u/Kindly_Society8368

Think about what happens internationally when we keep repeating that narrative. The second you say “Somaliland united with Somalia and now wants to leave,” you automatically reduce Somaliland from a former sovereign state reclaiming its independence into just another “secessionist region.”

That framing completely helps Muqdisho.

A secessionist movement is something like a province trying to break away from an existing recognized state(which the world mostly does not approve of) . But Somaliland was already an independent country recognized by over 30 states in June 1960 before the south even became independent. That distinction matters enormously in international law and diplomacy.

If we admit there was never a properly ratified union, then Somaliland’s case changes fundamentally. It becomes a failed political arrangement between two formerly sovereign entities, not “Somalia breaking apart.” That is exactly why the African Union’s 2005/2006 fact-finding mission described Somaliland’s case as unique and historically self-justified rather than a normal case of African secessionism.

But instead of emphasizing that argument clearly, many Somalilanders including our politicians keep emotionally clinging to the “union” narrative because they want to preserve pride and avoid confronting what really happened: Somaliland was politically absorbed annexed and dominated after 1960.

And honestly, part of this comes from protecting the reputations of certain politicians from that era.

People don’t want to admit that figures like Egal and Mohamed Aynanshe Guuleed failed to defend Somaliland’s sovereignty when it mattered the most. They accepted positions within the Somali Republic while Somaliland’s sovereignty rapidly disappeared. Meanwhile officers and civilians in the north already realized by 1961 that the arrangement was disastrous.

So instead of acknowledging that Somaliland effectively got annexed into a Muqdisho-dominated state structure, later political elites rewrote the story into this romantic tale of “voluntary union between brothers, that only went wrong in 1969” Why? Because admitting the truth would mean admitting catastrophic political failure.

The result is that Somalilanders themselves now repeat language that weakens our diplomatic case internationally ( one of the first decrees of the AU was to respect every nations colonial era borders).

Every time we say:
“We united with Somalia and now want to separate,”

we are literally arguing Muqdisho’s position for them.

A far stronger and fact based argument is:
“Somaliland was an already independent state whose sovereignty was never legally extinguished through a properly ratified union.”

Those are two completely different legal and political narratives.

One sounds like secession .
The other sounds like restoration.

Israel has to take our real argument to the security council last year, and most Somalilanders found out about AU fact finding mission that day!! what a disaster on our part.

I genuinely don’t understand how people can look at the actual history and still repeat Muqdisho propaganda about “Somali unity” "union" Voluntary union" like it was some equal partnership. A union requires a legally ratified agreement between two sovereign states. Where was that ratified Act of Union? It never existed in a legally completed form. British Somaliland became independent on June 26, 1960. Italian Somalia became independent on July 1. They rushed into a political arrangement that was NEVER properly ratified according to Somaliland’s own legal procedures(Somaliland act of union was rejected and, Somalia forced us on their own act of union which is illegal. for the union to be ratified both sides most consent to it).

So if there was no finalized legal union, and Somali troops and politicians from the south ended up controlling Somaliland’s territory, government, and institutions afterward, what exactly are we supposed to call that?, that sounds like an annexation .

And let’s talk about the role of some of our own politicians. Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal and Mohamed Aynanshe Guuleed accepted low-ranking positions in the new Somali Republic instead of standing with the officers and Somalilanders who realized almost immediately that it was annexation. In 1961, Somaliland military officers attempted to resist the situation after seeing how Somalia refused the sign the Somaliland act of Union and instead forced an illegal one sided referendum and power was centralized in the south and how Somaliland was being politically sidelined. Instead of supporting resistance to Muqdisho domination, our politicians chose careers inside the system.

Then decades later, the remnants of those same political elites rewrote history to protect their reputations. Suddenly we are told there was this glorious “union” built on equality and brotherhood, when in reality Somaliland lost its sovereignty almost immediately and became ruled from Muqdisho.

People also forget what the 2006 African Union fact-finding mission concluded. Even the AU acknowledged that Somaliland’s case was “unique and self-justified” and that the union between Somaliland and Somalia was never ratified making it null and void. They recognized that Somaliland’s search for recognition was not the same as random secessionism in Africa. That alone should tell people this issue is not some made-up tribal fantasy.

And don’t even get me started on the so-called Somali democracy of the 1960s. The elections were openly manipulated. There are documented cases where towns in the south somehow produced absurd voting numbers that exceeded entirety of Somaliland. Wanlaweyn allegedly produced more votes than all of Somaliland combined in one election. And we’re supposed to believe this was an equal state where Somalilanders had fair representation and every thing went wrong in 1969?

From the beginning, the system was structurally dominated by the south politically, militarily, and numerically. Somaliland entered as an independent state and quickly found itself annexed absorbed into a centralized republic it could not control.

Call it whatever you want, but if:

• there was no properly ratified union,
• sovereignty disappeared,
• troops from another former state controlled your territory,
• your political influence became marginal,
• and attempts to resist were crushed,

then “annexation” is the only thing that this can be named as.

Please, this post has nothing to do with siyaad barre or the xasuuq so when you are replying it will be great if you stuck to the subject, thank you.

https://preview.redd.it/qh5iw6gpkhzg1.jpg?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=183fb661e6e7603030124b495022ea76120712ca