Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Dec. 26 that Israel would recognize the Republic of Somaliland as a sovereign nation, a few months short of the 35th anniversary of its declaration of independence from Somalia in May 1991. Israel is the first United Nations member state to take such a step. It has caused a furor and prompted an emergency meeting of the Security Council.
Some countries, including China, Turkey and Saudi Arabia strongly criticized Israel’s decision, as did the African Union. Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, the president of the Federal Republic of Somalia, called it “an existential threat” and cited his country’s “non-negotiable” sovereignty and territorial integrity.
By any rational measure this is a flimsy case. I previously made the case for Somaliland’s statehood, arguing that it had achieved “astonishing economic and political progress over the past 30 years.” It has a functioning if imperfect democracy, an executive, legislature and judiciary, armed forces, a central bank and its own currency: it is already an independent state in many practical terms.
The slavish invocation of Somalia’s interests ignores the context and has an inverted moral core: Somalia has been embroiled in civil war for decades, is the most corrupt country in the world with the exception of South Sudan, regularly carries out human rights abuses, has no popular direct elections and has proven powerless to prevent the Islamic terrorist group al-Shabaab from establishing an autonomous “Islamic Emirate of Somalia” in the south of the country.
Somalia has received tens of billions of dollars in humanitarian and development aid from the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the African Development Bank and, on a bilateral basis, from the U.S., Britain, Germany and others. These funds may well have prevented more severe humanitarian crises than Somalia has so far experienced, but it is hard to show any meaningful progress towards establishing stability, prosperity, democratic institutions or the rule of law.
By contrast, international support for Somaliland, because it is an unrecognized polity, has been much smaller; in 2024, it amounted to $221 million, from humanitarian organizations, the UN, the Somaliland Development Fund, the World Bank and Germany’s development agency.
The question is not whether Somalia and its weak federal government need or deserve international support. The stance of the international community, including the African Union, the EU and the Arab League, has defined this as a zero-sum game, by holding to the position that the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Somalia must be paramount.
International law protects sovereignty and territorial integrity, and there is no right of secession from existing states. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter requires that member states refrain from “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” But that does not fit the existing geopolitical circumstances of Somaliland. Moreover, Article 1(2) promotes “respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” Currently, the “equal rights and self-determination” of Somalilanders is being treated as a dead letter.
In August, it seemed as if the U.S. might be changing its position. President Trump was asked if recognition was being considered. “We’re looking into that right now,” he told reporters. “We’re working on that right now — Somaliland.”
In November, Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali pressed Somaliland’s case on Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) Verdict podcast.
“Somaliland has built a cohesive, self-governing society with a common language, a shared history, and a vision rooted in stability and progress. It should no longer be tethered to the turmoil of Mogadishu.”
Cruz agreed: “Recognizing Somaliland isn’t charity — it’s strategy. It aligns with America’s security interests and the ‘America First’ doctrine by strengthening an ally that shares our values in a region vital to global trade and counterterrorism.”
They are correct. MAGA loyalists may doubt whether Somaliland “shares our values,” since its constitution declares “Islam is the religion of the Somaliland state, and the promotion of any religion…other than Islam, is prohibited,” and “the laws of the nation shall be grounded on… Islamic Sharia.” But it has shown commitment to democracy and economic freedom, and would be a steadfast ally in the region.
President Trump has denied that the U.S. will join Israel in recognizing Somaliland. But Trump can be flexible, to put it mildly, and the jury remains out.
International law is not like domestic law: There are few if any formal enforcement mechanisms. Its writ does not run universally, and to some degree it applies only to those who opt in to it. It is heavily influenced by politics and diplomacy.
Fully 157 UN members now recognize the “State of Palestine,” despite there being no universally accepted borders, no single government and virtually no state or economic apparatus. Nor was the “territorial integrity” of Israel given much weight.
Equally, despite its fragile nature, South Sudan was recognized by the international community and admitted to the UN in 2011 after a referendum on self-determination.
The arguments against recognizing Somaliland are beginning to sound stale and ritualistic. They should now bear the burden of proof. Any logical or moral analysis would suggest that Somaliland wants to be independent, is capable of sustaining itself, would benefit from international recognition and is being unfairly held back for the interests of Somalia, a semi-failed and barely functioning state.
Netanyahu has made the first move. His motivation is irrelevant: it should prompt others to reexamine the issue. For countries like the United States and the United Kingdom (where there is a small but influential pro-Somaliland lobby), maintaining their existing policy resembles Einstein’s apocryphal dictum: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
Financial and diplomatic support has not made Somalia stable or prosperous, but a fraction of what has been expended could transform Somaliland. Recognition would be fair, just, effective and in almost everyone’s interests, so what is holding us back?
Eliot Wilson is a writer and historian, a Senior Fellow for National Security at the Coalition for Global Prosperity and contributing editor for Defence on the Brink