 |
I recently watched someone on TikTok argue that Israel’s recognition can only be explained through realism. That observation misses an important point: Somaliland’s case for recognition fits both liberalism and realism. Understanding this matters, because the discourse around state recognition has been reduced to a propaganda.
The Oxymoron of “Unilateral Recognition”
When people say Israel recognition of Somaliland is unilateral, I laugh. It is an oxymoron. Recognition, by definition, involves two parties: the recognising state and the recognised state. The very act requires bilateral (not unilateral) acknowledgement. What critics really mean when they complain about “unilateral recognition” is that they were not consulted, which reveals their fundamental misunderstanding of how international law works.
Only Two Options Exist
In state recognition, there are only two options:
- Recognition
- No recognition
There is no third option such as condemnation, whining, tantrums, or international outcry. These theatrical responses carry no legal weight. A state either recognises another state or it does not. Everything else is political noise designed to distract from this simple reality.
Imagine going to a food court with friends. Everyone orders what they like. Now imagine one big guy getting upset that people did not order pizza like him. That is how immature it sounds when states condemn other states for their recognition decisions.
Each state makes its own choice. The idea that one state’s decision should require the approval of others fundamentally misunderstands the decentralised nature of the international system.
People seem to forget history and how early states were recognised. The process was never centralised. It evolved organically through bilateral relationships and mutual acknowledgement. That is literally why the Montevideo Convention exists. By design, it is a decentralised process with a few guidelines, so we have some level of predictability.
The Turkey-Cyprus Red Herring
People often bring up Turkey and its invasion of Cyprus as a cautionary tale. But that situation is blocked precisely because it involved invasion and the use of force to change the political independence of Cyprus, or part of it.
That has no place as a comparison with Somaliland, which achieved state continuity through security, consent, and the dissolution of an illegal union. Israel did not invade Somalia in 2026 and chopped off Somaliland. The two cases are not comparable. One involved military aggression; the other involved the restoration of sovereignty after a failed union and a genocide.
Somaliland Is Not A Secession
Somaliland was an independent country before attempting a union with Somalia. The keyword is attempting, because that union was incomplete legally. In many ways, it was a de facto union that never achieved full legal status. The act of union was never properly ratified, and the referendum on the union law was rejected.
Somaliland is not another South Sudan, Eritrea, or Kosovo. It is comparable to the Syria-Egypt Union and the Baltic states after the Soviet Union collapsed. These are cases of unilateral dissolution of failed or illegal de facto unions. Somaliland exercised its right to withdraw from an arrangement that was never properly constituted in the first place.
How the UN Hijacked International Law
Unfortunately, the United Nations, which is just a structure and a late product of international law practice, has somehow hijacked international law itself through dogmatism. The UN was created to facilitate cooperation between states, not to dictate which states may exist. It should not become a shelter for fraudsters entities that claim union without paperwork and with rejected referendums on claimed unions.
Yet the UN has precedent for shifting its position 180 degrees on major political questions. The recognition of the People’s Republic of China over the Republic of China (Taiwan) demonstrates that the UN can and does change course when political realities demand it. The UN’s current position on Somaliland is not immutable.
State recognition, by definition, is a state prerogative, a right held by each state under international law. It is a democratic system where consensus is built organically and naturally, ideally without coercion, unlike what is happening to Somaliland through Arab and Turkish neo-colonial pressure.
Declarative Versus Constitutive Theory
The declarative theory holds that statehood exists independently of recognition, based on meeting the Montevideo criteria. The constitutive theory holds that recognition by other states creates statehood. In practice, these are not mutually exclusive paths but stages in a process. A state can exist based on the declarative criteria while building toward broader recognition. The constitutive recognition follows naturally when the political will aligns with the factual reality.
Somaliland’s situation demonstrates this progression. It meets the declarative criteria and has done so for over three decades. The constitutive recognition is not a rejection of its statehood but simply the next stage in international acceptance.
No Deadline Means Unsustainable Opposition
There is no deadline for state recognition. This makes the entire campaign against Somaliland a lifetime campaign, where the big guy has to watch what everyone orders forever, everyday. That is not sustainable.
Opponents of Somaliland recognition must maintain their opposition indefinitely, spending diplomatic capital to prevent something that is already a fact on the ground for over three decades. Meanwhile, Somaliland continues to build its case, one bilateral relationship at a time.
Money Versus Credibility
While Saudi Arabia discovers deserts and tiny towns, backing sub-sub-sub-clans that aspire to become a federal state within Somalia, Somaliland has already communicated the national interests of the United States in recognising Somaliland. The contrast is stark.
The Arabs have more money. Somaliland has credible history and the actualisation of democracy, partnership, and coexistence. While Somalia and its patrons isolate themselves in the bubble of Arab nationalism and anti-Semitism, Somaliland has already succeeded in changing the United States position for the first time since the Bush administration, where the US actually tried to push Somaliland recognition behind the scenes.
When it comes to state recognition, what matters is not middle powers but superpowers. Although we are still short of US recognition, defending the right of Israel (and any other nation) to Somaliland recognition it is something Somaliland will never trade for recognition from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Principles matter more than expedient recognition from states that oppose the very values Somaliland represents.
In future articles, I will explain the moral grounds behind Somaliland’s recognition of Israel and provide a deeper understanding of the current Saudi-led opposition.
Conclusion
Somaliland meets the Montevideo Convention criteria: permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. It also respects the African Union additional criteria:
- To have formally gained independence from a colonial power
- To claim only those colonial boundaries
This separates Somaliland from literally every secessionist movement in Africa, including Western Sahara.
So the short story is that Somaliland ticks all the boxes:
Realism ✅
Somaliland represents a strategic opportunity for states seeking influence in the Horn of Africa, access to the Gulf of Aden, and a stable partner in a volatile region.
Liberalism ✅
Somaliland embodies democratic values, peaceful state-building, and respect for international law. Its recognition would reinforce the liberal principle that self-determination and good governance matter.
The question is not whether Somaliland deserves recognition. The question is how long states will continue ordering the same cold and unhealthy meal simply because the big guy at the table insists on it.
About the Author:
Abdirahman Mohamed Abdi Daud is an Australian Somalilander and Software Engineer. Works as a principal developer for a financial technology company. Melbourne, Australia. Mr. Daud is also a Non-Resident Scholar at Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, Hargeysa Somaliland
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions or perspectives of Somaliland Chronicle and its staff.
