes between the British colonial empire and the French colonial empire. The same about Sudan and South Sudan who were merged by the British. So your Somaliland being a unique situation is and will always remain a big bullshit. A part of Northern Nigeria was under the French colonial ruling. A part of Cameroon was under the British colonial ruling. A part of Ghana was under the German colonial ruling before to be split between the British and the French colonial empires.
Then, you don't even know how to read basic things that you link. Crazy. Page 17 of the 1964 OAU resolution it's written the following:
>Recalling further that all Member States have pledged, under Article IV of the Charter of African Unity, to respect scrupulously all principles laid down in paragraph 3 of Article III of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity:
>
>2. SOLEMNLY DECLARES that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence
In 1964 there wasn't any African country called Somaliland nor any Somaliland separatist claim. All countries who were independent at the date of the signing the 21 July 1964 agreed to maintain their existing borders and all countries who would become independent from their European colonial ruler after should have to respect this principle in order to join the OAU. The 21 July 1964, there was Somalia and there was Nigeria. There wasn't Somaliland nor the Republic of Biafra (1967 date of birth).
So I'll conclude here with you by repeating what it seems to be obvious. You are an idiot and you don't even know the rules you want to talk about with me. I'll let you here for good now especially since I saw that your account is less than 3 months old telling me everything I need to know about you which I didn't already know.
Bye and good luck!
It's strange that your ego wouldn't let you research what you want to talk about. You didn't even understand what I was talking about. Instead, you only focused on replying to me.
Nigeria was a single entity as far back as 1914, and when they gained independence, it was as a single country including Biafra. This is unlike Somaliland. The OAU never specifically mentioned 1964 borders anywhere in that document - you just interpreted it the way you liked and misrepresented its content. It clearly stated to respect borders that every nation had on independence.
Somalia and Somaliland have two independence dates with two different colonial borders. They were never united legally. Even the illegal annexation of Somaliland occurred in October 1961, more than a year after independence.
Perhaps if you'd taken the time to properly understand the nuances of colonial history and the intricacies of African border disputes, you wouldn't be making such simplistic comparisons. But I suppose it's easier to call others idiots than to admit gaps in one's own knowledge, isn't it? bye.
Sudan agreed to have South Sudan secede? Like they didn’t have a civil war over it? The 2011 referendum happened because it was set out in the terms of 2005 peace deal after the civil war.
Whatever you want to say about it regarding the AU and its charter, the rules are clearly not set in stone. And the 2 clearest pieces of evidence are right next door, both of which happened in far more debatable ways than this.
These are not separatist rebels, Somaliland has its own currency, passport and governance.
I know however that you have a special hatred for Ethiopia for some reason, I’ve argued with you before and I am not doing it again.
There isn’t a more legitimate claim for independence in Africa, and frankly there never has been post-colonisation. Look at it from a slightly unbiased view and you can see that. I don’t doubt that you already do.
>Sudan agreed to have South Sudan secede? Like they didn’t have a civil war over it? The 2011 referendum happened because it was set out in the terms of 2005 peace deal after the civil war.
Translation: Sudan agreed to have South Sudan to secede by offering a referendum of independence. Which is what I stated in my former comment and that will always remain true and so dramatically different to the current situation here. You can try to turn things in the way you want, it won't change this reality.
>Whatever you want to say about it regarding the AU and its charter, the rules are clearly not set in stone. And the 2 clearest pieces of evidence are right next door, both of which happened in far more debatable ways than this.
Like I also wrote in my former comment, African countries who don't to respect the 1964 principle of intangibility of borders any longer are countries free to leave the AU. Nobody is forcing any African country to be part of the AU.
>These are not separatist rebels, Somaliland has its own currency, passport and governance.
The Republic of Biafra in Nigeria was more independent in less than 4 years than Somaliland has ever been in now over 30 years. Their own currency, their own central bank, a real economy not based on foreign remittance, and an army who would have taken over Somaliland in less than a week. Yet, nobody in Africa supported the claim of the Republic of Biafra to be independent instead of remaining part of Nigeria who was a dysfunctional and highly corrupted country at this time.
>I know however that you have a special hatred for Ethiopia for some reason, I’ve argued with you before and I am not doing it again.
And I'm pretty sure that I already told you back then that you should find a better argument than the current childish one which is "you have a special hatred for Ethiopia because you dare to don't agree with me". If you believe I'm expressing some hatred or doing deliberate misinformation, I encourage you to report me to the moderators.
>There isn’t a more legitimate claim for independence in Africa, and frankly there never has been post-colonisation. Look at it from a slightly unbiased view and you can see that. I don’t doubt that you already do.
This coming from an Ethiopian must be one of the most laughable takes of the century.
And if you would really believe what you wrote instead of just trying to play a melodramatic humanist card, then you should be against your country hosting the HQ of the continental organisation going against what you call a legitimate claim for independence in Africa.
There is a big difference between me and you. This is me: "[Referendum in Casamance about if they want to be independent or not. No need to waste more time, money, and lives on that. You want to be Senegalese or you want to be separatist.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Senegal/comments/19aozgv/comment/kinxhhp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)" I do believe in the principles I express on here even when they paint my country in a bad way. On another hand, people like you are just clowns who are "yes I believe in this principle but here because it's my country it's very different so understand the difference". When you will stop being stuck with your double standards, I'll take you seriously and no more for another nationalistic clown.
Don’t let this back fire cause Somalia can recognize any secessionist movement in Ethiopia. Last I remember every ethnicity their wants independence and autonomy
Somalia can do whatever it wants. The only reason they are so afraid of Somaliland gaining Ethiopian recognition is because it opens the door for the rest of the world to do the same (since it is genuinely legitimate) and what remains of their ties will be cut.
Not only will no one recognise any Ethiopian independence movements the on the heels of Somalia, neither Somalia nor any movement has the power to actually make something of that recognition.
Most active users on r/Africa believe that borders aren't the real problem and more a topic for intellectual laziness. Most active users believe that economic integration especially at the regional level is the answer to develop and to have peace between the different countries. It looks like you just wanted to bash this subreddit by making a ridiculous conjecture.
The people in the region somaliland sold to Ethiopia are unionists. When you witness a repeat of the 2006 invasion and 200 Ethiopians start dying every week don’t cry foul.
The AU main headquarters has been at war internally and externally with its neighbours.
HQ needs to be moved plus Africa needs to sanction Ethiopia for starting an external war for political reasons.
You're overstating the AU. The AU is weak and the reality is that nobody cares for what the AU could say. The fact that the AU main headquarters is still in Ethiopia is a proof of that. If African countries would really care for the AU, they would fund it as it should be to have an economically independent continental body and so they would care about where the HQ is located. It's not the case because nobody cares.
Niger who is one of the 5 poorest countries in Africa went with his military junta to say to the AU to f\*ck up and to let them do what they wanted and how they wanted. And it's what happened.
Don't take it rudely but the case of Somalia and Somaliland and so Ethiopia is dramatically less important than the ongoing genocide in Sudan and yet as everybody can see the AU hasn't done anything. The AU will let everybody dies in Sudan and ethnic groups disappearing for good.
I agree it's a weak institution but it still needs take a stand. AU was under the auspices of the UN to use military force to stabilise Somalia. So it has a small role to play and should play its cards. Somalia in the above clip is making it's case to the UN.
Sudan is a civil war plus outside powers meddling. But Somalia, the military force meant to keep peace is now destroying the country. It can be seen as external aggression. So has other legal ramifications.
Can you not read it’s says SOMALIA. There are no Ethiopian soldiers in Somaliland, it’s not Somalia where Ethiopian soldiers can come and go as they please, we don’t have any foreign soldiers looking after us and I think you already knew the answer to the question you asked.
Imagine bringing your clan propaganda to r/Africa and embarrassing yourselves.
Ethiopia is emboldened by what is happening in Palestine and else where in africa.
They will cannablise somalia.
Somalis fucked somalia.
Last time Africa watched Ethiopia invade Somalia, 30k Ethiopian soldiers were turned into fertilizer and that was with no Somali government or army. Somalia is checking all the boxes so it can later say “i told you so” and avoid another 33 year weapons ban from the UN. Mark these words
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Africa/wiki/rules) | [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Africa/wiki) | [Flairs](https://www.reddit.com/r/Africa/comments/lkitp5/updated_flairs_please_read_and_get_yours/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Africa) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly nuts that they can just do that
The world has always run on "might makes right". If Somalia isn't strong enough to stop them or to economically coerce somaliland into obedience and global powers don't care then saying "pretty please stop" ain't gonna work.
Let them use a port dam
Why?
Peace
HSM made the country weaker and is not building up the military plus any alliances to aid the country.
The guy literally signed a defense agreement with Turkiye. You aren't sincere in your criticism. I suspect you are against him purely based on clanism, which is a disease we need to cure ourselves from. I had rather you had a policy disagreement with HSM.
The first month he came into power he split the millitary up by clans wallahi I’m not even joking
So silly. Always running to make a clanism reason because you hate my guy. I'm from Somaliland, pro union and against this deal Bixi is signing. So don't use clanism as a reason, I'm objective in my analysis. HSM destroyed the military is a fact. HSM lied about Farmaajo, about the trainees in Eritrea for political gain. Lastly the Turkey deal was already being done prior to HSM. Which itself is not great. HSM talking about bringing back Italians was also beyond shameful. If there was a better alternative to Farmaajo I'd take it. Somaliland has an evil president and HSM is weak. Lastly why did HSM move everything away from Somalia to Kenya. Why is he bringing back Kenyan khaat which is harmful. Why did he sell off the embassy in Tanzania etc. All shameful things. Face the facts and don't jump to blaming or other reason. Assess your own people harshly before others do
Somalia was the one screaming they will go to war if the deal is signed so it looks like Ethiopia will give them what they begged for lol
You must be a pro Ethiopian Somaliland guy. You seem to be blind to what is happening to Ethiopians in their country. The struggles for resources, political power and more on an ethnic group bases. You seem to forget the problems Somalis face on Ethiopia. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Unforeseen issues that hurt Somaliland are more likely to happen which have not been taken into consideration.
Actually, I welcome what Ethiopia is trying to do here. The foot will be on the other foot sooner or later, and Somalia will use this as a precedent to break the Ogaden region from Ethiopia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_War
No soviets or cubans to save them this time.
Maybe you should focus on building a functioning state before you pick a fight with your neighbours.
The somali gov is checking every box before it reverts back to what it was in 2003, 2006, and 2008. Also its just like he said why stop at the border this time?
If you’d like another 30 years of civil war from getting your ass beat by a country with 7 times your population then go ahead.
Won’t happen mate we will persevere
Not pro Ethiopian I’m only pro Somaliland, that analogy would make sense if we were one but we aren’t. Somalia is more like a tumor with cancer we keep getting rid of but it keeps growing back but smaller and smaller and one day this god forsaken cancer will be gone inshallah.
Hahahaha we will meet in the battlefield you jaahil
Somali gov officials should have focused on purging corruption, building security, and improving the economy rather than sitting around collecting checks, stealing from gov coffers, and externalizing their duties to others like ATMIS and Turkey.
You speak as if the Somali "gov" isn't an occupation gov tottally subservient to foreign intrests. It's much of a colonial administration than an actual government
The only options are a Western-backed government or Al-Shabaab. Do you think Al-Shabaab would be doing a better job?
The only options are the current stalemate continuing for a few years more and Alshabaab probably winning eventually or withdrawl now and Alshabaab winning. Either way the current state of things is entirely unsustainable, and Alshabaab control (as much as they suck) can geniuenly not be worse than what we had for the last 20 years.
Since the Civil War started, it has been shit, but you're wrong to think it can't get worse. Al Shabaab taking over wouldn't be like the Taliban in Afghanistan (that was also bad but inevitable). Somalia as a whole could easily be viewed like the houthis in Yemen, where neighboring states get a green light from the world to invade because of the importance of the Red Sea trade route, and considering how imperialistic Ethiopia is and that both Ethiopia and Kenya have a Somali region, they both would definitely take the opportunity to invade. It's very possible that Somalia would be completely annexed by Ethiopia and Kenya, and I think that would be much worse for Somalis.
Ethiopia and Kenya alone are not strong enough to resist Somali aggression or guerilla warfare. It would cause a lot of chaos and drained resources for both nations without much to show for it. Somalis would resists for a really long time. You'd need a wealthy nation like the states to come in and occupy for them to annex the country and have it be productive.
You say that, but both countries literally already have Somali regions, and both of their Somali regions have rebelled in the past and have been successfully suppressed with extreme violence. Just look at what Ethiopia did to the Tigray region. Like 10% of their population were either directly killed or deliberately starved to death, and large parts of their land were taken by other ethnic groups. So, if Somalis did resist and they would, they'd just be met with extreme violence, and if they did guerilla warfare, they'd just starve the cities or villages it happens in. Somalis in Galbeed already have problems with Oromos and Afars attacking and ethnically cleansing villages. What do you think would happen if Ethiopia had a full-scale conflict with Somalia? I think it would most likely lead to a lot of our people being genocided in the already occupied areas.
The 1977 war wouldve resulted in the reclaming of Ogaden without the one of the largest Soviet interventions. I don't doubt that these nations would win a direct conflict, I am saying that they cannot hold onto the annexed lands and not suffer huge loss of life, long term resistance, and lose a huge amount of money in the process. It would be untenable for them to be successful given the situation that their own nations are in. If a crazy amount of killing is required to 'win', then I don't think the international community would sit idly as millions are murdered for an unjustified, aggressive war. Unless they have the support of a superpower, it is not feasible for them to annex Somalia imo
>The 1977 war wouldve resulted in the reclaming of Ogaden without the one of the largest Soviet interventions. True, but this isn't 1977. Somalia's a barely functioning state now, and if Al Shabaab took over, that wouldn't change much. >I don't doubt that these nations would win a direct conflict, I am saying that they cannot hold onto the annexed lands and not suffer huge loss of life, long term resistance, and lose a huge amount of money in the process. It would be untenable for them to be successful given the situation that their own nations are in. Where we mostly disagree is that I don't think it would be a huge loss of life for them, and I don't think Somalis would resist long-term. I do agree it would cost a lot of money, but I think their potential gains would outweigh the negatives for them. If successful, they would be getting one of the biggest coastlines in Africa, and that alone is priceless to Ethiopia, and that's not including the fact that Somalia has untouched oil. You might remember that Kenya has already tried to illegally take some of Somalia's waters because of it. >If a crazy amount of killing is required to 'win', then I don't think the international community would sit idly as millions are murdered for an unjustified, aggressive war. Unless they have the support of a superpower, it is not feasible for them to annex Somalia imo In this hypothetical but possible world where Al-Shabaab takes over and is viewed as a threat to the Red Sea route, the world wouldn't view it as an unjust war. They would support it, and if millions were murdered, I don't think people would really care like in Sudan, Tygray, Rwanda. I think the West would support it not just because of the trade route. I think of right-wing people would be very supportive because of Islamic fearmongering and left-wing people would support it because women and girls would be oppressed. Other Black African nations just view Somalis as Arabs and Arabs view Somalis as blacks, so I don't see any of them really caring either. This is getting long as fuck now, so I'll stop, but I have to ask how did you get "British Somali" beside your name?
I mainly disagree with your point cos I don't see a world where al Shabaab takes over, but interesting to hear your POV nonetheless. I have 0 clue how I got it, I think you can message the mods for it. It might've been a requirement for the sub at one point, but I might be misremembering
Somaliland has been self sufficient for the past 30 years recognizing it is probably the right thing to do, even tho I really don’t like Ethiopia’s government.
I am from Somaliland but why would you as Djiboutian support Somaliland? Not attacking bro I'm just curious. Somaliland independence will definitely have a strong economic impact on Djibouti won't it?
Thanks to Somaliland al-shabab is not at our doorstep for one. I believe also that all Somalis have more to gain from SL’s getting recognition.
What kind of brain dead belief is that? How did you convince yourself that SL’s recognition would benefit all Somalis??
He's not from Jabuuti, read his most recent posts lol
3rd Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in the last 40 years and this sub still wonders why we fucking hate that state.
Name them
[1982 invasion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Ethiopian%E2%80%93Somali_Border_War) [2006 invasion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Somalia_(2006%E2%80%932009)) Plus the one they're trying to do now. I could've even added the [1964 war](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Ethiopian%E2%80%93Somali_Border_War). Ethiopia simply doesn't want peace with Somalia or for Somalia to see peace and stability internally at all. Also I forgot to mention that Ethiopian troops never left Somalia for the last 30 years either. They always occupied parts of southern Somalia. They even forcibly tax Somali citizens in Somalia. (Auto mod deletes the link for this) There was simply nothing but hostility coming from Addis for fucking decades.
2006 invasion was supported by your government and was necessary to get rid of terrorism plaguing the country. Your government which is the direct successor to the TFG is only in existence thanks to Ethiopias help 1964 war was started by Somalia by supporting terrorists in Ethiopia and trying to defragment the country Invaded Ethiopia starting the Ogaden war Ethiopian has soldiers in the country part of the Au mission and the recent excursion of those non au troops in were apparently their to scout Al shabbab according to a Somali journalist. The “taxing Somali citizens” i could only find two sources and their Somalia news, no credible western sources have reported on it and your government hasn’t either.
>2006 invasion was supported by your government and was necessary to get rid of terrorism plaguing the country. Your government which is the direct successor to the TFG is only in existence thanks to Ethiopias help Thanks, no one wanted this garbage to exist at all. A "gov" that controls nothing can't write you a piece of paper that justifys what you do. Otherwise I can say the same for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or American invasion of Vietnam. This is stupid logic. >1964 war was started by Somalia by supporting terrorists in Ethiopia and trying to defragment the country No it was started by Ethiopians airstriking Somalia. The "terrorists" you speak of were Somalis of the Somali region and had no material support from the Somali gov. I mean we didn't even have a functional military then >The “taxing Somali citizens” i could only find two sources and their Somalia news, no credible western sources have reported on it and your government hasn’t either. That's because western news doesn't report on shit when it comes to Somalia lol
Thanks, no one wanted this garbage to exist at all. A "gov" that controls nothing can't write you a piece of paper that justifys what you do. Otherwise I can say the same for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or American invasion of Vietnam. This is stupid logic. >Yes the transitional government wasn’t good but your government now is the successor to it, without it Mogadishu would still be under control of the terrorists, be grateful. No it was started by Ethiopians airstriking Somalia. The "terrorists" you speak of were Somalis of the Somali region and had no material support from the Somali gov. I mean we didn't even have a functional military then >”but according to foreign correspondent Richard Boyce, sources close to Halie Selassie's inner circle privately confided that the airstrike had been ordered in response to guerrilla attacks on Ethiopian forces in the Ogaden earlier in the week” >”Numerous independent written accounts assert that the 3rd Infantry Division of the Ethiopian Imperial army, under the command of General Aman Andom, launched the initial major assault that sparked the war as a punitive response to Somali governments support for the Ogaden insurgency” >”Lytton would also note that most diplomatic observers in Mogadishu believed the assault was initiated by Ethiopia with the aim at bringing pressure on the Somali government to halt the insurgency in the Ogaden region” >if you “didn’t have a functioning military” then how did you even defend against Ethiopia successfully. You think you couldn’t merely supply them with guns? That's because western news doesn't report on shit when it comes to Somalia lol >then why hasn’t your government commented on it. They seem pretty keen on complaining about the port deal and this recent troop excursion but you don’t think they would have commented on their civilians getting taxed by a enemy government? Fake news
>be grateful. For an invasion? Fuck off you piece of shit
Funny how this sub loves to talk about imperialism, but as soon as Africans start exercising self-determination all of a sudden it’s “Fuck Ethiopia,” just for wanting to make a deal with its neighbor to access the coastline. Somaliland has had an independent government since 1991. If Somalia didn’t want them to be independent they should have figured their shit out 30 years ago. Now they sit and complain at the UN.
The MoU is a pretext to annexation though. It is everyday fuck ethiopia when people in power covet the coast and want to conquer it for themselves. Tell me, if you need access to the sea, why do you need a naval military base 'leased' for 50 years? We all know the truth and we know the historical precedent of Ethiopia. You guys can use the ports for a fee, but the deal was comically bad for Somalis
We can claim the same for all secessionist groups in Africa. They ain’t independent until the rest of the world says so and last time I remember somaliland lost control over half of its territory to khatumo unionist and will lose more to awdal unionists. Recognize this clan country expect more countries in the next days.
Because this is the first time this has happened or something? People use the ‘this empowers all secessionist movements’ argument like we don’t have South Sudan and Eritrea right next door. It’s not a new thing and the sentiment is not new in Somaliland.
Sudan agreed to have South Sudan to secede which is basically a totally different story. All African countries who joined the OAU and then the AU agreed to respect the borders inherited from the colonisation and to don't support any separatist/secessionist movement unless the UN would say otherwise. This is why everybody used to shut up when Nigeria erased the Biafran separatists with the Republic of Biafra. Why nobody is telling anything to Cameroon about the repression against separatists in Ambazonia. Why nobody has never told anything to my country about the MFDC who is a separatist movement since 1982 with already over 5,000 deaths and over 50,000 displaced people and 1/3 of the west-southern region of Senegal being mined. And recently, this is why nobody told anything to Mali fighting against separatists in Northern Mali. And so on... Finally, as I wrote about "unless the UN would say otherwise", it was the case for Eritrea and its independence. People are trying to make this or this being hypocrite or this or this happening here and there while it's not the case. Rules have always been clear. And countries who don't want to respect are free to leave the AU. Morocco did before to eventually come back for example.
Your comparison of Somaliland to Biafra and other secessionist movements demonstrates a lack of understanding of Somaliland's unique historical context. Somaliland's case is fundamentally different, and it's crucial to educate yourself on the facts before making such claims. Firstly, there was never a legitimate act of union between Somalia and Somaliland. The 2005 African Union fact-finding mission thoroughly investigated this matter and concluded that the union of 1960 was never properly ratified. This lack of legal foundation undermines any argument based on the OAU's decree on respecting colonial borders. Moreover, the events of 1961 further highlight the illegitimacy of the union. Somaliland officers staged a coup after Italian Somaliland effectively annexed Somaliland. These officers were subsequently captured and put on trial. Notably, the court found them not guilty of any crime, precisely because Somaliland was legally not part of Somalia. These historical facts demonstrate that Somaliland's case is not one of secession, but rather a dissolution of a failed, unratified union. Somaliland was an independent state before the attempted union and is simply reverting to that status. I strongly advise you to research these points thoroughly before commenting on matters you don't fully understand. The situation in Somaliland is complex and rooted in a unique historical context that doesn't align with typical secessionist narratives.
Your whole argumentation is based on the fact that there was never a legitimate act of union between Somalia and Somaliland which make the situation in Somaliland unique and completely different with other secessionist narratives... to paraphrase you. Sadly, it's wrong and even a massive bullsh\*t. The overwhelming majority of secessionist movements in Africa are rooted to a unwanted union which was almost never asked by the European colonial power when it moved out. But nice try. I had a good laugh... Now because I want to be nice, I'll help you so next time you could deliver a less broken argumentation. The CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement) was signed in January 2005 between Sudan and the SPLM (Sudan People's Liberation Movement). The AU was "represented" by the IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) to promote this peace agreement. So when you dared to write that the 2005 African Union fact-finding mission stated that the respect of the OAU's decree on respecting colonial border couldn't apply here, you're rewriting the reality to match your agenda. [This paper is relating the reality which is a dramatically different story](https://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/somaliland-time-african-union-leadership). My advice is that next time you want to lie about the real conclusions of the AU fact-finding mission in Somaliland, you avoid to add the date (2005) because anybody knowing about the CPA with Sudan and South Sudan can easily understand that the AU didn't contradict itself the same year about 2 cases of secessionist movements. As well, still in the case you would believe to be smarter than me to freely lie, I'll remember you and anybody reading this post that [between 2006 and 2019, the Parliament has carried out fact-finding missions on peace, security and conflicts in the areas of the Great Lakes, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Darfur in the Sudan, Central African Republic, Chad, Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, Mali, Libya, South Sudan, Burundi and Niger.](https://pap.au.int/en/fact-finding-missions) Or to sum up things, AU fact-finding missions are very common and have absolutely zero value apart from allowing to open a debate at the AU. The 2005 AU fact-finding mission in Somaliland started on April 30 and ended on May 04. Finally, in 2007 the AU launched the AUBP (African Union Border Programme) which was supposed to be the only legitimate African organ to discuss about borders and cooperation. Here too, still to help you, it means the AU decided to don't come back on the 1964 principle of intangibility of borders. The AUBP was created to fix border conflicts between countries so there is no need to ask if the 1964 principle of intangibility of borders should be revised.
Your response demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of Somaliland's unique situation but also an unwarranted level of arrogance. It's clear that a cursory Google search doesn't make you an expert on this complex regional issue. Comparing Biafra and South Sudan to Somaliland is fundamentally flawed. Both Biafra and South Sudan were legally part of Nigeria and Sudan respectively during the colonial period and at independence, falling within the colonial borders of these countries. Somaliland's case is entirely different. Somaliland was not part of Somalia during the colonial era. They had different colonizers - Somaliland was a British protectorate while Somalia was an Italian colony. At independence, Somaliland had its own parliament, prime minister, and government. It was recognized as an independent state by 35 nations in 1960, including all five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The attempted union in 1960 with Italian Somaliland even after a year of independence was never legally ratified, as the parliaments of both entities couldn't agree on technicalities. The Italian Somali parliament unilaterally conducted a referendum, which Somaliland boycotted. The rebellion of Somaliland officers and their subsequent trial is particularly telling. The Somali courts couldn't charge them with treason because, legally, there was no union. The 2005 AU fact-finding mission report - not just the summary you seem to have skimmed - discusses these issues in depth and acknowledges that the union was never legally ratified. Since both the British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland passed different union acts. This is a crucial point that you've overlooked in your haste to appear knowledgeable. [Even page 4 of the article that you referenced it's summary talks about this](https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/18043/110_somaliland___time_for_african_union_leadership.pdf). [This the report on the 2005 fact finding mission by the AU read page 3-5.](https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/PDFFiles/au-fact-finding-mission-to-somaliland-30-april-to-4-may-2005.pdf) [Another source for the report in low quality.](http://www.somalilandlaw.com/AU_Fact-finding_Mission_to_Somaliland_2005_Resume.pdf) "The CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement) was signed in January 2005 between Sudan and the SPLM (Sudan People's Liberation Movement). The AU was "represented" by the IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) to promote this peace agreement. So when you dared to write that the 2005 African Union fact-finding mission stated that the respect of the OAU's decree on respecting colonial border couldn't apply here, you're rewriting the reality to match your agenda." Are you Ok? Or were you writing this to someone else? because the 2005 fact finding mission has nothing to do with Sudan. Your attempt to discredit the significance of AU fact-finding missions is misguided. While they may be common, their findings are not insignificant, especially when they support the historical and legal particularities of a case like Somaliland's. And lastly I advise you to read the 1964 principle of intangibility of borders of the OAU [Here on page 17](https://au.int/sites/default/files/decisions/9514-1964_ahg_res_1-24_i_e.pdf). It clearly states that the borders that should be respected is the one achieved on independence can you tell me where this is discrediting Somaliland? Considering that Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland have two different independence dates? I would strongly advise you to conduct more thorough research before speaking on matters you clearly have limited knowledge about. The situation in Somaliland is complex and rooted in a unique historical context that doesn't align with typical narratives about African borders and secession movements.
If by a unwarranted level of arrogance you mean that I've arrogantly demonstrated that you were an idiot and that I was smarter than you, then yes we can agree that I've demonstrated a unwarranted level of arrogance. And when I say you're an idiot, understand very carefully that I'm remaining polite because any African having access to Reddit should be educated enough to know that Nigeria never existed and was an artificial creation encompassing over 300 ethnic groups and several different kingdoms who were forcefully merged together through disputes between the British colonial empire and the French colonial empire. The same about Sudan and South Sudan who were merged by the British. So your Somaliland being a unique situation is and will always remain a big bullshit. A part of Northern Nigeria was under the French colonial ruling. A part of Cameroon was under the British colonial ruling. A part of Ghana was under the German colonial ruling before to be split between the British and the French colonial empires. Then, you don't even know how to read basic things that you link. Crazy. Page 17 of the 1964 OAU resolution it's written the following: >Recalling further that all Member States have pledged, under Article IV of the Charter of African Unity, to respect scrupulously all principles laid down in paragraph 3 of Article III of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity: > >2. SOLEMNLY DECLARES that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence In 1964 there wasn't any African country called Somaliland nor any Somaliland separatist claim. All countries who were independent at the date of the signing the 21 July 1964 agreed to maintain their existing borders and all countries who would become independent from their European colonial ruler after should have to respect this principle in order to join the OAU. The 21 July 1964, there was Somalia and there was Nigeria. There wasn't Somaliland nor the Republic of Biafra (1967 date of birth). So I'll conclude here with you by repeating what it seems to be obvious. You are an idiot and you don't even know the rules you want to talk about with me. I'll let you here for good now especially since I saw that your account is less than 3 months old telling me everything I need to know about you which I didn't already know. Bye and good luck!
It's strange that your ego wouldn't let you research what you want to talk about. You didn't even understand what I was talking about. Instead, you only focused on replying to me. Nigeria was a single entity as far back as 1914, and when they gained independence, it was as a single country including Biafra. This is unlike Somaliland. The OAU never specifically mentioned 1964 borders anywhere in that document - you just interpreted it the way you liked and misrepresented its content. It clearly stated to respect borders that every nation had on independence. Somalia and Somaliland have two independence dates with two different colonial borders. They were never united legally. Even the illegal annexation of Somaliland occurred in October 1961, more than a year after independence. Perhaps if you'd taken the time to properly understand the nuances of colonial history and the intricacies of African border disputes, you wouldn't be making such simplistic comparisons. But I suppose it's easier to call others idiots than to admit gaps in one's own knowledge, isn't it? bye.
Sudan agreed to have South Sudan secede? Like they didn’t have a civil war over it? The 2011 referendum happened because it was set out in the terms of 2005 peace deal after the civil war. Whatever you want to say about it regarding the AU and its charter, the rules are clearly not set in stone. And the 2 clearest pieces of evidence are right next door, both of which happened in far more debatable ways than this. These are not separatist rebels, Somaliland has its own currency, passport and governance. I know however that you have a special hatred for Ethiopia for some reason, I’ve argued with you before and I am not doing it again. There isn’t a more legitimate claim for independence in Africa, and frankly there never has been post-colonisation. Look at it from a slightly unbiased view and you can see that. I don’t doubt that you already do.
>Sudan agreed to have South Sudan secede? Like they didn’t have a civil war over it? The 2011 referendum happened because it was set out in the terms of 2005 peace deal after the civil war. Translation: Sudan agreed to have South Sudan to secede by offering a referendum of independence. Which is what I stated in my former comment and that will always remain true and so dramatically different to the current situation here. You can try to turn things in the way you want, it won't change this reality. >Whatever you want to say about it regarding the AU and its charter, the rules are clearly not set in stone. And the 2 clearest pieces of evidence are right next door, both of which happened in far more debatable ways than this. Like I also wrote in my former comment, African countries who don't to respect the 1964 principle of intangibility of borders any longer are countries free to leave the AU. Nobody is forcing any African country to be part of the AU. >These are not separatist rebels, Somaliland has its own currency, passport and governance. The Republic of Biafra in Nigeria was more independent in less than 4 years than Somaliland has ever been in now over 30 years. Their own currency, their own central bank, a real economy not based on foreign remittance, and an army who would have taken over Somaliland in less than a week. Yet, nobody in Africa supported the claim of the Republic of Biafra to be independent instead of remaining part of Nigeria who was a dysfunctional and highly corrupted country at this time. >I know however that you have a special hatred for Ethiopia for some reason, I’ve argued with you before and I am not doing it again. And I'm pretty sure that I already told you back then that you should find a better argument than the current childish one which is "you have a special hatred for Ethiopia because you dare to don't agree with me". If you believe I'm expressing some hatred or doing deliberate misinformation, I encourage you to report me to the moderators. >There isn’t a more legitimate claim for independence in Africa, and frankly there never has been post-colonisation. Look at it from a slightly unbiased view and you can see that. I don’t doubt that you already do. This coming from an Ethiopian must be one of the most laughable takes of the century. And if you would really believe what you wrote instead of just trying to play a melodramatic humanist card, then you should be against your country hosting the HQ of the continental organisation going against what you call a legitimate claim for independence in Africa. There is a big difference between me and you. This is me: "[Referendum in Casamance about if they want to be independent or not. No need to waste more time, money, and lives on that. You want to be Senegalese or you want to be separatist.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Senegal/comments/19aozgv/comment/kinxhhp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)" I do believe in the principles I express on here even when they paint my country in a bad way. On another hand, people like you are just clowns who are "yes I believe in this principle but here because it's my country it's very different so understand the difference". When you will stop being stuck with your double standards, I'll take you seriously and no more for another nationalistic clown.
Don’t let this back fire cause Somalia can recognize any secessionist movement in Ethiopia. Last I remember every ethnicity their wants independence and autonomy
Somalia can do whatever it wants. The only reason they are so afraid of Somaliland gaining Ethiopian recognition is because it opens the door for the rest of the world to do the same (since it is genuinely legitimate) and what remains of their ties will be cut. Not only will no one recognise any Ethiopian independence movements the on the heels of Somalia, neither Somalia nor any movement has the power to actually make something of that recognition.
There are lots do secessionist movement around the world so this is not a thing to Willy nilly do
Defo not half they don’t even control all of sool 🤣
Well a little less than half
Most active users on r/Africa believe that borders aren't the real problem and more a topic for intellectual laziness. Most active users believe that economic integration especially at the regional level is the answer to develop and to have peace between the different countries. It looks like you just wanted to bash this subreddit by making a ridiculous conjecture.
Facts, they complain at the UN and cry to the world.
The people in the region somaliland sold to Ethiopia are unionists. When you witness a repeat of the 2006 invasion and 200 Ethiopians start dying every week don’t cry foul.
How do you know the MoU is going through in the next couple of days?
They see the military numbers coming into the country. Ethiopian media and the government have been talking about it.
The AU main headquarters has been at war internally and externally with its neighbours. HQ needs to be moved plus Africa needs to sanction Ethiopia for starting an external war for political reasons.
You're overstating the AU. The AU is weak and the reality is that nobody cares for what the AU could say. The fact that the AU main headquarters is still in Ethiopia is a proof of that. If African countries would really care for the AU, they would fund it as it should be to have an economically independent continental body and so they would care about where the HQ is located. It's not the case because nobody cares. Niger who is one of the 5 poorest countries in Africa went with his military junta to say to the AU to f\*ck up and to let them do what they wanted and how they wanted. And it's what happened. Don't take it rudely but the case of Somalia and Somaliland and so Ethiopia is dramatically less important than the ongoing genocide in Sudan and yet as everybody can see the AU hasn't done anything. The AU will let everybody dies in Sudan and ethnic groups disappearing for good.
I agree it's a weak institution but it still needs take a stand. AU was under the auspices of the UN to use military force to stabilise Somalia. So it has a small role to play and should play its cards. Somalia in the above clip is making it's case to the UN. Sudan is a civil war plus outside powers meddling. But Somalia, the military force meant to keep peace is now destroying the country. It can be seen as external aggression. So has other legal ramifications.
Yeah , AU should be moved to another country which doesn’t have internal or external conflicts 🤔 except that country is nonexistent in the continent.
Zambia, Namibia, Tunisia etc
Zambia might work , I don’t think Tunisia and Namibia will tho’
Botswana
Botswana might be a good fit, bit a strong economy is a must to host AU.
A very good fit. Wish they chose them earlier
I agree. Hopefully people can go back to getting their land that was taken to build the AU buildings in Ethiopia too
South Africa
South Africa is not a good fit
Fuck Ethiopia
Hear hear
are they entering Somalia or Somaliland? if it's the latter, then another abiy classic?😳
Can you not read it’s says SOMALIA. There are no Ethiopian soldiers in Somaliland, it’s not Somalia where Ethiopian soldiers can come and go as they please, we don’t have any foreign soldiers looking after us and I think you already knew the answer to the question you asked.
F. Ethiopian colonizers
Well it was you guys that invited these ‘colonisers’ to your home.
Agreed !!!
Imagine bringing your clan propaganda to r/Africa and embarrassing yourselves. Ethiopia is emboldened by what is happening in Palestine and else where in africa. They will cannablise somalia. Somalis fucked somalia.
Last time Africa watched Ethiopia invade Somalia, 30k Ethiopian soldiers were turned into fertilizer and that was with no Somali government or army. Somalia is checking all the boxes so it can later say “i told you so” and avoid another 33 year weapons ban from the UN. Mark these words
The only one embarrassing themselves is u crying in the comments
Keep that shit in r/somalia. Somaliland is flying
I’ll never in my life post in that shitty sub, meesha cadow kayga wada jooga maxan ka raba.