The blue Somali flag has a star that with each of the points of the star representating a Somali inhabited region: French Somaliland which is Djibouti; British Somaliland, which is the focus of the article; Italian Somaliland, the Somalia with Mogadishu as its capital; the Ogaden in Ethiopia and Northern Frontier District NFD in Kenya.I am an ethnic Somali from NFD though the name has since changed. Last time it was called North Eastern Province before Kenya abolished the provincial system. The Ogaden as a name is also frowned upon. Ironically, I am also from the Ogadeni clan. Ethiopian Somalis, and Ethiopians in general, prefer calling the same as Somali Regional State.
Anyway, Somalia, before the union and merger of the British and Italian Somalilands, claimed sovereignty over all these other Somalilands. This dream was known as Greater Somalia. But, the same is know probably dead. The collapse of the Somali government didn't help matters.
Interestingly, rather than Somalis ultimately uniting in one country, after the war, the numerous other Somalilands came to the aid of the fleeing Somali regions.
My home county in Kenya has been host to one of the largest refugee camps in the world - Dadaab. Well, that was before Syria happened.
Somaliland, the one in the article, seems to be functioning much better than Somalia - an entity it is tied to in a marriage that wasn't supposed to work from the beginning. Somaliland should have negotiated for a better deal before unconditionally joining Somalia.
Also, the Africa Union is probably not going to recognise Somaliland as an independent state. This, for fear of opening a Pandora's box. There are many other African communities not happy of being part of the countries they have been forced to be a part of.
Anyway, I do support the independence of Somaliland though the border issues would need to be sorted out. Some clans are happy with being in Somalia. I support their independence because of the potential for their prosperity. They are currently being forced for Somalia to sort out its issues which I think is unfair.
Also, the Africa Union is probably not going to recognise Somaliland as an independent state. This, for fear of opening a Pandora's box. There are many other African communities not happy of being part of the countries they have been forced to be a part of.
This kind of surprises me. I've sometimes thought it might be in Africa's long term interest to have this happen. The current countries were created arbitrarily by Europeans based on what they wanted to control, without regard for the underlying peoples with their languages, cultures, and histories. Perhaps a rethinking of borders would be positive in the long run.
I support Somaliland's aspirations. However, I do also have this fear that granting this wish might not necessarily be a boon for the people of Somaliland. South Sudan, in the same region, has been a very good and recent example of what can go wrong. While initially the Arab Muslim north was the enemy, now the Dinkas and the Nuers do not seem to be in each others' good books.
Even within Somaliland, while the article talks of the success of Somaliland in terms of relative stability being largely because of the one majority clan. Unfortunately, this, to me, feels like an untruth that is regularly peddled. Of the 5 regions (provinces) that initially made up Somaliland, the Isaaq (supposedly the only significant clan) are a majority in only 2 of these regions: North West and Togdheer. They had to sub-divide North West into 2 to come up with 3 regions. Awdal is inhabited by a different clan that produced Somaliland's second president, Dahir Rayale Kahin. The other 2 regions are also inhabited by 2 other clans.
Now, granting Somaliland its wishes might potentially trigger the people of Awdal (the 2nd president's clan) to also demand secession from Somaliland. There could also be similar demands from the people living in some of the disputed border regions between Somaliland and Somalia (Puntland). So, while I support their agitation for independence, this might also potentially create problems for the same people of Somaliland. Likewise, the same argument could also be true for many other countries with regions within these countries aspiring to secede.
> it might be in Africa's long term interest to have this happen
A common thread in peaceful nations’ origin stories is a historical figure unifying disparate tribes and enforcing (usually by force) a common language, body of law and national identity. This drives internal economies of scale while reducing the tendency for disputes to escalate into violence. Lots of tiny, fragmented African nations isn’t a great outcome for the continent.
>The current countries were created arbitrarily by Europeans based on what they wanted to control, without regard for the underlying peoples with their languages, cultures, and histories.
It's a European tradition, something they practice even on their home continent.
> Perhaps a rethinking of borders would be positive in the long run.
Probably yes, but it is very long term, and the short and medium term for such rethinking would be very calamitous, as cataclysms tend to be. Personally I feel like trying to maintain status quo (on a large scale) and instead try to establish more foundational work for now is more prudent
The example of Pakistan/Bangladesh and India establishes a bad precedent. Nor is South Sudan doing terribly well.
Though the Europeans inflicted a great deal of damage upon Africa, to submit the continent to a second round of revision would be adding insult to injury. At least until the international community finds a way of redrawing borders in a reliably peaceful way, and ensuring that the resulting nations thrive.
Sure -- though Bohemia had preceded modern Czechia for centuries, and was still a quasi-state in its own right under the Habsburgs. Such historical unity is rare in modern Africa.
What troubling precedent would the African Union set by recognizing Somaliland that has not already been set by the recognition of South Sudan and Eritrea (also in East-Central Africa)?
South Sudan had oil and none has been discovered in Somaliland as yet. That could be the reason, I don't know. As for Eritrea, I think their story was different. The UN recognized their independence before Ethiopia overturned the agreement. They were also lucky, after a long armed struggle for independence, the collapse of the Derg government in Ethiopia somehow aided their agitation. A new government was in power in Ethiopia that itself forcefully overthrew the previous government. Maybe they just didn't want to extend the war at the time. I don't know some of these things but that is how I see it.
In the case of South Sudan, it might be due to George Bush. He had a personal desire to see South Sudan become independent. He also made economic assistance to African nations one of his policy initiatives beyond what would be expected from a conservative president. Perhaps some in the African Union felt it was in their best interest to support the independence of South Sudan because it would put them on good terms with the American president.
Reminds me of the confusing situation of Québec, Canada:
"Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no and the answer will always be no," Harper told the House on Wednesday.
Countries within nation states are not uncommon. For example, the Kingdom of The Netherlands consists of multiple countries: The Netherlands, Curacao, Sint Maarten and Aruba. The same can be said for example for the United Kingdom.
> Countries within nation states are not uncommon.
If it has more than one distinct nation within it, it is a multinational state, not a nation-state. Nation-states have been the dominant (but not universal!) norm for so long that people use “nation-state” when they just mean “state”.
Unfortunately, "state" can't be used unambiguously to mean a sovereign political entity, because there are so many states that aren't sovereign (e.g. New York). I would guess "nation-state" has acquired it's current popular meaning because it is one of the few terms that unambiguously implies sovereignty, which is what the speaker is usually trying to emphasize.
The US isn't the only place to use "states". Austria, Germany, Argentina, Mexico, etc are all based around states.
There's an important distinction between "states" and "provinces" that people tend to forget. Provinces are subdivisions of a larger entity, usually a unitary State, and inherit their powers from it. States, on the other hand, grant a central arbiter powers via cession; almost exclusively in the form of a federation or confederation.
By that definition, Canada is already a multinational state. There is not that much common language, culture, ethnicity between Quebec and, say, Alberta.
Fairly safe compared to its neighbor in the South. I know a lot of the Somali refugees in Minnesota who have gotten back on their feet financially have been investing in Somaliland and some are moving back.
You could say the same regarding investing and moving back about Mogadishu, where the UN puppet government has its capital and it is not safe. People just have real affection for their home.
If all you know about Somaliland comes from reading that article look at the Wikipedia article on Somaliland. More detail, less colour. Ditto for Puntland, which is also safer than any region settled by ethnic Somalis bar Dijibouti.
Mogadishu is safe enough that one of my friends spent two months there trying to find business opportunities and her most memorable story was of an argument with a “government” soldier. It’s safer than Congo.
Which should really be the point of refugee programs in general. Focus on stabilising and upskilling the refugees, as well as working internationally to stabilise the home country, and then have them return after a few years. Those returnees can then be positive impacts on the entire country.
By contrast having people come in and sit on welfare for generations is much less helpful.
> By contrast having people come in and sit on welfare for generations is much less helpful.
I don't know what country you're from, but this is the opposite of what happens in America. In America, our refugees end up being the engine of growth and innovation as they start businesses and work extremely hard. As long as you LET them work, they will be very productive. Where are you getting your information from?
Fun fact extension: most unrecognized countries recognize each other. One of my favourite moments in Tiraspol (Transnistria, de facto independent of Moldova) was finding the joint embassy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Liberland is quite countrylike, as a matter of fact. It has a dense network of unmaintained track roads, and a capital city containing the ruins of an entire shed.
I was discussing this with my Catalan friend, that from the outside world their declaration of independence looks comical, because Catalonia doesn't act like a real country in any shape or form, unlike Somaliland here.
Now I get it that Catalonia is inside a powerful state and you can't just do "country things", but still.
Can you elaborate a little what you mean by "doesn't act like a real country"? My understanding is that provinces in Spain actually enjoy quite a lot of autonomy in regards to how they organize their operations/policies. Catalonia promotes its own language in schools, they even have some form of foreign affairs with other governments. What do you think is missing?
And just to be clear, I also thought the declaration of independence was really comical :)
My understanding is that it's a bit like Texas or California or New York dreaming that they could be their own separate countries. If you live in one of these places it's easy to put on rose colored glasses and dream. But are they really going to put up a border wall, close off economically, form their own military, et al, et al?
Their prosperity is based in large part on integration into the union. They will always be dependent on it in some form, even if they achieved political independence.
Unlike Somaliland, which really has no use for it's neighbor and the realities on the ground reflect that.
That's true, but in the modern era the Catalan form of independentism (like the Scottish and Flemish ones) is an aspiration to be an independent country still tightly integrated within the EU as the overarching supra-national framework, so there wouldn't really be a goal to put up border walls or be capable of militarily defending the border, any more than Luxembourg does either of those things. The hope was that as nations integrate closer into the EU, the EU picks up many of the traditional responsibilities of a nation (external border, customs, trade agreements, etc.), making it more viable for regions to detach from countries that themselves partly function as federations (like Spain, the UK, and Belgium) and just become direct members of the top-level federation.
Now it's quite possible that political or procedural reasons (like the ease of vetoing new EU members) mean this is unlikely to happen, but it's generally the envisioned route that independence supporters in these regions have.
> but in the modern era the Catalan form of independentism [...] is an aspiration to be an independent country still tightly integrated within the EU
Yes, but that's why it's dreaming: if Catalonia unilaterally left Spain, Spain would veto the Catalan entry in the EU (and not only Spain, any country with separatism, e.g. France/Corsica). That would force them indeed to put up walls and borders, develop a military, extend all the missing police force, and get systematically the short end of the stick in any trade deal because of its very little leverage.
An unilateral leave of Catalonia from Spain is not far from Brexit in shortsightedness.
> Yes, but that's why it's dreaming: if Catalonia unilaterally left Spain, Spain would veto the Catalan entry in the EU (and not only Spain, any country with separatism, e.g. France/Corsica).
Only out of spite, though. If Catalonia were to be independent, Spain would gain from it joining the EU.
Their commitment to keeping them out of the EU is there to deter them from leaving Spain in the first place, which likely would be bad for Spain.
Spain is working much harder to make a believable deterrent than other "countries with separatism". You don't have France, Denmark or the UK refusing to recognize Kosovo, for example.
Not really, it's basic diplomacy. Spain has interests, investments, and assets in all regions. Catalan nationalists wanted to leave without defining a process of retribution at all, but defining very well that they wanted Catalans to keep Spanish nationality (and related benefits) on top of Catalan one. So they could suck the tit of two states, in an unilateral fashion. It was overall a dick move (Naive? Delusional? Exercise for the reader), and being a grown up you assume the consequences, you aggravate a party then don't complain they get the long end of the stick when they have the upper hand.
It's even dumber than Brexit if you think about it. Do you also think EU stance on Brexit is also "out of spite"?
> Do you also think EU stance on Brexit is also "out of spite"?
The EU is probably better off with the UK in it, which is a difference there. But yes, cutting the UK off from various forms of "soft Brexit" or "a la carte membership" is mostly a tactic to discourage others from leaving rather than strictly about the current deal.
Personally I don't agree. I think they are better in the EEA, but not in the EU. The UK has traditionaly blocked, what I believe to be, important matters such as EU defense proposals, laws blocking tax dodging, etc. The UK has always had, what I believe to be, a different agenda to the rest of the Europeans. Keeping the UK out of EU decision making will be beneficial to the rest. Having the UK in the EEA will be beneficial to everybody.
> You don't have France, Denmark or the UK refusing to recognize Kosovo, for example.
Of course not. They, the UK in particular, were essential in creating it and actively encouraged it from ceding from Serbia. It's their baby. Why would they not recognise it? There is at least 9 Albanian children from Kosovo and Metohija, southern Serbian province, who have been named "Tonyblair" (no, not misspell). In the honour of Tony Blair. See: http://albanmuja.blogspot.com/2011/11/tonys.html
Spain were also involved, at least in the bombing campaign against Serbia. It's pretty easy for a government to take one point of view when creating a problem and the other when addressing it. You might as well ask why the US would try to undermine the Taliban.
As a determined supporter of Scottish independence, I obviously disagree with that assessment :)
Independence doesn’t mean that countries become completely detached from their neighbours. In Catalonia for example the assumption is that both the new country and the remainder of Spain would remain members of the EU and the associated intergovernmental machinery that brings. That means no border guards or economic walls!
In the Scottish case, for example, it’s worth bearing in mind that as a country it already has an entirely separate government, legal system, healthcare and education systems. Is it such a big leap to imagine that a separate foreign policy and military organisation might be feasible?
> In Catalonia for example the assumption is that both the new country and the remainder of Spain would remain members of the EU and the associated intergovernmental machinery that brings.
That is simply impossible, unless Spain agrees. That means Catalonia would need goodwill from the Spaniards, and that means the separation would have to be amicable.
I don't see the Catalans going that route. No matter that Spain may be "more at fault" (if you lean towards the Catalan side), unless they can defuse the situation completely, they are dreaming a very, very dangerous dream.
I suppose they wouldn't starve, at least. The other European countries (at some point even including Spain) would send food aid. :-)
The Scottish referendum was completely different: Westminster had already agreed to accept the separation. Without enthusiasm, but still.
It may not start down that route, but realistically there is no other route. It may be that it takes some unrest to force everyone to take negotiations seriously, but there's no realistic prospect of Catalonia forcing independence via civil war or revolution.
But what do you think would have happened if Scotland declared independence against the will of the UK government? Unless you were willing to fight for it, I don't see how the outcome would have been different than the Catalan one.
I think you're really underestimating how tenuous the UK's claim on Scotland really is. Frankly, there is no model in which the UK deploys military assets to forcefully retain Scotland. This would almost certainly delegitamise the entire "Great Britain" concept.
Catalonia is different because it, frankly, was never really an independent nation. And while Spain recognizes a certain autonomy it does not grant anything like an independent legal system.
That said the case of Catalonia is interesting. There's nothing quite like it in France. France has never even entertained autonomy, instead emphasizing at every opportunity the "supremacy" of the Parisian government. There's probably a lesson to be learned from Spain and the UK which may have unwittingly given "hope" to these separatist movements.
> I thought UK did use the military to prevent Northern Ireland from splitting off.
You may be thinking of the UK military being in Northern Ireland to try to keep the peace from a population that were attempting to kill each other in the 70s?
However if you're talking about the 1916-1922 period:
Some people in Dublin declared independence in the "Easter Uprising" (in the middle of a war) over 100 years ago, it was dealt with by the UK military. The second attempt in 1918 was far better -- there was a massive democratic will for independence expressed through the ballot box. The UK government (100 years ago) resisted this independence initially, which was wrong, just as wrong as Spain resiting Catalan independence.
Eventually the UK government relented, and granted independence to Ireland after free and democratic elections in 1921, when 98% of the voters in what's now called "Ireland" voted for the pro-indepedence Sinn Fein (it was unopposed in almost every constituency)
However in the north, many residents did not want to become independent from the UK. The election there returned 67% in favour of the unionist party. As such independence was offered to the entire island, but the north could opt out by having it's parliament ask to (through it's democratically elected parliament). They did - the day after the Irish Free state came into being.
So people who lived in each area got to choose where they wanted to be, and all was well. That's how it should be for Scotland, and Catalonia.
The messy business of unpicking a country began (including a brief 'civil' war), but by 1937 the Irish government in Dublin ratified a constitution. This constitution claimed sovereignty over the north as well, despite the population in the North not wanting that, which wasn't exactly a good way to make friends and influence people.
It was only in 1998 that Dublin agreed to remove this claim from their constitution, and agree that whether the north should be moved from Britain to Ireland was a matter for people who live in the north (and indeed one for those in the south, who would have to agree to take them)
I think you're really underestimating how tenuously the UK's claim on Scotland really is.
A Scottish king took over the English throne in 1603. Blame him.
I see no reason that should a sustained majority (so 3 million plus Scots or 4 million plus Catalonians) be in favour of independence, that independence shouldn't happen (In an orderly structured fashion ensuring the rights of citizens on both sides are kept)
Which was agreed by the Scottish parliament. Either way, nobody involved in those decisions is alive now, so it's all ancient history, as is the French invasion of the island in 1066.
I'm not sure how (the op) can complain that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's claim on Scotland is "tenuous", and more than "it's claim" on Norfolk, Kent, or Birmingham.
If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Scotland really want to be a separate country, that's fine.
If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Norfolk really want to be a separate country, that's fine.
If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Hull really want to be a separate country, that's fine.
There's no "claim" other than we agree as a democracy to band together to govern us, and protect us, and enable us to live our lives. If that doesn't work out for a given region, that's fine.
Depends. If independence was declared by less than 20% of the population (that's the number who voted SNP in 2017 UK election, and in 2016 Scottish), then I would expect the UK government to stand up for the 4.5 million others.
However if say 4 million of the 5.5 million that live in Scotland were in favour, I'd expect an amicable separation
Catalonia has a population of 7.5 million. If say 5 million wanted independence, then morally why can't they have it?
In their referendum, only 2 million that wanted it, that's not enough to force the other 5.5 million to leave Spain, but surely it's enough to talk about it seriously though.
> But are they really going to put up a border wall, close off economically, form their own military, et al, et al?
Those states already have borders and militaries. Also, why does independence mean "closing off economically"?
> Their prosperity is based in large part on integration into the union.
Canada's prosperity is more dependent on the US than california, ny or texas is. Are you saying canada is not a country?
Also, you are forgetting that texas used to be a country and tried to become a country during the civil war.
American states are structured as independent nations. They have their borders, flags, histories. They have their own executive ( governor ), legislative branch, militaries ( national guards/etc ), etc.
Perhaps a better argument would be canada's first "nations" or our native american "nations" dreaming of independence.
> Because they'd be sitting right in between EU countries
EU? The guy was talking about texas, california and ny.
> So hard borders all around, no trade deals in place, nothing.
So they'll just negotiate trade deals?
> It would be like a no-deal Brexit, but infinitely worse.
You gave no reason why it would be worse. Also, post brexit, are you saying britain will never trade with anyone? How did britain trade with anyone before the EU was created?
Trade deals are infinitely less desirable by ordinary people than full legal integration. Imagine having to go through US-style customs every time you want to fly to California.
If two groups of people can live under the same laws, they usually should. Otherwise the legal and regulatory differences impose a 'tax' on every single transaction. California would gain nothing and instead lose an awful lot if it split from the rest of the US.
The UK is a bit of a special case because it's already done an awful lot of work on political devolution. Devolution is a process, not an event, and there's really no reason to make it an event. Dozens of former British colonies quietly and peacefully devolved from the UK and while it's conceivable that California could do the same, the US was practically engineered in order to make it legally impossible. It would require a constitutional amendment at the very least.
> California would gain nothing and instead lose an awful lot if it split from the rest of the US.
I'm not saying it's worthwhile, but I don't think California would gain nothing. California is a net payer to the federal government, so there would be some amount of surplus. California would be able to fully legalize marijuana, and have some other autonomy gains. Required duplication of federal efforts would of course reduce some of the surplus. Continued access to water from the Colorado river would be a major issue, I'm sure. California already pays a tax on every transaction, whether that's from California emissions requirements, or California prop 65 warning stickers on everything (I fully expect to see one on drivers licenses at some point).
California ports process a large majority of the west coast shipping [1], and California produces (and imports) a large amount of food for the nation; the US has a lot to lose if it doesn't negotiate a good trade deal. There's certainly some room for port expansion in the Pacific Northwest, as well as diversion to gulf and east coast ports.
> Imagine having to go through US-style customs every time you want to fly to California.
Customs is far less onerous than security. Passport control is a pain, but that's easily solved. Germany and France have no such borders, yet are independent countries.
An independent Catalan that's signed up to schengen, the single market, the customs union, etc. would be fine, it just devolves some power from Madrid to Barcelona.
Likewise there is no technical reason that an independent California couldn't join a schengen style passport agreement, customs union, and free trade area, with the rest of the US. Canada could join such an agreement too. It's all doable.
> Likewise there is no technical reason that an independent California couldn't join a schengen style passport agreement, customs union, and free trade area, with the rest of the US.
Other than the fact that the United States would never create such a thing (or, if it did, would never allow a recently exited US state to join it), specifically to prevent encouraging balkanization of the US.
But sure, they can and will negotiate trade deals. Ten years later they might have two or three, with not too important countries.
The US, for example, won't feel a huge need to prioritize a trade deal with Catalonia "right now". That would be on the back burner, and somewhen much later it might be finished and ratified.
American states are structured as independent nations. They have their borders, flags, histories.
For most of the states, this is not true. California and Texas have brief histories of declaring independence, and the 13 original colonies were more independent before the USA existed, but most states started off as USA-controlled territory before going through the statehood process. The borders were quite often only finalized during the statehood process.
It's true for every state. Every state has borders, flags and histories. Every state has state governor, state legislature and state military.
> but most states started off as USA-controlled territory before going through the statehood process.
I know. What does that have to do with each state being structured as independent nations? Are you saying that wyoming doesn't have a governor, state legislature, state judicial system, state military?
From a political science perspective, (and as we saw with the Spanish response to the independence election) Catalonia doesn't have a monopoly over the use of force in their borders. Somaliland appears to have that monopoly.
Somaliland is a customer of mine; I build national software and Somaliland is my second oldest customer. It’s cool to hear about their continued success on Hacker News. I like to think I played a small part in it. I hope that one day they achieve their dream of independence.
I had literally no idea that Somaliland existed, and I consider myself to be pretty up to date with the political world map. It's fascinating to read about a country you knew nothing of, even an unrecognised one. No, especially an unrecognised one
I was fascinated to learn about Western Sahara when I drove through.
It was at one point a fully-fledged country, now it's listed by the UN as an "occupied territory". i.e. Morocco invaded and have taken over. They're adamant it's simply Morocco, and they get really mean to anyone that says otherwise, or even if you have a map that shows it as a separate country.
Driving through it's just like you never left Morocco, except there are military roadblocks every 100km, there is a lot of new construction, and gas is noticeably cheaper than the rest of Morocco (i.e. Morocco attempting to spur development and help "claim" it)
It's fascinating to me a country can be invaded and occupied by their neighbor and the world does nothing about it.
> a country can be invaded and occupied by their neighbor and the world does nothing about it.
Western Sahara was never a sovereign, recognized state. Spain relinquished it's colonial claim over it and Morocco and Mauritania rushed to claim parts of the territory (Mauritania has since renounced too).
The closest thing to a nationally representative organization was the Polisario Front, a military-political structure based on ethnic Sahrawi affiliation. It didn't help that the area is so sparsely populated and could barely sustain an independent state in the 70s, let alone a state capable of withstanding the territorial advances of such a powerful neighbor like Morocco.
> Spain relinquished it's colonial claim over it and Morocco and Mauritania rushed to claim parts of the territory
Is this a case where the colonial power should have been more firm when drawing arbitrary lines in the sand? The opposite of what they usually get criticised for.
The world does nothing about it because every single party involved, from Morocco to SADR to Algeria, got their hands dirty with breaking the Geneva conventions. With napalm and WP used against refugee camps on multiple sides, no country wants the optics of picking one.
The political situation is also pretty stable there since the late 70s. Shit, but stably shit.
The existence of Somaliland tends to come up in any in-depth article discussing Somalia's problems. Somalian piracy flared up around 2005 and more or less completely died off around 2013. Similarly, al-Shabab peaked around 2012. This means that Somalia has kept out of the news for half a decade, which reduces the opportunities to find out about Somaliland and Puntland [the region of Somalia next to Somaliland that has a stable, functioning government but doesn't claim independence].
The main reason that most countries refuse to recognize Somaliland is that the current thinking is that letting it be independent would harm the process of putting Somalia back together again after it fell apart in 1991.
In political theory and International Relations studies, there is a reasonably well established set of theories regarding the difference between "A nation", "A state" and a "Nation-State" the three are not synonymous and it irks me somewhat how even in an article like this the three seem to be conflated as I think it adds t everyone's confusion about things.
Having said that, there is no "hegemon" (arbiter/judge/police/enforcer-of-rules) at international level so what is, or is not, a state is somewhat arbitrary and contingent on whatever power structures are at play at the time.
Perhaps allow a major Western military power to come and establish a huge permanent base, and pray for some natural resources to be found might shorten the long road to independence.
That and paying huge wads of cash to celebrity-turned-activists ($$$ not Somaliland cash bricks!!) to come and create heartbleed documentaries could potentially help their cause.
If other countries recognize your independence you are there. The US gained recognition from the Netherlands and France day one. Nobody gives a shit about Somaliland nor does anyone gain anything for supporting it.
Taiwan (ROC) is a bit of an odd duck because so many places treat them as different but don't do it 'officially' because China demands that they don't as part of maintaining relations with the PRC. For example the US sells them arms after all, it's not like the US completely refuses to admit they exist. Many countries have quasi-embassies in the form of Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Offices (TECRO) which are definitely totally not embassies just act like them in pretty much every way.
To be fair, the issue here is also that for most of the last 70 or so years the Taiwanese government actually claimed to be the rightful government for ALL of mainland China and even occupied its seat at the UN in that capacity for a time. I don't think anyone argues that Taiwan - outside of the Indigenous population which are a minority - see themselves as anything other than Chinese.
Anyway, Somalia, before the union and merger of the British and Italian Somalilands, claimed sovereignty over all these other Somalilands. This dream was known as Greater Somalia. But, the same is know probably dead. The collapse of the Somali government didn't help matters.
Interestingly, rather than Somalis ultimately uniting in one country, after the war, the numerous other Somalilands came to the aid of the fleeing Somali regions.
My home county in Kenya has been host to one of the largest refugee camps in the world - Dadaab. Well, that was before Syria happened.
Somaliland, the one in the article, seems to be functioning much better than Somalia - an entity it is tied to in a marriage that wasn't supposed to work from the beginning. Somaliland should have negotiated for a better deal before unconditionally joining Somalia.
Also, the Africa Union is probably not going to recognise Somaliland as an independent state. This, for fear of opening a Pandora's box. There are many other African communities not happy of being part of the countries they have been forced to be a part of.
Anyway, I do support the independence of Somaliland though the border issues would need to be sorted out. Some clans are happy with being in Somalia. I support their independence because of the potential for their prosperity. They are currently being forced for Somalia to sort out its issues which I think is unfair.