By Ahmed Bashir

The “Island of Peace” Narrative

For more than three decades, Somaliland has been portrayed by its advocates and many external observers as an “island of peace” in a turbulent region. Amid the protracted conflict, fragmentation and state collapse that have characterized much of southern and central Somalia, the self-declared republic was frequently described as a rare exception: orderly, restrained and internally cohesive, surrounded by a wider sea of conflict, in the rest of Somalia.

This image became foundational to Somaliland’s political identity and its campaign for international recognition. Stability was presented as evidence of moral and political distinction, a claim that Somaliland represented as an alternative model of governance in the Horn of Africa.

Exceptionalism, Symbolic Legitimacy, and the Erosion of an Exceptional Image

Over time, this exceptionalist narrative acquired almost reverential language. Somalilanders came to refer to their enclave as the “Blessed Republic” (Jamhuuriyadda Barakaysan). While never an official designation, the label carried symbolic weight. In politics, such description can function as tool of legitimacy, shaping how a political project understands itself and how it seeks recognition from external actors.

Today, that self-image is under strain.  As Somaliland’s leadership explores closer ties with Israel , a move defended by supporters as pragmatic diplomacy and criticized by others as strategic overreach — the narrative of exceptionalism appears increasingly detached from political realities on the ground. In its place, a more critical characterization has gained traction among Somalis across the region and the diaspora: Somaliland as a strayed breakaway region, drifting away from the ethical claims that once underpinned its bid for legitimacy.

This reassessment reflects more than rhetorical frustration. It signals a broader reckoning with Somaliland’s conduct, its external alignments and the costs at which it seeks international recognition.

Internal Conflict and the Limits of Stability

Although Somaliland long projected itself as distinct from southern Somalia, emphasizing institutional continuity, internal restraint and relative order — this image has always been more fragile than its advocates suggested.

In recent years, Somaliland authorities have been widely accused of involvement in serious violence in the Sool, Sanaag and Cayn (SSC) regions, particularly in the city of Laas-Aanood. According to local observers, journalists, clan elders and regional human rights organizations, Somaliland forces have engaged in shelling of civilian areas, mass arrests and the suppression of dissent during sustained military operations, and thorough the tenure of their rule. The resulting civilian casualties and displacement resemble forms of state violence that Somaliland once defined itself against.

Extremism, Grievance and Political Exclusion

Also, claims that Somaliland has largely avoided internal violence or terrorism are increasingly difficult to sustain. Civil society organizations and independent media have documented extrajudicial killings, extensive security operations and violence against civilians in Laas-Aanood, Erigavo and parts of the Awdal region.

At the same time, a notable number of senior al-Shabab figures — including influential leaders and ideologues — are known to originate from Somaliland. Somali analysts have long highlighted this pattern, complicating assertions that extremism is solely an southern problem and pointing instead to deeper involvement in Al-Shabab, challenges of political exclusion, unresolved grievances and weakened trust between communities and state institutions in northern Somalia.

Normative Distinction and Its Decline

These contradictions matter because Somaliland’s appeal was never based solely on stability. It rested on a claim of normative distinction — that its political project was grounded in justice, restraint and popular legitimacy. That distinction is now eroding.

A Clan Cannot Become a Nation

A further structural constraint on Somaliland’s claim to statehood lies in its narrow sociopolitical base. Despite formal institutions and electoral processes, political power within Somaliland has remained overwhelmingly concentrated within a single dominant clan-family, the Isaaq. For many Somalis including communities within the claimed territory. Somaliland is therefore perceived less as a plural national project than as a clan-based secessionist initiative. This perception has been reinforced by persistent disputes in non-Isaaq regions, particularly in Sool, Sanaag and Cayn, where local populations have repeatedly rejected incorporation into the Somaliland project.

In international practice, durable statehood requires not only administrative control but broad, cross-communal consent. A political entity rooted primarily in the interests and authority of one clan, however institutionalized, faces inherent limits in its ability to transform itself into a legitimate nation-state.

External Actors and Fragmentation in Somalia

Crucially, Somaliland’s trajectory cannot be understood in isolation from the broader political economy of Somalia, which has been shaped by the interventions of external actors. Among these, the United Arab Emirates has played a particularly influential role. Over the past decade, the UAE has pursued parallel engagements with Somalia’s Federal Government while also establishing direct political, security and financial relationships with individual federal member states and regional authorities.

Although often framed as capacity-building or counterterrorism assistance, these arrangements have frequently operated outside a unified national framework, complicating federal cohesion, blurring security command structures and incentivizing competition among sub-national actors. In this environment, external partnerships — including those pursued by Somaliland — risk reinforcing fragmentation rather than contributing to durable state-building.

Strategic Alignment and the Limits of Recognition

Somaliland’s pursuit of closer relations with Israel has further intensified debates about strategic alignment and sovereignty. While bilateral engagement and even recognition by individual countries remain possible, such developments should not be conflated with the attainment of full international legal status.

Under existing international norms, Somaliland would not become a recognized member state of the United Nations without meeting several substantive conditions: recognition by a significant majority of UN member states, support from all five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and — most critically — the explicit consent of the Federal Republic of Somalia, resulting in a mutually agreed transformation into two distinct sovereign states. Absent these conditions, recognition by individual countries would remain limited in legal effect.

The Risks of Strategic Utility

Proponents of Somaliland’s current diplomatic trajectory argue that incremental recognition and strategic partnerships can gradually shift these constraints. Yet recognition pursued primarily through strategic utility carries significant risks.

Political entities valued chiefly for their geostrategic function often experience a gradual erosion of policy autonomy. Foreign relations become increasingly transactional, sovereignty more conditional and diplomatic silences more pronounced. International visibility may increase, but meaningful agency can diminish.

Internal Legitimacy and Political Cohesion

The consequences are not only external. Somaliland’s internal cohesion has long depended on a shared belief that its political project was more just, inclusive and accountable than the alternatives. Protracted conflict in the SSC regions, dissent flareups in Awdal region and a narrowing political space now threaten to undermine that belief.

It is in this context that the description of Somaliland as a strayed breakaway region has gained resonance. The term denotes not merely the absence of recognition, but a perceived departure from the principles that once justified separation from Somalia in the first place.

Conclusion: A Moment of Choice

Political decay rarely unravels abruptly. It erodes incrementally. Overtime it may lead to unexpected shift and normalizing radical steps historically considered unacceptable, until all core beliefs and values become negotiable, and historical memory selectively invoked.

Somaliland now confronts such a juncture.

Whether it prioritizes recognition at any cost or seeks to re-anchor its legitimacy in justice, inclusion and restraint will determine whether the image of an “island of peace” endures as a fading narrative — or gives way to a future defined by drift, contestation and unresolved questions of sovereignty and moral legitimacy.

Ahmed Bashir
Email: bashir1631@gmail.com