This article, “Sleepless Corridors: How Las Anod, Israel, and Quiet Votes Shook the African Union,” discusses how recent events involving Somaliland have exposed tensions and differing perspectives within the African Union (AU) regarding its approach to the region.
Here’s a breakdown:
-
Las Anod Incident: The presence of non-AU member states (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt) at an event in the disputed city of Las Anod, during a time when Somalia was protesting foreign interference, was viewed by some regional powers (Ethiopia and Kenya) as undermining African autonomy and bypassing established African mechanisms for resolving disputes.
-
Israel’s Recognition of Somaliland: Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, and its citation of a 2005 AU report that deemed Somaliland’s case for recognition as “unique and self-justified,” forced the AU to confront its own inaction on the matter and questions about its institutional coherence.
-
Historical Context: Somaliland commentators are revisiting historical resolutions opposing Somaliland, alleging they were based on flawed reasoning and internal manipulation within the OAU (Organization of African Unity, the AU’s predecessor).
-
Shifting Support: Somalia’s strategy of inviting non-African actors into the Las Anod dispute has potentially weakened its standing among some AU members, who believe it undermines the principle of “African solutions for African problems.”
-
Somaliland’s Counter-Narrative: Somaliland is arguing that Somalia is the one bypassing AU mechanisms, repeating a historical pattern of rejecting colonial borders and engaging in expansionist policies. They claim Somaliland’s sovereignty is essential for regional peace.
-
AU’s Dilemma: The AU faces a difficult decision regarding Somaliland, which has functioned independently for 34 years. The AU can no longer ignore the issue, as external actors are involved, regional powers are reassessing their positions, and the AU’s own past findings are being used to support Somaliland’s case. The AU must choose a path forward, whether it be engagement, mediation, or continued deferral.
The complete piece is as follows:
Sleepless Corridors: How Las Anod, Israel, and Quiet Votes Shook the African Union
By M. Amin
The events in Las Anod last week were framed publicly as yet another flashpoint in the long-running dispute between Mogadishu and Somaliland. But inside African diplomatic corridors—from Addis Ababa to Nairobi, and quietly in Addis Ababa’s AU headquarters—the episode was read very differently.
For several regional powers within IGAD, the Las Anod move was not simply about Somaliland. It was about Africa’s autonomy.
Las Anod and the Red Line Few Wanted Crossed
Ethiopia and Kenya, according to multiple diplomatic sources, were unsettled less by the declaration of a new federal member state than by who was invited to witness it.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt—non–African Union members—were present at an event staged in a disputed city, at a time when Mogadishu was simultaneously protesting foreign interference in Somali affairs.
To Addis Ababa, Egypt’s growing footprint near the Somali–Somaliland waters raised immediate red flags. Ethiopia has long viewed Cairo’s regional posture—especially when routed through Gulf states or Turkey—as part of a broader strategy to pressure Ethiopian interests. In Nairobi, diplomats privately described the invitations as “self-defeating,” undermining Somalia’s own argument that external actors were destabilizing the Horn.
“It was read as bypassing African mechanisms,” one regional diplomat said. “You cannot complain about intervention while internationalizing the dispute yourself.”
The Vote That Never Became a Vote
Around the same time, another development rippled quietly through IGAD circles: Israel’s recognition of Somaliland.
According to allegations circulating among diplomats, the move reflected—not a public endorsement—but a behind-closed-doors alignment within IGAD: three states inclined toward de facto engagement with Somaliland, two firmly opposed, one silent, and two effectively absent due to Sudan’s suspension and Eritrea’s withdrawal.
Yet when the matter reached the AU Secretariat, the momentum stalled.
Under the leadership of AU Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf of Djibouti, the issue was rapidly downgraded, and the Secretariat issued a swift response rejecting Somaliland’s recognition—before broader AU deliberations could unfold.
No public dissent followed. But the silence that accompanied the decision spoke volumes.
Israel’s Footnote That Became a Flashpoint
Israel’s recognition might have passed quietly—had it not cited the African Union’s own 2005 Fact-Finding Mission on Somaliland.
That report, long buried in AU archives, concluded that Somaliland’s case was “unique and self-justified,” distinct from classical secession. When Israel referenced it publicly, legal advisers inside the AU were forced to confront an uncomfortable question:
How could an external state rely on an AU document that the AU itself had chosen not to operationalize?
For several legalist member states, the issue was no longer about Israel or Somaliland alone—but about institutional coherence.
History Revisited, Without Naming Names
Somaliland’s media did not attack the AU chairperson directly. Instead, outlets such as Saxafi Media revisited a deeper institutional history.
They argued that early OAU, Arab League, OIC, and UN resolutions opposing Somaliland were not grounded in independent legal reasoning, but in secretariat-level maneuvering dating back to the late Cold War.
At the center of these narratives was a former Somali diplomat who represented the Siad Barre regime at the UN from 1984 to 1991, later elevated into senior OAU structures. Somaliland commentators allege that resolutions such as OAU Resolution 1340 were misapplied through internal influence, rather than adopted through rigorous legal scrutiny.
The subtext was unmistakable: if past institutional practices were flawed, current gatekeeping deserved renewed examination.
When Support Begins to Fray
Ironically, Mogadishu’s strategy in Las Anod may have weakened—not strengthened—its standing among African supporters.
Several AU member states that had previously backed Somalia’s territorial integrity now privately question whether Mogadishu still sees the issue as an AU-led process.
“Inviting non-African actors into a contested internal matter is not neutral,” one AU official said. “It is a political choice.”
That perception matters in an organization built on the doctrine of African solutions for African problems.
Somaliland’s Counter-Narrative Gains Ground
As Mogadishu focused outward—revoking agreements with the UAE and deepening security ties with Turkey—Somaliland’s diplomats quietly sharpened a different argument at AU headquarters:
That Somalia itself was bypassing AU mechanisms, repeating a historical pattern.
A senior Somaliland diplomat in Hargeisa framed it bluntly:
“Ignoring African-led solutions is not new for Mogadishu. In 1964 it rejected colonial borders. It fought proxy wars against Kenya in the Shifta conflict and against Ethiopia in Ogaden. Today, it again bypasses AU principles—inviting non-Africans into Africa’s internal affairs while accusing others of intervention.”
The diplomat warned that destabilizing Somaliland would not contain Somalia—but reopen older regional ambitions:
“Somaliland’s sovereignty is the only peace assurance in this region. Without it, Somalia’s constitution—still defining all Somalis as its citizens—risks reviving expansionist policies toward Ethiopia and Kenya.”
A Question the AU Can No Longer Avoid
Behind closed doors, the African Union now faces an uncomfortable reality.
Somaliland has functioned independently for 34 years—longer than it ever existed within the union it left. External actors are acting. Regional powers are recalculating. And the AU’s own past findings are being quoted back to it.
Whether the Union chooses engagement, mediation, or continued deferral, the space for silence is shrinking.
And for many diplomats walking the quiet corridors of Addis Ababa, the question is no longer whether Somaliland has gained ground—but who controls the process when Africa hesitates.
