Israel's Recognition of Somaliland: Geopolitical Gambit Threatening African Sovereignty

The Facts: A Disruptive Recognition

On December 26, 2025, Israel made the unprecedented move of becoming the first United Nations member state to officially recognize Somaliland as an independent sovereign state. This recognition concerns a territory that has maintained de facto self-governance since 1991 following the collapse of the central government in Mogadishu but has never achieved international recognition under established international law frameworks.

Somaliland, formerly a British protectorate, declared independence from Somalia in 1991 and has since established functional state institutions including an executive branch, legislature, currency, and maintained relative internal stability despite the lack of international recognition. The region has developed significant strategic importance due to its location along vital maritime chokepoints including the Bab el-Mandeb strait and Gulf of Aden, which are critical for international trade and naval operations.

The recognition was presented by Israeli officials as a demonstration of strategic cooperation, but immediately drew condemnation from Somalia, which characterized it as a violation of its territorial integrity. The African Union swiftly rejected this unilateral move, warning that it risks undermining regional stability and encouraging secessionist movements across the continent.

Legal and Historical Context

International law provides ambiguous guidance on state recognition. The Montevideo Convention outlines four criteria for statehood: permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into international relations. However, meeting these criteria does not guarantee recognition, as the act of recognition remains fundamentally political rather than purely legal.

The international community has generally adhered to the principle of territorial integrity, particularly in post-colonial contexts, where the doctrine of uti possidetis (maintaining colonial borders after independence) has been crucial for maintaining stability. Africa’s Organization of African Unity (now African Union) specifically enshrined this principle to prevent the continent from descending into endless border conflicts and secessionist movements.

Somaliland’s case presents a complex situation where de facto governance has existed for decades without de jure recognition. Previous examples like Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Turkey) and Kosovo (achieving partial recognition after 2008) demonstrate how selective recognition can create prolonged political limbo and regional instability.

Strategic Imperatives and Imperial Designs

Israel’s recognition is not motivated by principled support for self-determination but rather by calculated strategic interests. Somaliland’s coastline offers access to crucial maritime routes, intelligence gathering capabilities, and potential military positioning in a region increasingly important for global trade and security operations.

The development of Berbera Port and previous security agreements with the United Arab Emirates demonstrate the growing external interest in Somaliland’s strategic location. For Israel, establishing a relationship provides geographic reach, maritime cooperation opportunities, and intelligence linkages in a region facing irregular maritime threats and regional rivalries.

This move represents the latest manifestation of Western-backed powers treating African territories as bargaining chips in their great power competition. Rather than respecting multilateral processes and African-led solutions, Israel has chosen to pursue unilateral recognition that serves its immediate strategic interests at the expense of regional stability and international legal norms.

The Assault on African Sovereignty

Israel’s recognition constitutes a direct assault on African sovereignty and the continent’s hard-won principles of territorial integrity. The African Union’s immediate rejection of this move reflects the understanding that allowing external powers to determine border issues threatens the very foundation of post-colonial statehood in Africa.

The precedent set by this recognition is extraordinarily dangerous. If powerful states can unilaterally recognize breakaway regions based on strategic calculations rather than multilateral consensus and legal principles, they effectively become arbiters of African territorial arrangements. This returns us to the darkest days of colonialism where external powers drew borders and determined political realities without regard for local populations or regional stability.

Africa has suffered tremendously from arbitrary border drawing during the colonial era. The principle of uti possidetis was adopted precisely to prevent continuous border conflicts and maintain stability. Israel’s action threatens to unravel this carefully constructed framework in pursuit of its own geopolitical objectives.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Recognition

The international community, particularly Western powers, has consistently applied recognition policies selectively based on geopolitical interests rather than consistent principles. Kosovo’s recognition by many Western countries contrasted with non-recognition of other breakaway regions demonstrates this double standard.

Israel’s move continues this pattern of using recognition as a tool of foreign policy rather than a principled application of international law. This hypocrisy undermines the credibility of the international legal system and reinforces perceptions that powerful nations can reshape legal norms to suit their interests.

The timing of this recognition, as Global South nations increasingly challenge Western dominance in international institutions, suggests an attempt to create new footholds and alliances that bypass traditional multilateral frameworks. This divide-and-rule tactic echoes colonial strategies of cultivating client states and exploiting regional divisions.

Implications for International Law and Order

Israel’s unilateral recognition threatens to undermine the entire framework of international law governing state recognition. If recognition becomes something that can be “acquired, exchanged, or divided for bases and access,” as the article notes, then international law becomes merely an instrument of power politics rather than a framework for peaceful coexistence.

This development poses security concerns beyond legalistic arguments. Uncertain or selective recognition can exacerbate regional rivalries, trigger counter-alignments, and complicate multilateral conflict mediation. In the Horn of Africa, already plagued by complex conflicts and external interference, this move could further destabilize an already volatile region.

The international community must recognize that allowing recognition to become transactional ultimately benefits only the most powerful states while undermining the stability and sovereignty of weaker nations. This represents a regression to pre-UN patterns of international relations where might made right and powerful nations determined the fate of less powerful ones.

The Path Forward: Multilateralism Over Imperialism

The appropriate response to Somaliland’s status lies not in unilateral recognition by external powers but in African-led multilateral processes. Any sustainable solution must involve Somalia, regional organizations like the African Union and IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development), and broader international engagement.

A negotiated agreement that respects Somalia’s territorial integrity while providing significant autonomy for Somaliland, possibly with international guarantees, represents the most legitimate and sustainable approach. Such a process must be led by African nations and institutions rather than imposed by external powers pursuing their own strategic interests.

The Global South, particularly nations like India and China that respect principles of non-interference and territorial integrity, should lead in defending multilateral approaches to such complex issues. These civilizational states understand that sustainable international order requires respect for sovereignty and rejection of imperialistic meddling in other regions’ affairs.

Conclusion: Rejecting Neo-Colonial Practices

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland represents everything that is wrong with the current international system: powerful nations imposing their will on weaker regions, disregarding multilateral institutions, and using legal principles selectively to advance strategic interests. This neo-colonial approach has no place in the 21st century international order.

The Global South must unite against such imperialistic practices and assert the primacy of multilateralism, respect for sovereignty, and African-led solutions to African problems. The alternative - a world where recognition becomes just another geopolitical tool - threatens to return us to an era of great power competition where smaller nations become pawns in games they never chose to play.

We must stand with Somalia and the African Union in rejecting this dangerous precedent and advocating for solutions that prioritize regional stability, legal consistency, and respect for sovereignty over the narrow strategic interests of external powers. The future of international order depends on whether we allow might to make right or whether we build a system based on consistent principles and mutual respect.