S.I.R Insight: UNIONS Vs STATES

[Arcturus]

International Jurisprudence:

STATES cannot become deceased.

States can enter into agreements, become members of UNIONS, have Pacts, Partnerships and a host of other association. Once Recognized, a STATE can never voluntarily or forcibly have it's statehood over written by any type of association. STATEHOOD is a permanent attribute as opposed to the host of association, states many enter into. The shear notion or intent of depriving a state of it's inalienable right to exist contravenes both international law on statehood and human rights.

However

An association such a UNION of two or more member states maybe dissolved, disbanded, divided or dismembered without ever violating a single international law or human right. There is in fact no international law that protects or preserves the existence of a UNION. We all know what happened to the Soviet UNION.

A STATE is a Constant and sacrosanct.
A UNION is Temporal and deconsacrated.

Was the Somali-Republic a STATE or a UNION?

[jalaaludin5]

Union.
-
-
-

[26June1960]

Was the British-Somaliland Protectorate, the Italian-Somaliland Protectorate, the French-Somaliland Protectorate, the Abyssinian-Somaliland Protectorate and the Northern Frontier District all "States" that had full governments, flag and military before the arrival of the European Colonizers? AND During the colonial era, since those areas were illegally occupied, could they be considered "States" during the time of the colonials?

Before the Colonials, whether it was the Ethiopians or the Europeans, the Somalis that lived in the Somali Peninsula (Modern day; Somalia, NFD, Somali Galbeed and Djibouti) all lived under certain tribal authority, sultanates and/or otherwise. There never was a single Somali State under one Somali government that ruled the entire Somali Peninsula. The Colonials came and put an end to the different Somali tribal states and created what it essentially called "British-Somaliland" "Italian-Somaliland" "French-Somaliland" and gave two Somali territories to Abyssinia and Kenya or what it was known as British-East Africa.

Now, to say that those illegally occupied and illegally formed areas are legal while downplaying the legality of the Somali Republic which came into existence for the first time in Somali history by the will and choice of the Somali people as a whole is not only laughable and but out right ridiculous.

When Italian-Somaliland united with British-Somaliland, it wasn't two legal sovereign States uniting. It was the Somali tribes living in those areas that just gained back their sovereignty, making their own decision to join together as ONE (each tribe made the choice to welcome what was being build in 1960, a ONE NATION for ALL SOMALIS under ONE GOVERNMENT and ONE FLAG. That was never the case prior to 1960)

Do you want to dissolve the Somali Republic? Fine. Go ahead. That will immediately mean that the Somali tribes will simply go back to their tribal autonomous Sultanates and States that existed prior to the arrival of the Colonials. Simple as that.

Hawiye does not represent Italian-Somaliland nor does Darod or any other tribe is the sole representative of Italian-Somaliland. Also, Isaq does not represent British-Somaliland nor does Darod or any other tribe is the sole representative of British-Somaliland. If Isaq wants to rule it's own tribal territory, the Dhulbahante, Warsangeli and Gadabursi cannot stand their way and force them to accept "British-Somaliland" and vice-versa. If Digil and Mirifle want to rule themselves, Hawiye or Darod from Italian-Somaliland cannot impose their will upon them, despite the fact they all live near each other in the South (or in the former Italian-Somaliland Protectorate).

[whitehartlane]

well put, that's what one calls a waterproof argument...


"Do you want to dissolve the Somali Republic? Fine. Go ahead. That will immediately mean that the Somali tribes will simply go back to their tribal autonomous Sultanates and States that existed prior to the arrival of the Colonials. Simple as that."

priort to British italian arrival;
dhulbahante isaaq warsengeli were seperate entities. knitted together by force and then nurtured for a while knowingly they and the italian dominated southern somalis will be put together to create a new state...

what makes a nation a nation..that is a question that needs to be raised. before we can addresss the nationhood of somaliland prior to independence.

the small matter of somaliland before british arrival is out of the question. so need to ask ourself, did somaliland have the basic foundations of a nationhood?

a land with recognised borders and agreed upon by the citizens of that land?
No

a constitution formed in dictatorship or democracy that covers all the people and the land
no

a recognisable flag
no

a RULER a KEIZER a SULTAN A KING president anybody who claimed a title that covered all the lands and the people in it..anybody besides her majesty
no

a national army tht defined this nation
none

a national anthem maybe
no?

national taxation
nope
.................................................................

was somaliland a nation prior to independence
no, it wasnt
was somaliland a nation prior to colonialism
no, it wasnt
is somaliland at present a nation
yes, it satisfies all preconditions to be a state, nation and a fully fludged country.
whether 5 clans live in it or some of a sub clan..

next question would be, what kind of a nation does somaliland aspire to be..
one at war and never ending circle of wars with a neighbour or two including a portion of its citizens or one at peace and in harmony with all factors..

[Arcturus]

.

[Arcturus]

Was the British-Somaliland Protectorate, the Italian-Somaliland Protectorate, the French-Somaliland Protectorate, the Abyssinian-Somaliland Protectorate and the Northern Frontier District all "States" that had full governments, flag and military before the arrival of the European Colonizers? AND During the colonial era, since those areas were illegally occupied, could they be considered "States" during the time of the colonials?

According to International Law and the African Charter on Statehood, the African continent's various TRIBE or terrain grouping to create the current States of Africa may have been externally imposed. Yes you may wish to express desire for a PAN-AFRICAN single STATE, yes you maybe proud of the fact that the Africans to this day require that same architect who gave them their states. Perhaps you wish to return the African continue to it's border-less pre-colonial era so you may wonder the desert partially nude stealing other's camels. What is your debate???

- You hate the fact that borders were made for your protection?
- You feel more entitled then a Massia divided by the borders of Kenya and Tanzania?
- You feel superior to the AFAR divided by the borders of Three-States?
- You believe you were deprived of this grand advanced way of nomadism?
- You believe Somalis would ever have the chance to compete in modern warfare with their neighboring Africans?
- You need to appreciate the colonial borders for they are; the only thing preventing your extinction. The only thing that has sustained the weakest association "Ethnicity" in the African continent.
- Were it not for the those same borders and the African charter on Statehood Kenya and Ethiopia would have had a field day in Somalia-Italia over the last 55years. I assure you it would not have even required force, Your Federal member "pseudo states" would willingly sign over their statehood with pleasure, just as much as the Kilil-5 Elders signed over their political trajectory to Ethiopia in 1954.

Before the Colonials, whether it was the Ethiopians or the Europeans, the Somalis that lived in the Somali Peninsula (Modern day; Somalia, NFD, Somali Galbeed and Djibouti) all lived under certain tribal authority, sultanates and/or otherwise.


If the Union flag represented 5-states as potential union-Members. Somaliland, Somalia and Djibouti as full states, Hawd+Ogadeen and NFD as occupied states. Unless you are simply biased, accord each state its entitlement.

1. Somalia-Italia = UN-trust territory of Somalia = Somalia This is a single STATE.
2. The Somali-Republic = the 5-Somali States This was an intended UNION of equals.

The Somali-Republic UNION died in 1976 when Djibouti chose not to accept membership! That is the right of any member state or applicant who may have been sold the notion of the Somali-Republic Union... it is merely an association. Don't waste your time writing an essay.



Now, to say that those illegally occupied and illegally formed areas are legal while downplaying the legality of the Somali Republic which came into existence for the first time in Somali history by the will and choice of the Somali people as a whole is not only laughable and but out right ridiculous.

- LEGAL Vs ILLEGAL...

- INTERNATIONAL LAW on statehood
- AFRICAN CHARTER on statehood
- THE Somali act of UNION 1960

If you wish to challenge laws, charters and policies that is your prerogative, however the world is dis-concerned with your LEGAL authority on the matter or you are failing to distinguish the different between OWN-FANTASY and OTHERs-REALITY.

When Italian-Somaliland united with British-Somaliland, it wasn't two legal sovereign States uniting. It was the Somali tribes living in those areas that just gained back their sovereignty, making their own decision to join together as ONE (each tribe made the choice to welcome what was being build in 1960, a ONE NATION for ALL SOMALIS under ONE GOVERNMENT and ONE FLAG. That was never the case prior to 1960)

- The simple fact of distinct independence days 26June1960, 01july1960 and 27June1977.
- The simple fact of distinct historical difference pre and post colonialsm.
- The Simple fact of demographically differences,

If it weren't for international laws, charters and policies there would never have been a need for the ACT of Union. According to your reasoning why obey any LAWS, CHARTERS or POLICIES? All somali inhabited lands can freely associate with each other as a matter of CHOICE? right?

What prevents Somali association? What prevents a PAN-Somali state? if the underlying qualifier is CHOICE... Let us crown a Somali the Supreme LORD of Africa, the world oh heck the UNIVERSE. Right?

Only Two or more Legal and Sovereign states engage in an ACT of UNITING!



Do you want to dissolve the Somali Republic? Fine. Go ahead. That will immediately mean that the Somali tribes will simply go back to their tribal autonomous Sultanates and States that existed prior to the arrival of the Colonials. Simple as that.

- I don't have to DISSOLVE what was never CONSTRUCTED in the first place, the entire process of UNIFYING TWO LEGAL states as a precursor to the UNIFICATION of 5-Somali LEGAL states was derailed and defrauded, without any concern for future implications.
- There is no denying International law, African charter or the Somali-act of union. The only probable dissolution is the return of two legal states not tribal sultanates or other fantasies.
- If tribal fiefdoms are ever accepted it will occur in Somalia-Italia with it's federal-pseudo-states.

If ever there was an oxymoron: The "Aspirants" of Unity are the champions of federal disunity!

Hawiye does not represent Italian-Somaliland nor does Darod or any other tribe is the sole representative of Italian-Somaliland. Also, Isaq does not represent British-Somaliland nor does Darod or any other tribe is the sole representative of British-Somaliland. If Isaq wants to rule it's own tribal territory, the Dhulbahante, Warsangeli and Gadabursi cannot stand their way and force them to accept "British-Somaliland" and vice-versa. If Digil and Mirifle want to rule themselves, Hawiye or Darod from Italian-Somaliland cannot impose their will upon them, despite the fact they all live near each other in the South (or in the former Italian-Somaliland Protectorate).

You resort to clanism as a source of reasoning!
You ignore LAWS, CHARTERS and POLICIES that constrain choices.
You fail to distinguish between Own-Fantasy and raw-reality.

In as much as Djibouti State has the sole right to exert force within it's territory. Somalia-Italia State has that same right accorded it by international law, charters and policies.

Somali-Republic as a UNION did not enjoy that same right and this i hope some how trickles into your zombivied cerebellum.

1. Who ever is ELECTED in Somaliland-Republic-State by the Majority has RIGHT to exert physical, mental and spiritual force to preserve the STATE.

2. Who ever is SELECTED in Somalia-Italia-Federal-Republic by the Majority has RIGHT to exert physical, mental and spiritual force to preserve the STATE.

3. However the Somali-Republic-Union has been Illegally formed since 1960, Exercised FORCE apportioned for a STATE in the 1980ies and defunct since 1991... There is no Somali-Republic-UNION and even if it did return the UNION would never enjoy any right to exert force which is reserved for individual states.

Germany and France are members of the EU however the EU does not have the enjoyment of exerting FORCE within individual member STATES.

- One can Resign from a UNION!
- Membership of a STATE is permanent with exceptions:
Ethnic, religeous, cultural, language,etc discrimination

I am not sure Clan meets the prerequisite! The Only path available is a DISSOLUTION of a failed UNION and return to the TWo sovereign states that gained their independence 26June1960 and 01july1960.

However Just as is in Canada Af-Maxa and Af-Maay could result in potential breakup of Somalia-Italia, Sufi Vs Wahabi, Cushitic Vs Bantu, Cush-Culture Vs Bantu-Culture.

[Arcturus]

well put, that's what one calls a waterproof argument...


I guess we operate independent of international Laws, charters and policies that govern statehood?

A UNION has limited privileges as compared to a STATE! fact

Somalia-Italia has invested heavily in the portrayal of said UNION as a STATE, in the full knowledge that a UNION is far more difficult to resurrect, as resurrection requires the interest of members of that association.



"Do you want to dissolve the Somali Republic? Fine. Go ahead. That will immediately mean that the Somali tribes will simply go back to their tribal autonomous Sultanates and States that existed prior to the arrival of the Colonials. Simple as that."

priort to British italian arrival;
dhulbahante isaaq warsengeli were seperate entities. knitted together by force and then nurtured for a while knowingly they and the italian dominated southern somalis will be put together to create a new state...


I did no create international laws, charters and policies of STATEHOOD nor do we Somalis have influence over their existence

On one hand you argue that somalis should not have been separated with the concept of state borders, while on the other you display pride that TWO independence states were created as a precursor for a single Somali state? Revision some?

Either you reject the whole nature of STATEHOOD or refrain from the benefits and process of UNITY. There is no Unity if there is no STATES.

UNION has little to no forcible obligation on it's members. RIGHT OF MEMBER SOLICITATION
Vs
STATE has legal rights to preserve itself from internal and external threats. RIGHT OF SELF PRESERVATION



what makes a nation a nation..that is a question that needs to be raised. before we can addresss the nationhood of somaliland prior to independence.

Somaliland-Republic's Nationhood is not in question nor up for debate! Nor that of Djibouti etc.

Keep focus on the critical Differences between UNION and STATE.

Two-Independent Somali "STATES" began a process of unifying Five-Somali dominated regions with different political realities. Two independent(Somaliland & Somalia), one a colony(Djibouti) and one incorporated into a neighboring state(Hawd+Ogdeen) and one incorporated into a neighboring colony(NFD).



the small matter of somaliland before british arrival is out of the question. so need to ask ourself, did somaliland have the basic foundations of a nationhood?

We are not attempting to re-write international Law, charters or policies nor do we need to in order to maintain focus on the topic UNION Vs STATE

Where one denies that there were two legal Somali STATES in 1960 who sought to CONSTRUCT an association between Somali-inhabitants in African, that act of denial nullifies any LEGAL association that sought as a consequence.

If there weren't TWO LEGAL STATES in 1960 then the reality is that there could never have been a LEGAL UNION in 1960. Is that what we are saying here?

TWO or MORE LEGAL STATES may form a UNION(A Temporal Association).



a land with recognised borders and agreed upon by the citizens of that land?
No

There are THREE internationally recognized treatise that clearly cement the borders of Somaliland-Republic, It is not the topic of discussion. International law, charters, policies and treatise are independent of Somali-Opinion and wishful thinking

a constitution formed in dictatorship or democracy that covers all the people and the land
no

26June1960 Somaliland-Republic Gained it's independence as a member of the international community with recognition from over 35 States and all 5-permanent security council members.

Once again if we do disqualify Somaliland-Republic from having majority consensus on it's constitution, statehood and unity then we only further diminish the ACT of UNITY with another LEGAL STATE. STATES form unions. Your perspective is self defeating.


a recognisable flag
no

Flags, Currency, Constitution, passports, Primary-language, Policies...etc are not pre-requisites to STATEHOOD nor UNION.

Even if i do entertain your perspective: Just for a moment

UNITY(Temporal association) can only be formed by TWO or more LEGAL STATES.

1. IF Somaliland and Somalia neither had an individual flag, agreed constitution, recognized borders and were not STATES.
2. IS it reasonable to SAY the Somali-Republic-UNION never FORMED?

YES or NO , MAYBE starting to sound like Brain farts to me.




a RULER a KEIZER a SULTAN A KING president anybody who claimed a title that covered all the lands and the people in it..anybody besides her majesty
no

Are denying international Laws, charters, treatise and policies that govern STATEHOOD or UNIONS

26-June-1960 Somaliland-Republic had Cigal as a leader upon independence. If Somaliland-Republic did not have a leadership that was majority representative, then all associations initiated by these men including the "SAID" UNION are null and void?


a national army tht defined this nation
none

Further attempts to derail, that is neither relevant to topic nor accurate.

a national anthem maybe
no?

Off Topic and not a pre-requisite of STATEHOOD, NATIONHOOD or UNION

national taxation
nope

Off topic in accurate
.................................................................

was somaliland a nation prior to independence
no, it wasnt

Off topic, Was any African country a Nation prior to colonialism
was somaliland a nation prior to colonialism
no, it wasnt
Off topic, Was any colonized country a Nation prior to colonialism

is somaliland at present a nation
yes, it satisfies all preconditions to be a state, nation and a fully fludged country.
whether 5 clans live in it or some of a sub clan..
Topic STATES Vs UNIONS, what happens to the UNION component of it's histroy?
next question would be, what kind of a nation does somaliland aspire to be..
one at war and never ending circle of wars with a neighbour or two including a portion of its citizens or one at peace and in harmony with all factors...

Question is off topic and not the subject of debate. Somaliland-Republic as a Legal STATE has ever right to self preserve from internal and external threats. Somaliland-Republic is facing it's fair share of question and i am confident that the answers will come from within Somaliland-Republic, as is evidenced in 55years of solving far more difficult question.

You may wish to perceive Somaliland-Republic's History as a blip post 1991, Recorded History if we put aside the oral history, Somaliland-Republic and it's people have overcome challenges since the arrival of the Europeans in 1884.

131 Years of the good, the bad and the ugly in our History... I have cause to be optimistic.

Unlike those who over that same period only enjoyed PEACE, JUSTICE and STATEHOOD in the 30-Years me and my people were breaking our backs to contain/resolve a situation.

101 Years of Failure is reason for pessimism if you ask me!. Not reality my concern, but i would rather be excused then be forced to contribute to that failure. Do not be fooled by aesthetic improvements, what lies beneath that surface will take more then 101 more years to resolve.