Somalia and Somaliland face an existential, not political, conflict rooted in history, denial, and sovereignty
This article argues that the conflict between Somaliland and Somalia is not a political disagreement but an existential one. The author, Ibrahim Mohamed, contends that Somalia actively seeks to erase Somaliland’s identity and sovereignty, making it Somaliland’s primary adversary.
Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
-
Somalia’s Hostility: The author asserts that Somalia has consistently denied Somaliland’s right to exist since Somaliland declared independence in 1991. This denial manifests in diplomatic warfare, economic sabotage, and domestic propaganda. The author emphasizes that Somalia’s actions are not isolated incidents but a systematic policy.
-
Historical Context: The article highlights the historical violence perpetrated by the Somali state against the people of Somaliland from 1981 to 1991, including the bombardment of cities and the targeting of civilians. This history, the author argues, explains Somaliland’s decision to reclaim its sovereignty in 1991.
-
Naivete of Ethnic Sentiment: The author criticizes Somalilanders who believe that shared Somali ethnicity should override the political reality of Somalia’s hostility. They argue that Somalia exploits this sentiment to its advantage.
-
Goodwill Without Reciprocity: The article points out that Somaliland has consistently shown goodwill towards Somalia, even in times of hardship. However, Somalia has interpreted this empathy as weakness and has not reciprocated with recognition or respect.
-
Existential Denial: The core argument is that Somalia’s denial of Somaliland’s existence makes it an existential enemy. The author argues that Somaliland must adopt a posture of realism and apply strategic pressure against Somalia until recognition or permanent disengagement is achieved.
-
Call to Action: The author urges Somalilanders to shed their political innocence, abandon the belief that shared ethnicity guarantees goodwill, and recognize that self-preservation is paramount. They advocate for a firm stance against Somalia until it accepts Somaliland’s existence.
The complete piece is as follows:
Somalia and Somaliland: A Conflict of Existence, Not Politics
By Ibrahim Mohamed
For over three decades, Somaliland has extended patience, dignity, and empathy toward Somalia a state that, in contrast, has consistently responded with denial, hostility, and structural aggression. This asymmetry is neither accidental nor temporary; it is built into the very architecture of Somalia’s political identity since the collapse of the Somalia Democratic Republic.
The ethos of Somaliland’s nationhood rooted in reconciliation, collective trauma, and self-determination stands in stark contrast to Mogadishu’s unyielding insistence that Somaliland has no right to exist. And in international politics, a state that denies your existence is not merely a rival, a competitor, or a neighbor with conflicting interests. It is your adversary and enemy in the purest, most unambiguous sense.
Somalilanders must confront a reality that many have long avoided, Somalia is not simply a country with “different politics.” Somalia is the only state in the world that openly wages a diplomatic and psychological war to erase Somaliland’s identity and sovereignty. No external actor neither Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, nor any Arab or Western state has ever declared that kind of hostility towards Somaliland, only Somalia deploys the machinery of statecraft to undermine Somaliland at every political, economic, and diplomatic junction, even when Somaliland expresses goodwill.
This is not an abstract disagreement. It is a direct confrontation between Somaliland’s right to exist and Somalia’s determination to deny that existence.
A History Written in State Violence
To understand the depth of this adversarial relationship, one must begin with the historical record. Somaliland’s withdrawal from the 1960 union was not a spontaneous act of ethnic nationalism or regional pride. It was the inevitable consequence of a decade-long campaign of state terror orchestrated by the Somalia state against the people of Somaliland.
From 1981 to 1991, the Somalia Air Force bombarded Hargeisa and Burao, one of the few recorded cases in modern history where a government deployed its air force to flatten its own cities. Entire communities were systematically targeted. Civilians were rounded up, wells were poisoned, villages erased. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and declassified diplomatic cables have categorized this period as a campaign of ethnic and political extermination.
This wasn’t an isolated policy of a rogue faction; it was an official state doctrine aimed at crushing the political identity of the people of Somaliland. When Somaliland declared independence in 1991, it was not rewriting borders. It was reasserting the sovereignty it had voluntarily ceded in 1960, reclaiming it after the Somalia state repeatedly violated the social contract and its most basic obligations of protection, justice, and equality.
That Somalia today pretends this history never occurred is itself the continuation of state violence. A nation that erases its crimes does not merely deny the past it prepares to repeat it.
The Naiveté of Ethnic Sentiment: A Political Liability
One of Somaliland’s most enduring weaknesses has been the persistent conviction among some Somalilanders that shared Somali ethnicity should override political reality. This sentimental attachment, while emotionally understandable, is strategically disastrous. Modern political science from Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities to Anthony Smith’s ethnosymbolism makes clear that shared ethnicity does not grant political destiny or mutual recognition.
The world is full of ethnic kin divided by history and politics: North and South Korea, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Sudan and South Sudan, Kosovo and Serbia. What separates these entities is not bloodline, but political experience, historical injustice, and divergent national aspirations.
Somalilanders who cling to pan-Somali fraternity fail to recognize that this emotional vulnerability is precisely what Somalia exploits. Somalia politicians invoke “Somalinimo” when they want Somaliland silent, compliant, or self-blaming. But when Somaliland expresses its political identity, Somalia immediately abandons that rhetoric and retreats to hostility, denial, and delegitimization. In other words, Somalia uses ethnic sentiment as a weapon. Somaliland uses it as a weakness.
When a state openly denies your existence, dismisses your sovereignty, and actively seeks to erase you politically, diplomatically, and historically, the only rational and dignified response is to mirror that posture with equal firmness. No nation is morally obligated to extend goodwill to an adversary that refuses to acknowledge its right to exist. Reciprocity is the foundation of all meaningful political relationships; without it, goodwill becomes self-betrayal.
If Somalia insists that Somaliland “does not exist,” then Somaliland has no logical or strategic reason to wish Somalia well, advocate for its stability, or sympathize with its crises until Somalia first recognizes Somaliland’s legitimacy and humanity. In international politics, respect is earned through mutual acknowledgment, not one-sided sentiment. A state that seeks your erasure cannot be the object of your compassion it must be met with the clarity and resolve that only self-preservation demands.
This asymmetry has allowed Mogadishu to benefit from Somaliland’s emotional restraint while giving nothing in return not recognition, not respect, not acknowledgement, not reciprocity.
Somalia’s Calculated Hostility: Denial as State Doctrine
Somalia’s antagonism is not episodic it is systematic and policy-driven. Across every administration from the TFG to the current FGS the core doctrine remains unchanged: Somaliland does not exist, and its existence must be sabotaged through all available means. This has taken many forms:
- Diplomatic warfare, where Somalia pressures African, Arab, and Western governments not to engage Somaliland.
- Economic sabotage, particularly through attempts to block livestock exports, obstruct Gulf-State relationships, and undermine port development.
- Aviation and maritime obstruction, lobbying ICAO and other bodies to exclude Somaliland from airspace or maritime negotiations.
- Targeting citizens, from hindering Somalilanders seeking Hajj visas to weaponizing immigration systems.
- Domestic propaganda, where Somalia’s ministries and parliaments openly label Somaliland a “threat,” “enemy,” or “illegitimate entity.”
These are not the actions of a somber sibling or a political rival. They are the behaviors of a state actively engaged in dismantling another’s existence.
Goodwill without Reciprocity: Somaliland’s Emotional Diplomacy
The contrast with Somaliland could not be starker. For 30 years, Somaliland has consistently taken the moral high ground. Whenever Somalia faced hardship, Somaliland reacted with sympathy, not schadenfreude. Somaliland politicians prayed for peace in Mogadishu. Citizens condemned foreign interventions. Leaders like Ahmed Sillanyo denounced Ethiopian military actions in 2006 with passion that no Somali politician matched. Somaliland never rejoiced in Mogadishu’s misfortunes; instead, it felt their pain. But goodwill without reciprocity becomes complicity in your own erasure.
Somalia interpreted Somaliland’s empathy as weakness. It took Somaliland’s patience as submission. And it mistook Somaliland’s moral restraint as political insecurity.
If a state continuously bites the hand extended to it, then Somaliland must finally accept a simple truth: an enemy is not defined by shared blood, but by persistent hostility to your existence.
Existential Denial Makes Somalia the Primary Enemy
In international relations, an existential enemy is not one who fights you on the battlefield. It is one who denies your right to exist as a political community. Somalia is the only state that fits this criterion. Ethiopia does not deny Somaliland’s nationhood. Kenya does not. Israel does not. The Gulf states do not. Or at the very least they’re not hostile towards Somaliland. Even countries unfamiliar with Somaliland refrain from asserting that it has no political legitimacy.
Only Somalia, the very state that bombed, starved, and persecuted Somalilanders insists that Somaliland’s identity and sovereignty are null and void. As long as Somalia’s foundational doctrine is the denial of Somaliland’s existence, Somalia remains Somaliland’s primary adversary not by choice, but by structural reality.
What Somaliland Must Learn
Somaliland must shed its political innocence. It must abandon the emotional belief that shared ethnicity guarantees goodwill. It must recognize that self-preservation is neither aggression nor extremism. And it must internalize a fundamental political truth: A state that denies your existence is your enemy until it stops denying your existence.
Somalia, not Israel, not Ethiopia, not Djibouti, is the only actor with an official policy of erasing Somaliland. To pretend otherwise is not diplomacy; it is self-delusion. To expect brotherhood from a state that once bombed your cities and now denies your politics is to misunderstand the nature of sovereignty.
Somaliland must adopt a posture grounded in realism, not sentiment. It must apply equal or greater strategic pressure against Somalia until recognition or permanent disengagement is achieved. As Hadraawi wrote, “People are no longer those who once endured injustice in silence.” Somaliland’s new generation is not bound by the illusions of the past.
This is not an emotional reaction; it is a practical and rational step that any state would take to preserve its existence. At its simplest level, even within a family, if someone wishes you harm, you naturally protect yourself and withhold goodwill in return. Somalia and its citizens must understand this basic political logic. They cannot reasonably expect brotherhood, sympathy, or goodwill from Somalilanders while simultaneously denying Somaliland’s very existence and working to undermine it.
They know this contradiction perfectly well, yet they continue to demand the benefits of goodwill without offering any reciprocity. For Somalilanders to say, “I do not wish you well as long as you deny my existence,” is neither extreme nor controversial, it is a normal, logical, and self-respecting position that any nation in an existential conflict would adopt.
This relationship will remain adversarial until Somalia accepts the unchangeable reality: Somaliland exists, and will continue to exist whether Somalia approves or not.
About the Author
