On December 29, 2025, the United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting to condemn Israel’s recognition of Somaliland. The meeting was full of hypocrisy.
When Slovenia declared its independence, it was part of Yugoslavia, a U.N. member state that opposed its secession.
“Somaliland … is a part of a U.N. member state, and recognizing it goes against … the U.N. Charter,” Slovenia’s Ambassador Samuel Zbogar explained, perhaps forgetting that when Slovenia declared its independence, it was part of Yugoslavia, a U.N. member state that opposed its secession. Other countries were as hypocritical. Between 1958 and 1971, Egypt was part of a failed confederation that ended when it returned to its constituent parts, exactly what Somaliland has demanded regarding Somalia. Qatar, meanwhile, is particularly hypocritical because its independence followed a similar trajectory to Somaliland’s. It was once a secessionist state that broke away from Bahrain against Manama’s will.
Every Security Council member and Arab state condemning Israel’s recognition of Somaliland cited the primacy of protecting Somalia’s territorial integrity.
If that truly is their concern and reason for denying Somaliland’s self-determination, then consistency also requires that the Security Council, European Union, and Arab states reverse their recognition of Djibouti.
The French Empire colonized what now is Djibouti in 1862, when the French signed a treaty with an Afar tribal leader, whom they transported to Paris. The Afars are the minority group in the region. The French goal was strictly strategic: In 1839, the British had taken Aden across the Bab el-Mandeb as a coaling station and a logistical hub in the anti-piracy fight, and so the French wanted a similar capability.
In 1885, the French signed a separate treaty with the majority Issas, a Somali clan related to the Isaaqs that predominate in Somaliland. Both the Issas and Isaaqs share common Dir lineage in the Somali clan structure.
The actions of countries like Slovenia, Egypt, and Qatar in their rejection of Somaliland take cynicism to a new level.
In 1960, both the British and the Italians granted their respective Somali protectorates independence. The French refused, however, to do likewise with “French Somaliland” as the United Nations demanded. In 1967, the French renamed their colony “French Territory of the Afars and Issas” before granting its independence in 1977 as Djibouti. The Somali Issas dominate the country and hold the presidency. In effect, Djibouti has become a family business with its founding president, Hassan Gouled Aptidon, handing power to his nephew, Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, who has dominated the city-state since 1999.
If the goal of the international community is to preserve Somali unity, then Djibouti is the original sin and a glaring attack on Somali sovereignty. It exists due to French cynicism and today serves only to enrich a single family. That Guelleh has sold Djibouti’s sovereignty to China only adds insult to injury.
Consistency is not often a feature of international relations, but the actions of countries like Slovenia, Egypt, and Qatar in their rejection of Somaliland take cynicism to a new level as they twist precedent and pervert international law in support of a government in Mogadishu whose legitimacy rests upon a fiction that it controls any territory whatsoever.
If Somaliland has no right to independence, then Djibouti should likewise disappear as an independent nation. Perhaps it is time to call Djiboutian ambassadors to foreign ministries and explain that the urgency of protecting Somali unity and Mogadishu’s irredentist ambitions require a sacrifice on their part. It may be a modest proposal, but should consistency not matter?
