LibriumArcana.Games

NYTimes

[quote]The rallies usually start early in the morning, before the sunshine hurts.

By 8 a.m. on a recent day, thousands of people were packed into Burao’s sandy town square, with little boys climbing high into the trees to get a peek at the politicians.

“We’re going to end corruption!â€

Indeed, indeed. Thanks, Frigid.

Of course, there isn't any chance at all whatsoever of Somaliland ever being recognized as an independent state by the world at large because of the influence of the African Union and their desire to never let lines drawn in the sand be redrawn, ever. It makes me sad.

But I do wonder if Somaliland could be the converse side to what people have said is the problem of international aid - money is too easily routed to the pockets of corrupt officials (which leads to a whole slew of problems like croneyism and so forth) and the society becomes dependent upon aid.

Granted, Somaliland is still an incredibly impoverished country for all their accomplishments (the article didn't mention it but they are trying to start a national university too), and they will continue to be an impoverished country for a very long time to come, as they have the problem that one needs money in order to make money, and they don't have anything (I mean, their biggest export is goats to Yemen, which isn't exactly a first world country itself.) It would be nice to be able to get something started that can be built upon, but since helping can also hurt I don't know the best way to proceed.

I can honestly see some of where the AU is coming from. If you start letting nations get divided, you run the risk of Africa which is rising on a fragile peace and stability sinking back down into the cycle of warfare and strife.

On the flip side a good amount of it is fueled by the refusal of these leaders to have their personal sandbox reduced on any level and damned be what the folks on the ground want.

I'm sorry, I simply do not see the virtue of preserving artificial boundary lines within failed states for no purpose other than stasis, as though borders have not shifted throughout history. If Somaliland wishes to be independent, can make a go of being independent, and Somalia itself is a sectarian hellhole, then why should they not be allowed to break away?

frigidmagi wrote:I can honestly see some of where the AU is coming from. If you start letting nations get divided, you run the risk of Africa which is rising on a fragile peace and stability sinking back down into the cycle of warfare and strife.

On the flip side a good amount of it is fueled by the refusal of these leaders to have their personal sandbox reduced on any level and damned be what the folks on the ground want.

I think it's more sandbox than anything else, considering how many of them supported Mugabe. After all, if they allowed a leader to be removed from power because he sucked and was corrupt to the core and ruined everything and everybody hated him, what would happen to them?

frigidmagi wrote:I can honestly see some of where the AU is coming from. If you start letting nations get divided, you run the risk of Africa which is rising on a fragile peace and stability sinking back down into the cycle of warfare and strife.

On the flip side a good amount of it is fueled by the refusal of these leaders to have their personal sandbox reduced on any level and damned be what the folks on the ground want.

The artificial boundaries in Afrcia may also help with maintaining strife. If Somaliand has a chance of becoming a functional country, then I think they should have a chance to do so. Besides, it's not as though as there is such a thing as "Somalia" anymore anyway, except geographically.

On the other hand I see why we should be very careful about allowing breakaway republics forming, it could set a precedent for all sorts of crap elsewhere where it's not going to be so helpful. (It could become like Yugoslavia, but across Africa).

There would need to be a process of some sort to decide these things, but I can't see nation states willingly setting up some power external to themselves which could in principle declare that their sovereign territory has been reduced.

Havoc wrote:I'm sorry, I simply do not see the virtue of preserving artificial boundary lines within failed states for no purpose other than stasis, as though borders have not shifted throughout history. If Somaliland wishes to be independent, can make a go of being independent, and Somalia itself is a sectarian hellhole, then why should they not be allowed to break away?

Well here's the thing, Africa is actually starting to turn around. There are actual economies instead of corporate held fiefdoms amid a sea of barter, stability is actually starting to be more then a bad joke and the average African has hope his kid may live his life without seeing a civil war. If things were just starting to pick up economically while settling down politically, how eager would you be to upset the apple cart?

There are of course exceptions, Sudan springs rather forcibly to mind.

There is no moral reason why they shouldn't but there are plenty of political ones. If African leaders let Somliland split off, what about regions in their own nations who want to make a separate go at it? Or regions in their neighbors nations who also claim some of their land? And of course there's the issue that if their nations do balkinize, they'll have less power and money to play with. To be fair, Large batches of small nations would be easier for foreign nations (like China) or corporations (like DeBeers) to run roughshod over. They're getting lousy deals from them now but at least they're getting deals is their thought.

Maya wrote:I think it's more sandbox than anything else, considering how many of them supported Mugabe. After all, if they allowed a leader to be removed from power because he sucked and was corrupt to the core and ruined everything and everybody hated him, what would happen to them?

Most of them would surely be removed as well. There's also a bit of spite invovled. They back Mugabe because he's a black African and most of his detractors (internationally) are white Euros. From what I understand getting back at the Euros is a big thing in Africa.

Frigid of course has good points, but in the case of Somalia, it hasn't been a country since 1991. Aside from Somaliland and (debatably) Puntland, it's frankly reverted to barbarism. The only reason it hasn't gone into full Mad Max-esque post-apocalyptic mode is the fact that there's still an outside world from which they can receive and steal supplies. Even Ethiopia didn't want it after they rolled in and took over in a couple weeks.

And speaking of, they let Eritrea split off from Ethiopia. Granted, there was a bloody war beforehand, but there's not a central Somali army that the Somalilanders could fight, just a bunch of warlords, asshole cleric militias, and qat-chewing teen boys with AK-47s.

Ethiopia didn't want a Somalia united under a extremist Islamic government that had made threats about attacking Ethiopia. Once they were sure that wasn't gonna happen, there was no reason for them to stick around and replay Iraq with 1970s tech (at least they upgraded their tactics from the last war...)

Eritrea is more of a case that no one could stop it. That nation is practically prison however... Here let me see if I can dig up the story.

Looks like that election went well.

BBC News wrote:Somaliland opposition candidate Silanyo wins election


Opposition candidate Ahmed Mohamud Silanyo has been declared the winner of Somaliland's election.

Outgoing President Dahir Riyale Kahin had promised to accept defeat.

He obtained 33% of the vote, compared to 50% for Mr Silanyo.

Somaliland broke away from Somalia in 1991 but its independence has not been recognised internationally.

It has been far more stable than southern Somalia.

Observers have praised the conduct of the poll and election chief Essa Yusuf Mohammed said he hoped this would help the country's bid for recognition.

"This is an important election for the people of Somaliland. It is also one more step toward the democratisation of the country," he said.

Faisal Ali Warabe came third with about 17% of the votes.

The poll was peaceful despite threats by Somali Islamist groups to disrupt it.

Al-Shabab, which has links to al-Qaeda and rules much of the southern Somalia, had described democratic elections as "the devil's principles".

Voting did not take place in some areas of Sool and Sanaag, disputed regions claimed by the neighbouring semi-autonomous Somali state of Puntland.

No violence and the current guy in power is willing to accept defeat and step down? This puts Somaliland above...well, I'm going to try to think up a number but that's a huge percentage of 'legitimate' countries.

By the way, while I support Somaliland, Puntland can kiss my ass. It's just a series of pirate coves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10485613.stm