Zapfox1
I may be wrong but it's highly unlikely
Would PL rather give up sool and sanaag or north mudug
DEVELOPING NEWS UK parliament to discuss recognition of Somaliland
- Thread starter Jaha
- Start date
I noticed you are one of the biggest supporters of SL sepratism on here, in almost every post related to this topic you advocate for their independence. I don't have a problem with that but its weird how you pretend to argue from the other side.
No federal state of Somalia has the history to become recognized as an independent Country. The African Union recognizes african colonial borders as sacrosanct. That is why only Eritrea could leave the union with Ethiopia and not oromo, tigray or the Somali region. That is also why Senegal and Gambia United to form Senegambia then after the union's failure, receded back to their former colonial borders, Like Somaliland and Somalia
You talk more gibberish. The African Union considers the current borders as they are recognised by the UN and international community as sacrosanct. The union is a done deal, it's over, there's no such thing as "going back" unilaterally, get over it. Can Texas unilaterally declare to be a seperate country because they were once independent with approval of the federal government? No.
The example of Eritrea is off, they weren't accepted as independent by the IC because they once had similar colonial borders, but because they came to an agreement with their host country. Somalia can come to agreement with any region in Somalia to secede, there's no prerequisite that said region had to have a history of a colonial border, you just made that up.
I also find it amusing how you landers always bring up the AU to legitimize your independence when they are the single biggest opposition to your independence claims.
Last edited:
Only very recently I have become supportive of SL breaking away. I have no tribal stake in that place so my life literally won't change whether they officially leave or reunite. What I believe is that let us end this status quo and definitively resolve it one way or another.
Not only SL, even if any one of the 5 FMS inside Somalia wanted secession should we repress people's wishes. Djibouti is doing well and is peaceful despite being very tiny.
This life on Earth is temporary, only reason we humans exist is to worship Allah
No offense but you have to be extremely ignorant to believe breaking up Somalia into fiefdoms will solve their problems. You want all 5 new countries:
-Have separate mility army
-Have new currency
-Have new legal system and constitution
-*add in all extra expense needed to run a country*
This will never work and will set the Somali people behind another century. The world is moving toward integration, our neighbours in Kenya are moving fast to politically unite with Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda and this week, DRC, and you want Somalia to break up in separate countries along clan lines? This is madness.
Somali's need to develop their political culture and learn to compromise and work together, that is the much more efficient solution than breaking up the country in 5 parts.
What does Texas have to do with African Union policies. Strange of you to bring that random example
This is what the African Union has set in stone in 1964. Every country can only revert back to its borders of independence.
The Africans were smart to do this because it deters the monkeys who only understand tribal borders like the somalians in this thread
Those are part of what called PL. So give up that is mean no more PL.
Zapfox1
I may be wrong but it's highly unlikely
I don’t mind whether or not you Guys take khastuumo state but north mudug belongs to @Galmudug-State and @Bariire . Constitution states a state has to have two or more gobols. Your rules my friend
Our people are very hard headed and stubborn, compromise is a dirty word to such folks. I have no faith in this supposed single ethnic group that are utterly obsessed with their sub clan and are allergic to strong central government
PL army in South Mudug as we speak, we can add Sacad under PL then so Called galnus will be over.
horta what is wrong with you?
You said: "Every country can only revert back to its borders of independence."
Statement reads: "....which adopted the principle of respect of existing borders on achievement of national independence"
Where does this statement say anything about reverting to old borders?
The AU currently recognises Somalia as whole. These recognised borders, as they currently are, are sacrosanct. I'm confused as to what you're exactly your thinking.
Ethiopia's constitutional right to secede doesn't necessarily mean Recognition from the African Union. The AU law supersedes Ethiopias constitution.
Somalias constitution isn't even respected in Somalia, forget Africa or the International community. Somalias constitution states that federal regions are to be created based on the borders of the 18 regions of the former Somali republic.
Then you have the self proclaimed mother of federalism creating its borders based on tribe irrespective of Somalias Constitution and the borders of the 18 regions of the former republic
This is why the AU maintains that borders of independence(colonial borders) are sacrosanct. And that is why when it comes to Somaliland & Somalia no one will ever take the tribal bush cries of somalians over some bush clan in 1 district of sanaag and few districts of eastern sool
Last edited:
You're not smart at all mate
National independence is from the colonial governing body. Somaliland recieved independence from the British on June 26, 1960. Somalia received independence on July 1, 1960. The borders that both countries had at the time of independence is what the AU law is referring to when it states "Respect of existing borders on achievement of National Independence"
That is why no federal state has the right to secede from Somalia, ever. You are binded together by African Union law
DalsanJubiland
HartilandWaamoJoore
South Sudan and Sudan was one country under British. Then still separated
All depends on if the area has natural resources. Which Somaliland doesn’t have it.
Even if somaliland recognized still it is hand to mouth country. Which they are now.
For that reason they will never get recognition. Because they will always need support and hand out. No country will support that, they don’t have nothing to offer.
reer
VIP
italian colonial borders or british colonial borders? which do you support.You're not smart at all mate
National independence is from the colonial governing body. Somaliland recieved independence from the British on June 26, 1960. Somalia received independence on July 1, 1960. The borders that both countries had at the time of independence is what the AU law is referring to when it states "Respect of existing borders on achievement of National Independence"
View attachment 212726
That is why no federal state has the right to secede from Somalia, ever. You are binded together by African Union law
You're not smart at all mate
National independence is from the colonial governing body. Somaliland recieved independence from the British on June 26, 1960. Somalia received independence on July 1, 1960. The borders that both countries had at the time of independence is what the AU law is referring to when it states "Respect of existing borders on achievement of National Independence"
View attachment 212726
That is why no federal state has the right to secede from Somalia, ever. You are binded together by African Union law
I will leave it as this:
I repeat that I find it quite odd that you think AU law somehow supports your independence, when they are your #1 opposition to your claims. All this hoopla about which Somali colonial region got independence 25 days before the other, no one gives a flying f***. The world see's two countries with identical population, and recognises a single country.
I'm not gonna waste my time googling AU documents but you know damn well AU considers the current African borders, as they are, as sacred. If they didn't you would've got independence long ago. All these legal arguments cooked up by some cadaan lawyer in the 90s just don't cut it.
This is incorrect. South Sudan was governed by the french and North by the Egyptians & British. When the French handed over South Sudan to the british the british considered both as separate countries and even had a separate administration policy so both lands would be governed independently of one another. Aside from the genocide and non stop civil war, this was a main point when the two countries were separating
