This article, “The Mask of ‘Territorial Integrity’,” argues that the Republic of Somaliland’s struggle for international recognition is being unfairly blocked by powerful nations who are using the concept of “territorial integrity” as a false excuse to protect their own economic and political interests in the Horn of Africa.
Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
Somaliland’s History: Somaliland was an independent state recognized in 1960, before briefly joining with Somalia. This union was never legally ratified. After Somalia collapsed in 1991, Somaliland reclaimed its independence, not as a secession but as a restoration of its original sovereignty.
“Territorial Integrity” as a Smokescreen: Despite Somaliland’s legal history, regional and international actors portray its push for recognition as a threat to Somalia’s “territorial integrity.” This is a misleading narrative used to mask the real motives of these actors.
Self-Serving Interests: Several countries have specific interests in maintaining the status quo (i.e., Somaliland being unrecognized):
Turkey and Qatar seek to expand their influence in the region by supporting the Somali government and countering the UAE’s presence.
Saudi Arabia wants to maintain its dominance along the Red Sea corridor and is wary of the UAE’s growing influence through Somaliland’s Berbera port.
Egypt aims to counter Ethiopia’s growing power in the region and uses Somalia as a proxy.
Djibouti relies on its port for economic stability and sees Somaliland’s Berbera port as a threat.
Italy, the former colonial power of Somalia, aims to restore its historical economic relationship and influence in Somalia.
Double Standard: The article contrasts Somaliland’s situation with the breakup of the United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria), where Syria’s independence was quickly recognized. This highlights the unfairness of denying Somaliland recognition due to vested interests.
Using International Organizations: The article states that several countries use organizations like the African Union, Arab League, OIC, EU, and GCC to push the “territorial integrity” narrative and block Somaliland’s re-recognition politically.
Changing Dynamics: The article suggests that recent geopolitical shifts, such as Ethiopia’s relationship with Somaliland and growing frustration with Somalia’s instability, could lead to a shift in international recognition.
Conclusion: The article concludes that the “territorial integrity” argument is a mask that conceals the self-serving motives of powerful countries at Somaliland’s expense, and that Somaliland’s push for recognition is a restoration of its original independence, not an act of secession.
The complete piece is as follows:
The Mask of “Territorial Integrity”
The Republic of Somaliland’s struggle for re-recognition is often framed in terms of a “breakaway region” or “separatism,” terms that distort the legal and historical facts of the region. The reality is that the Republic of Somaliland’s sovereignty dates back to June 26, 1960. An internationally recognised independent state.
This historical truth is conveniently buried under the mask of “territorial integrity,” a term often weaponized by regional powers to protect their own geopolitical and economic interests. In this article, we explore how the concept of “territorial integrity” serves as a smokescreen to preserve Somalia’s failed territorial expansionism over the Republic of Somaliland, and why these vested interests are so deeply invested in maintaining this fiction.
The Legal Reality of Somaliland’s Sovereignty
Before delving into how “territorial integrity” is used as a political oppressing tool, it’s crucial to understand the legal facts about Somaliland’s sovereignty. On June 26, 1960, Somaliland was granted full independence by the United Kingdom, with internationally recognized borders and formalized treaties, including the UK-Somaliland treaty (UNTS No. 44). This recognition was affirmed by over 35 countries at the time.
However, following its independence, there was a desire to unite all Somali-speaking regions in the Horn of Africa. The Republic of Somaliland and then Italian-administered Somalia had a desire to come together into a union to create a third entity called the “Somali Republic”. This union, however, was never legally ratified, and the Somali Republic never came into existence. The act of union was neither signed nor registered under international law (UN Charter, Article 102).
According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), any union that isn’t ratified lacks binding force. Therefore, Somaliland’s restorations of its internal sovereignty in 1991, following the collapse of Somalia’s regime and the genocide of the Isaaq people, was a restoration of its internal sovereignty, not a secession. It was a return to the 1960 status as a state continuity under the international law of an independent state.
“Territorial Integrity” as a Political Mask
Despite these legal facts, the international community, led by influential regional actors, continues to frame Somaliland’s independence as a threat to Somalia’s “territorial integrity.” This framing is rooted in the idea that Africa’s colonial borders, established through the principle of uti possidetis juris, must be respected, a principle upheld by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and later the African Union (AU).
The 1964 OAU border resolution “solemnly declares” that all African states must respect the borders they had upon independence. That sounds pretty straightforward, until you realize that the international community has been conveniently ignoring it when it comes to Somaliland. According to the OAU’s own resolution, Somaliland’s original borders should be respected. There’s no legal ambiguity here. The facts are crystal clear: Somaliland existed as a sovereign state before any so-called “union.”
Influential regional actors, such as Egypt, Djibouti, and others, hide behind the tired and false narrative of Somalia’s “territorial integrity,” pushing a false idea that Somaliland is breaking away. They weaponize uti possidetis juris, the principle that protects colonial borders, to silence Somaliland’s claim. But the same principle should actually support Somaliland, not deny it.
The fear of a secessionist domino effect is a threat rather than a reality. The Republic of Somaliland is not Biafra, Cabinda, or Western Sahara. It’s a unique case rooted in recognised international colonial borders, sovereign in 1960, and never legally bound to Somalia.
Somaliland’s borders were demarcated by international treaties: Anglo-French (1888), Anglo-Ethiopian (1897), and Anglo-Italian (1894). These borders defined the independent State of Somaliland on June 26, 1960, and they still do. The AU claims to uphold those borders, so why flinch now? Even its own 2005 fact-finding mission said the Republic of Somaliland’s case stands apart.
Now that it’s clear the Republic of Somaliland’s case is not about secession or breakaway, let’s call it what it really sabotaging it: A political agenda driven by external powers.
The political use of “territorial integrity” is a mask, meant to cover up the self-serving motives of regional and international players with a veneer of legal principle.
These actors – Turkey, parts of the GCC, Egypt, Djibouti, and Italy are heavily invested in preserving the false narrative that the Republic of Somaliland is part of Somalia to protect their own geopolitical and economic interests.
What “Territorial Integrity” Covers Up
Each of the key players opposing Somaliland’s re-recognition has its own interests in maintaining Somalia’s political annexation of the Republic of Somaliland, unrelated to concerns of African unity.
• Turkey: Turkey has positioned itself as a major player in the Horn of Africa, seeking to expand its influence through economic, military, and diplomatic ties. It has made significant investments in failed Somalia, particularly in the port and airport of Mogadishu and the establishment of it’s biggest military base outside of Turkey, as well as other agreements for gas and oil exploration, and extreme interests on the Red Sea and Gulf of Berbera(Eden) to project power and influence.
Re-recognizing the Republic of Somaliland would undermine Turkey’s influence in the region, as Somaliland has the supreme strategic position in the Horn. As well as the Berbera port, which is developed by DP World – UAE. Turkey is trying to counter the UAE’s growing presence in the Horn of Africa. By labeling Somaliland as a threat to territorial integrity, Turkey is able to maintain its hold on the status quo, limit Somaliland’s progress and sovereignty, as well as keep its hold on Somalia without jeopardizing its geopolitical ambitions.
• Qatar: A close ally of Turkey, has invested heavily in Somalia, aligning with Turkey’s anti-UAE stance. Qatar’s involvement in the Horn is far from neutral. With well-documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliations with groups like Al-Shabaab, Hamas, and the Taliban, Doha operates through ideological and proxy networks. Its alliance with Turkey, led by Erdoğan’s Muslim Brotherhood AKP party, reinforces this influence. Re-recognizing Somaliland would disrupt Qatar’s ambition to counter the UAE’s presence in the region.
• Saudi Arabia: Saudi on the other hand, seeks to cement itself as a dominant force along the Red Sea corridor. While publicly aligned with the UAE, Riyadh is engaged in a quiet regional competition for economic influence, port access, and political dominance. Somaliland’s re-emergence as a sovereign state would empower Berbera port, developed by UAE and enhance the UAE’s strategic foothold, something Saudi Arabia views with caution.
• Egypt: Egypt’s main interest in failed Somalia is to counter Ethiopia’s growing influence in the region, particularly regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and Red Sea dominance. Somaliland’s re-recognition would strengthen Ethiopia, potentially tipping the balance of power in the Horn of Africa. By invoking “territorial integrity,” to oppress Somaliland politically, Egypt can maintain its influence in the region, ensuring failed Somalia remains a useful proxy in its rivalry with Ethiopia. Egypt’s planned military buildup in failed Somalia, with 10,000 troops expected by July 2025, is escalating tensions. It has already turned hostile toward the Republic of Somaliland, using its media to attack and threaten the Republic, which led to its expulsion from Hargeisa, the capital city of Somaliland back in 2024.
• Djibouti: Djibouti’s economy relies heavily on the port of Djibouti, which handles the bulk of Ethiopia’s trade over 90%. The rise of Berbera port as a competitive alternative, thanks to investments from the UAE, threatens Djibouti’s economic dominance. By framing Somaliland as a breakaway or a separatist threat, Djibouti seeks to maintain the status quo. Even going as far as hosting a separatist group in 2024 to threaten Somaliland’s peace and destabilisation after its support of Somalia’s proxy in the eastern regions by the Las Anod militia.
• Italy: As Somalia’s former colonial power, Italy has historical ties to the region and plays a leading role in EU policy on Somalia. Italy’s interests align with stabilizing Somalia, often pushing a narrative that favors the illusion of Somali unity. Italy’s strategic interest lies in reviving its former economic relationship, especially considering it was Somalia’s largest trading partner until the 1980s. Despite the collapse of the Somalian state, Italy never truly disengaged. Its influence remains embedded within. Re-recognizing Somaliland would disrupt Italy’s influence in Somalia, complicate its aid strategy, and risk tensions with key partners like Egypt and Djibouti. Not to mention, it was Italy that orchestrated the drafting of the 1961 Vogue Somalian constitution a document that laid the groundwork for Somalia to hijack Somaliland’s sovereignty. An Italian legal team played a central role in shaping this narrative, which falsely assumed a unified state without any legally binding union. Italy facilitated the annexation of an already independent and recognized Somaliland, embedding its own political legacy at the expense of international law.
Comparison with the United Arab Republic (UAR)
To better understand why the “territorial integrity” argument is wielded so aggressively in the case of the Republic of Somaliland, it’s helpful to compare it to the dissolution of the United Arab Republic (UAR) in 1961. The UAR was a formal, ratified union between Egypt and Syria. When Syria left the union after a coup, Egypt accepted the dissolution without causing any regional disruption. Syria’s sovereignty was immediately re-recognized by the international community, and no major power had a stake in preventing Syria’s exit.
In contrast, the Republic of Somaliland’s case is much more complex. The restoration of Somaliland’s independence threatens the interests of key regional actors, including Turkey, Egypt, Djibouti, Italy, and the GCC. These powers are deeply invested in preserving non non-existent idea of Somalia’s territorial integrity, not out of concern for African unity, but because they stand to lose significant strategic and economic influence in the Horn of Africa if Somaliland gains re-recognition. Is a theft at the expense of Somaliland’s rights.
The Actors and Their Control: Using Organizations to Block Somaliland Politically
The recent Somaliland-Ethiopia MoU exposed how several countries use international organizations to block Somaliland’s push for re-recognition. L
1. The African Union (AU)
Egypt and Djibouti have used the AU to stop Somaliland from obtaining a seat as a member and tried to push the AU to publish a statement against the MOU, but have failed because of Ethiopia’s heavy influence couldn’t be able to condemn Somaliland or, back Somalia’s false claim. But they have succeeded to keep Somaliland isolated from the AU.
2. The Arab League
Egypt and Djibouti have used the Arab League to block Somaliland’s re-recognition, pushed the league to release a statement condemning the MOU, while reinforcing Somalia’s expansionism territorial claims.
3. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)
Egypt, Djibouti, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have all played roles here. Used the OIC to push for Somalia’s expansionism and released a statement to condone the MOU, sidelining Somaliland.
4. The European Union (EU)
Italy, with its historical ties to Somalia, has influenced the EU to support Somalia and ignore Somaliland’s legal case. In 2024, the EU issued a statement reaffirming Somalia’s expansionism territorial claims.
5. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have aligned through the GCC to support Somalia’s expansionism, pushing a “unified Somalia” agenda and opposing any moves that might re-recognize Somaliland.
These countries are using organizations to control the narrative and block Somaliland’s re-recognition politically, despite the legal facts on the ground. It’s all about power and influence on the global stage.
How Geopolitical Shifts Could Change the Narrative
While the “territorial integrity” mask has held sway for decades, geopolitical dynamics are slowly shifting. Ethiopia’s growing relationship with the Republic of Somaliland, as evidenced by the 2024 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), has shaken the statu quo and could pave the way for formal re-recognition, potentially encouraging other countries to follow suit.
The UAE, with substantial investments in the Republic of Somaliland, has invited its President to the World Government Summit, where he was treated as the de jure head of state that he is, recognized by his proper title and acknowledging Somaliland’s de jure status.
Moreover, the US and EU, frustrated with Somalia’s failure to combat Al-Shabaab, and the Chinese growing influence in the region, coupled with Somaliland’s strategic location, could pivot toward Somaliland, which offers greater stability and strategic value in counterterrorism efforts.
Conclusion
The mask of “territorial integrity” is a political tool used by different actors to protect their geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of Somaliland’s sovereignty. By framing Somaliland as a separatist threat, these actors obscure the legal reality of Somaliland’s 1960 independence.
Unlike the UAR, where no major power had a vested interest in the dissolution, Somaliland’s case threatens key regional players, which is why the narrative of “territorial integrity” has been so aggressively maintained. However, as geopolitical shifts unfold, the mask may eventually be dismantled, and Somaliland’s legal sovereignty may be recognized for what it truly is: A restoration of its rightful independence, not a breakaway from an existing state.
