By Arthur C. Schaper

President Trump ran for office to Make America Great Again. He wanted our borders respected, our language restored, and our culture reinvigorated. He is accomplishing all three at breakneck speed. Even his foreign policy forays are working in the United States’ best interests.

Peace in the Middle East, fighting for every chance to bring peace to the Russia-Ukraine war, and weakening China’s globalism are big wins for America. Speaking of borders, language, and culture, President Trump has another chance to make history: eliminate pirate forces, undermine Islamic fundamentalism, and establish his bona fides as a peace-maker, a deal-maker, and a nation-builder who doesn’t send young American men to die in pointless wars. This potential diplomatic measure wouldn’t cost him anything but a simple declaration.

President Trump, it’s time to recognize Somaliland as a separate, sovereign country from Somalia.

Somaliland, judging by the name, has close kinship with Somalia. The failed state, home to vile modern-day pirates who have waged war on tourists and shipping lanes alike, has stifled efforts for their northern neighbors to break away officially and obtain the rights reserved among all other nations in the world. And yet, Somaliland, for all intents and purposes, is its own country.

First, some background.

Somaliland existed as a British protectorate until 1960, when it was granted freedom from the mother country. The French Somali region also won independence and became Djibouti. The Italians controlled the southern section of the Eastern Horn of Africa, which became a free Somalia following caretaker status under the United Nations.

The former British and Italian dominions joined together in 1960, but Somaliland (in the northwestern section) was getting the short end of an already short stick under the dictatorship of Mohamed Siad Barre. Civil war broke out (and hasn’t ended!), and Somaliland broke away in 1991.

For over thirty years, Somaliland has existed as a quasi-independent state. They have their own government, currency, and military. Unlike their failed state neighbors, Somaliland has retained considerable order and stability. The country has enjoyed ethical elections and peaceful transitions of power. They have forged strong relationships with the United States and the United Kingdom. They are growing their relationships with other African states, including Ethiopia.

They just don’t have official status … yet.

President Trump needs to take the lead on this and recognize Somaliland as an official country.

This move has a number of benefits for the United States, somewhat mirroring the wins for the United States following the brokerage of peace agreements with Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo:

President Trump would assert American influence and dominance in the region. Global power players insist on playing timid, despite the great power and authority granted to them by their voters or the power structures in their respective countries.

Trump has not been afraid to think big, ask bigger, and get the biggest deal possible to benefit the United States. Stepping in and asserting the will and interest of a local people group to their own nation will bolster America’s resurgence on the world stage. Supporting a stable region by offering it official recognition will help stem the migrant crisis overwhelming Europe and the United States.

Instead of dishonoring failed states or pushing away the rising tides of teeming masses, why not provide support to breakaway regions which can run their affairs without too much trouble, and provide those regions as alternative refugee destinations? President Trump is deporting illegal aliens to South Sudan. He could work out a deal with Somaliland to receive them, too.

Supporting the creation of an independent Somaliland would press the rest of the Eastern Horn of Africa to get its act together. If Somalia won’t take the hint to get its act together, the United States could abandon its dubious military standing in Somalia and invest its military operations in the new country.

Trump’s move would further destabilize Islamic militancy in the region. Rebel groups are still frustrating.

As an added bonus, recognizing Somaliland would irritate Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia) and her fellow progressive “anti-colonialist” adherents, who has pledged to stop further independence efforts from the breakaway region.

There are some concerns from national leaders and power brokers in Africa and throughout the rest of the world. If President Trump recognizes this separated region, how will the other separatist groups in Africa, Europe, and elsewhere respond? They will start clamoring for recognition, fire up their military operations, and engage in more subversive tactics to undermine their home countries. Recognizing one stable region could lead to more instability?

Trump and other nations can navigate these concerns fairly easily. Somaliland has already established much of the key infrastructure needed for any country to stand on its own.

Somaliland is an independent state, in contrast to the relentless dysfunction and destruction of the Republic of Somalia. Many breakaway militias and separatist groups in other regions around the world do not have similar infrastructures in place. Aside from diligent partisans who hold meetings dreaming of their own separate country, the widespread separatist groups don’t have anything else in place.

Trump could ally all fears by saying to other regions clamoring for independent recognition (Catalonia, Eastern Ukraine, Gaza, and Judea and Samaria): “When you can build yourself up to be an independent state like Somaliland (with currency, military, and stable elections) in all but official recognition, give us a call.” If Trump makes the Somaliland announcement this year, thirty-four years will have passed since the region broke away from Somalia as a whole.

Trump could joke that other budding nations should take the same length of time!

Nation-building can work in our favor if it doesn’t cost us anything. This opportunity is too good to pass up, and President Biden refused to take advantage of something so easy to accomplish. Of course, no one respected him (not even his own staff, who did most of the governing). President Trump needs to step out and help establish the self-rule of this region.

Arthur C. Schaper is a blogger, writer, and commentator on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance.

If you ever wondered why Somalia remains arguably the worst-governed country on Earth after 30 years of turmoil, look no further than the leaders who have run the show for the past two decades. It’s no secret—Somalia’s political class is suffering from a mental disorder that might best be called the “Somaliland Syndrome.”

This affliction manifests as an obsessive, pathological envy of Somaliland’s success, coupled with an absolute inability to replicate any of it.

While Somaliland quietly builds peace, stable governance, and economic progress, Somalia’s leaders appear trapped in a delusional loop, fixated on erasing Somaliland rather than improving their own failed system. Their diagnosis? “Somaliland is the disease. If only we could destroy it, everything would be fine.” Reality? Somaliland’s stability is the cure Somalia desperately needs.

This sickness explains a lot: rampant corruption, terrorist infiltration, foreign puppeteering, and endless power struggles are just symptoms.

The Somali state’s leadership—most glaringly the Himilo Qaran political party led by former President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed—is the textbook case.

Here you have a man once tied to the Islamic Courts Union and arguably the spiritual father of Al-Shabaab, now championing national unity and elections. The irony could not be thicker.

How can a leader with “Somaliland Syndrome”—who spends more time fixating on Somaliland republic that has nothing to do with him—preside over a system so thoroughly entwined with terrorist groups and corruption? It’s like a sick man lecturing the healthy on how to run a marathon.

The recent clashes in Gedo—where the federal government’s forces face off with Jubbaland militias—highlight this dysfunction.

Himilo Qaran shamelessly blames Mogadishu for “escalating” violence, yet fails to acknowledge that the very government it opposes is the only entity attempting to assert order over a fractured state. Instead, it warns of “enemies approaching Mogadishu,” as if Somalia’s greatest enemy isn’t internal chaos and kleptocracy.

And who is behind these “enemies”? The party’s leadership has long been entangled with forces that either flirt with or actively support militant Islamism. It’s no surprise they decry federal military deployments as “political,” while using rhetoric that fans division.

Somalia’s government, meanwhile, accuses Jubbaland leader Ahmed Madobe of launching “criminal attacks” to resist federal authority. This tit-for-tat violence reflects a failed system where regional warlords operate as de facto rulers, and central governance is a fragile illusion.

So while Somaliland invests in governance, infrastructure, and diplomacy, Somalia remains mired in “Somaliland Syndrome,” a deadly cocktail of denial, envy, and self-destruction. The rest of the world watches, bemused and horrified, as Somalia’s political class preaches about elections while their country falls apart.

The bitter truth is that Somalia’s political sickness will only be cured by acknowledging Somaliland’s success—not by vilifying it. Until then, expect more chaos, more terrorism, and more tragic irony from a leadership too sick to heal their own nation.

Securing the Gulf of Aden: Somaliland’s Strategic Maritime Role.

As global maritime chokepoints grow increasingly volatile, Somaliland—a quiet but stable actor along the Gulf of Aden—stands at the threshold of regional leadership in maritime security. With piracy, illicit trafficking, and sabotage returning to regional waters, the time for Somaliland to rise as a maritime guardian is now.

Somaliland controls a critical stretch of the Gulf, where over 20,000 commercial vessels pass annually. Unlike neighboring states mired in instability, Somaliland’s democratic governance and functional institutions position it uniquely to lead on security. But leadership requires strategy.

A Somaliland Maritime Security Strategy would focus on four pillars: regional coordination, advanced surveillance, a national maritime policy, and international engagement. Satellite tracking, drone monitoring, legal reform, and multinational exercises are no longer optional—they’re essential.

The world cannot afford to overlook this under-recognized actor. Somaliland’s role in securing sea lanes can deliver ripple effects far beyond its shores—from reducing insurance costs for global shippers to deterring terrorist threats along the Horn of Africa.

In the era of asymmetric threats, Somaliland’s emergence as a maritime power may be the stabilizing force the region urgently needs.

By Mahad Ahmed
Independent Maritime Security Advisor, Hargeisa, Somaliland
📧 mahaddayr@gmail.com

By: Saleban Omar –

For over three decades, Somaliland has stood as one of Africa’s most stable, democratic, and self-governed nations. Since reasserting its 1960 independence in 1991, it has maintained peace, held multiple elections, and functioned with more transparency and order than many internationally recognized states. And yet, it remains unrecognized. Not because it lacks legitimacy. But because the West – the very powers that claim to champion democracy and self-determination – have chosen to keep Somaliland chained in a neocolonial limbo.

Somalilanders must now ask the uncomfortable but necessary question: Why has the West done everything but reward our success? Why do the so-called champions of democracy ignore the African country that most closely reflects their values? The answer is harsh but clear: because an independent Somaliland governed by its own interests does not serve Western strategic control.

In the name of “development assistance,” the West has propped up leaders who sabotage the will of the people. In the name of “stability,” it has kept Somaliland tethered to failed institutions in Mogadishu. In the name of “partnership,” it has refused to recognize Somaliland while exploiting its geostrategic location for military and intelligence operations. And in the name of “democracy,” it has empowered elites who serve foreign agendas, not Somalilanders.

Across the continent, Africa is waking up. Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have rejected the chains of Western-backed ECOWAS. Ethiopia is asserting its sovereign interest. And BRICS is rising as a force of multipolarity, offering African nations new options — investment without strings, trade without coercion, and partnership without puppet strings. Somaliland must look east.

China, India, and Russia offer Somaliland the very thing the West has refused for 30 years: respect. They do not demand we surrender our sovereignty in exchange for aid. They do not treat us like passive recipients of charity. They recognize the right of every nation to pursue its own path. Somaliland’s partnership with Taiwan was brave and symbolic — but it has come at a cost. China’s retaliation is real. And Taiwan, diplomatically isolated itself, lacks the power to shield us from Beijing’s pressure.

So what has the West given us? Broken promises. Media narratives that frame us as a disputed region rather than the democratic state we are. And a silent veto on any leader who dares to challenge their monopoly.

The irony is brutal: the smartest, most resilient people in the Horn of Africa are denied their future by the very powers that once protectorate them. Somalilanders have built a country from nothing. But our greatest resource – our independence of thought – has become a threat to the global order.

It’s time for a new doctrine. Let us stop begging for Western acceptance. Let us stop letting clandestine networks pick leaders who don’t serve the people. Let us embrace multipolarity and pivot toward the East, toward allies who will treat us as equals.

Somaliland must chart its own future — not through Western favor, but through strategic autonomy. The world is changing. The age of one superpower is over. And Somaliland must not be the last to realize it.

Saleban Omar
Saleban Omar is a PhD in philosophy from University of Hargeisa, two masters degrees and an abiding passion for what is in Somaliland’s best interest.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect WARYATV’s editorial stance

By Abdi Ismail Samatar.

Abdi Ismail Samatar is a member of the Pan African Parliament, an Extraordinary Professor at the University of Pretoria and a Professor of Geography at the University of Minnesota. His most recent book is ‘Reframing Somalia: Beyond Africa’s Merchants of Misery’ (2022).

Corrupt, authoritarian, incompetent and sectarian leaders cannot inspire the progressive revolution which Pan-Africanism requires. Political and economic mismanagement in the nation states is not a good recipe for continental advancement.

In a November 2024 Pan-African Parliament meeting in Midrand, a guest from the Afro-Caribbean diaspora asked a simple but profound question to the continental MPs: “Why is Pan-Africanism declining?”

The question should have elicited vigorous debate but, like so many vital critical issues, it barely got any attention from the delegates.

Pan-Africanism has a long history. The yearning for freedom and human dignity inspired abolitionism, nationalism and the creation of nation states. But postcolonial African states have not, by and large, succeeded in nurturing accountable and effective institutions as well as vibrant civic life in each territory, and among countries, to give substance to the spirit of Pan-Africanism.

Pan-Africanism is in decline as that delegate noted, but the question is: Why? Before offering an analysis of how it came to this state, it is useful to provide its brief history.

The first rumblings of Pan-Africanism emerged in the Americas during the era of slavery when Africans from many regions on the continent were forcibly cast together under the most inhuman system of oppression the world has ever known. Whether they were from west, central, south, north or east Africa, their common subjugation created a new identity which gradually evolved to African-American or Afro-Caribbean.

Struggling against slavery and its dehumanisation became the soul of the Black Abolitionist’s movement and their white allies. This collective identity formation has endured and inspired many other subjugated peoples in the Americas, such as the women’s movement.

Further, after the abolition of slavery, religious elements of the African American population saw colonialism as the continuation of slavery in another guise. Some came to preach in Africa as they thought the church could be a force for liberation.

The second iteration of Pan-Africanism evolved with the struggle for liberation in Africa and the Caribbean. This involved mutual support among the liberation movements in various colonies and regions with the primary goal of gaining political independence. Nkrumah’s (Ghana) and Nasir’s (Egypt) advocacy for African liberation and unity were exemplar cases.

Third, once the majority of countries in the continent became independent, the stage was set for the formalisation of Pan-Africanism. This led to the creation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1963. The OAU was most successful in supporting the liberation movements in southern Africa. Nevertheless, internal division between post-colonial blocks in the OAU, such as Francophone and Anglophone, remained.

Fourth, the demise of apartheid South Africa in 1994 closed the curtain on the liberation agenda. The ambitious new Republic of South Africa, under the leadership of President Nelson Mandela and his deputy, Thabo Mbeki, tried to energise the OAU.

Mandela and Mbeki genuinely spoke for Africa and made attempts to rejuvenate the continental organisation with the support of others. Consequently, the OAU was renamed the African Union (AU) in a continental meeting in Durban, South Africa, in 2002. The aim was to advance African integration as well as give the continent a greater muscle in international affairs.

Over time, a number of AU institutions were established, such as the African Court of Human and People’s Rights (1998); the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (2001); the AU Commission (2002); the African Peace and Security Council (2002); and the Pan-African Parliament (2004).

A mismatch between the rhetoric and reality of the AU
The formal institutional structure of the OAU/AU has been in place for over 60 years. Despite such longevity, Pan-Africanism has not evolved significantly beyond formalities.

For Pan-Africanism to flourish, three things must be in place: 1) Common institutions that methodically and steadily gain legitimacy by effectively solving some of the strategic regional and continental problems; 2) A growing progressive and cohesive civic identity within each nation state; and 3) A rising continental civic identity anchored on the successful operations of the AU institutions.

But significant advances have not been made in these vital areas. Among the major problems on the continent has been the prevalence of unaccountable and corrupt regimes in most parts of the continent for decades. Such regimes fuel communal strife which undermines trust among populations and between them and states.

Moreover, corrupt practices in the public and private sectors in many countries have been so normalised such that ordinary people are relegated as subjects rather than citizens.

These national political cultures impede the transformation of the spirit of liberation into civic bonds in each country. Examples of countries suffering from such maladies include Nigeria, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Kenya, DRC, Malawi, Congo, Angola, Ethiopia. Eritrea, Chad, Sudan, Gabon, South Sudan, Liberia, Libya, Somalia, etc.

Without vibrant civic culture in most countries, it is inconceivable to develop substantive civic ties across national borders. The sentiments of the liberation days are still alive in many parts of the continent, although waning, but few shared political bonds have been created and nurtured across borders to facilitate shared regional or continental civic agendas.

Because of the dearth of substantive civic bonds across national boundaries, two factors have hobbled the AU’s capacity to give real substance to Pan-Africanism.

First, the AU has become the annual club of mostly unaccountable leaders where deliberations rarely ever positively advance the freedoms of ordinary people or their material wellbeing.

Second, the unfocused and unrealistically expansive bureaucratic agenda of the AU makes it dependent on the financial generosity of non-Africans. For instance, continentally generated resources cover only 32% of the AU budget while 65% originates from outside.

The AU’s need for substantial budgetary support from outside to finance its agenda means that it does not have financial autonomy to chart an Afrocentric developmental agenda. A clear example of this weakness is the AU’s inability to silence the guns in countries such as Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, DRC, etc, and prevent the ill effects of foreign agendas as was the case in Libya, where Nato ignored the AU plea, deposed Gaddafi, and instigated a civil war.

The Pan-African spirit lives on, but…
A Somali proverb best captures the Pan-African conundrum: “Hal xaaraani nirig xalaala ma dhasho.” This literally means that an illegitimate she-camel cannot give birth to a legitimate offspring.

The implication of the proverb is that corrupt, authoritarian, incompetent and sectarian leaders cannot inspire the progressive revolution which Pan-Africanism requires. Political and economic mismanagement in the nation states, with a few exceptions, is not a good recipe for continental advancement.

Thus, the dearth of rich and vibrant civic political culture in most African countries, and national political leaders bereft of trust, cannot inspire and build continental institutions that can rejuvenate substantive Pan-Africanism.

There is little doubt that the spirit of Pan-Africanism lives among our people, but it will require a new cohort of leaders as well as purposely organised civic movements to alter our Pan-Africanist fortunes. DM

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect WARYATV’s editorial stance