The UN was behind Somalia but not behind augmented Somalia. What happened was that during the war the Italians conquered British Somaliland briefly, but then the British took it back and conquered Italian Somaliland.  The British held the Italian part until 1949 or so, when it was returned to the Italians (!) under UN trusteeship.  When that trusteeship terminated in 1960 and the country became Somalia under UN auspices, the British part, independent for a few days only, joined Somalia after a referendum.  So the marriage of the two states was not UN-sponsored.  But as the whole thing took place within a few days, everyone (Italians, Brits, UN, local populations) must have known what was going to happen, and agreed to it.  I think I have that right.
 
But you put your finger on the real problem.  People should be allowed to secede, but if everyone has the right to secede, then (1) states are atomized, and (2) secession is bound to be forcibly resisted.  How large a local majority should you have to be in order to secede?  Could I secede my house from the United States?  How about my local neighborhood?  Or San Francisco (it has been suggested more than once)?  How about all of California?  We in the USA had a very unpleasant war about that question once upon a time.
 
But when the state from which a local majority wishes to secede is a fiction, and secession is fait accompli, as in Somaliland, then it seems foolish and harmful of the international community to regard the fictional state as real and the real state as fictional.  Still the question presents complexities.  Recognizing Somaliland would harm no one.  But recognizing Kurdistan in the north of Iraq, despite the equities of doing so, could set off numerous local wars.  Examples could be multiplied.  This is why is seems best to approach these issues on an ad hoc basis, rather than erect a general principle that any local majority can secede at will, attractive though that principle seems in the abstract.  But it should be allowed perhaps more than it is now.
 
A shipping protectorate in Somalia is only necessary because of anarchy there.  A protectorate like that would be better than what we have now.  If the Islamic Courts regime had been allowed to survive in Somalia, pirates might not now infest the place and make the Suez Canal close to unusable.  I find it really hard to understand why the navies of the world feel they cannot intervene forcefully and directly to suppress piracy, as used to be done routinely back to the days of Pompey.
 
David Phillips
People's Republic of San Francisco
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia kallos
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: aha very clever

well i didnt realize the united nations was behind the marriage of somaliland to somalia

could you perhaps be thinking of the unga arranged marriage of eritrea to ethiopia instead

not that that one was any better
nor much different really in its outcome

but anyway
it shouldnt matter who mismatched or mismarried you
if all you want is a divorce or annulment

&
it may already be too late now for any more international protectorate over somalia

indeed the 17year protectorate led by the usa & african union & ethiopia
such as it was in all its fits & starts
appears to be pulling up stakes one last time as we speak
soon to be replaced again it seems by the local resurgence
which at least is bound to check the pirates by islamic law as before

some fresh takes
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/12/12/floundering-somali-govt-nears-collapse/
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/africa/-/1066/501798/-/13t5j9kz/-/
http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20081211_geopolitical_diary_significance_pirates

& how ironic that the new level of protection would be just an onshore shipping protectorate
or an international license to hunt pirates & or insurgents with drones commandos etc

a sort of supersized gaza in which everyone who wishes may play the part of israel

& i am not saying brute force is necessarily ineffective in accomplishing its ends
tho it often is
but am only surmising that it might not actually redound to anyones true benefit even when it is effective

for the question was about benefit rather than effectiveness

& we know violence is destructive all right
but there is no evidence that it is ever directly creative
beyond producing the holes in which new growth & new flow might subsequently emerge & proceed

but it seems to me
unilateral secession by a local majority should be as fundamental a right & almost as easy an act as political union
everywhere
& no matter how that union came to be

one should not have to demonstrate
by dint of force or reason
how exceptional & specially deserving one is
to simply maintain ones sovereign divinity & divine sovereignty

the whole notion of sovereignty began with the assertion of the divine right of kings

but sovereignty really begins & ends with the divinity of all people

it should be interesting to see the ibru evolution on all this
as the april fools sovereignty symposium approaches

--- On Sat, 12/13/08, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: aha very clever
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 11:47 AM

You are right and maybe right again.
 
It is hard to reply to you with normal paragraphing.
And indeed why try?
This is very liberating.
I may use it in all my correspondence.
 
The Somaliland case is a particularly easy one
because Somalia itself was set up by the UN.
What the UN giveth,
the UN can take away.
Maybe.
 
We need an international protectorate over Somalia.
That would be relatively easy to proclaim
in the Security Council
if no one vetoed it,
but hard to establish on the ground.
Proclaiming it would be enough, though,
for the UN as de jure protector
next to proclaim 
Somaliland's divorce.
 
Maybe when the pirates snatch a Russian ship
and a Chinese ship
this will take shape in the Security Council.
Or maybe it needs a General Assembly resolution.
Do I know these things?
What am I, a philosopher?
 
That's the punch line to an old joke.
 
Your verse form is not as easy as it looks.
My lines are too short.
But it feels great to write.
 
Perhaps the powers are right, though,
to keep this remedy
for exceptional cases.
If things are allowed to flow as they will
there will be a lot of people who want things
to flow their way
and don't mind using
force
to get or keep them flowing.
 
It has taken centuries to get Europe
out of that kind of jungle law,
and Yugoslavia shows how shallowly
it is buried.
East Timor too.
The Falklands too.
Kuwait too.
And on
and on.
 
To allow that kind of thing
on a routine basis in Africa
would be really dangerous.
But it should be available
in special cases
like Somaliland
so people who are trying
to establish lawful regimes
in place of anarchy
can do so.
 
Amen.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia kallos
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 8:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: aha very clever

great thanx david for so generous a review of such scribblings

& your reservations & other comments are well taken too

& indeed why not somaliland
i echo

that doesnt seem to be a case of postcolonial successor & possessor state uti possidetis at all
for it would have been & can still be a blessed event
to simply restore the territory & borders of independent postbritish somaliland

rather it seems only to be a case of ordinary hotel california uti possidetis
the principle being if you are stuck in a collapsed state of any description
under the socalled sovereign state system
you are stuck with your possession & or its possession of you
such that
you can check out any time you like
but you can never leave
until the dead state that possesses you can be resurrected
so the divorce can then be formalized under mutually acceptable & properly civilized terms
or
until one or more of the major powers removes you forcibly by war & or hopefully only diplomacy from your otherwise sacrosanct union

& that is the socalled sovereign state system & that is its international law
i think
so that is perhaps the greatest part of why not somaliland

&
to try to answer your other question also
it may be that the major powers are actually benefitted by this semblance of stability
in terms of economics or security or whatever
but i believe that may be a grand illusion
& that in reality no one is ever actually benefitted by disallowing anyone else
since things do seem to work best generally if allowed to flow as they will

--- On Thu, 12/11/08, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:53 PM

Once again, Aletheia, you show yourself to be the most artistic writer on this blog.  It is always a pleasure to read your verse commentaries (as I think of them).
 
Unfortunately it is not an easy matter to discern authoritatively the will of the people in a subdivision of a larger unit which claims to be a "nation-state," because the larger unit will not want to risk losing the vote, and all other states side with the affected state on this, because making uti possidetis into an eternal law lets them keep their maximum power, however minimal that power turns out to be in practice.  That's why, for example, the Kashmir issue was not settled decades ago. 
 
It is especially heartening to see you supporting international recognition of such earnest attempts at civilized conduct as we see in Somaliland.  That the international order prefers, on wholly fictitious grounds, to tie Somaliland to a state in anarchy rather than allow it to succeed on its own (especially as its adherence to Somalia was so recent an event) is pretty outrageous.  Who benefits by that, when the only "government" of Somalia is a few guys cowering in a dusty village behind the soon-to-be-withdrawn guns of the Ethiopian intervenors?  If the world can support the reduction of Yugoslavia into separate parts, and most recently the independence of Kosovo, why not Somaliland?
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia kallos
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: aha very clever

yes thank you my friend
right wholesome full viable & brave

uti possidetis
or somehow by dog latin uti possidetis juris
is not at all the revered pedigreed hoary & permanent principle of international law it pretends to be
but is a bastard & an upstart
& in fact a totally inappropriate & slapdash application to modern international law
of a
temporary restraining order
of all things
in ancient roman common property law

uti possidetis ita possideatis in full

as you possess so you may continue to possess

but only in order to keep the peace
& only until a proper court of law can permanently decide the true & legal ownership of the disputed object

& that express restriction upon personal ownership
& qualification upon personal ownership
has somehow gotten magically transmogrified
beginning around 1922 in latin america & 1963 in africa
into the supposed axiom behind the purported principle of sovereign territorial integrity
of states

yes it is that ridiculous

i am not making this up

see my favorite border bible prescott & triggs 2008 pp142ff & 245f for starters
if you doubt this reading of the facts at hand

so i would say ok
if thats the way the powers that be have wanted it & continue to want it
no problem at all

but again
in strict keeping with this cockamamie citation of law such as it is
i would not only demur but demand & insist
uti possidetis may again be asserted only to keep the peace
& only until true ownership of the lands in question can be decided by the proper authority in this case also
which is of course
the will of the people living on them
region by region
but also district by district if necessary

yes existing boundaries on all levels should remain sacrosanct
but local secessions & recombinations should be a commonplace within such a regime of international law

it is all there already
written in stone & indeed in latin
with no need for anyone to become a revolutionary

now where was that cat you didnt ask me to bell

--- On Thu, 12/11/08, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever
To: "Aletheia Kallos" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 4:26 PM

Dear Aletheia,
Without asking you to bell the cat am I right to understand that you stand for a wholesome discussion about existing boundaries in Africa altogether and for a full discussion about current geographic descriptions as viable states or are you saying uti possidetis is an everlasting truth. Somehow I suspect the earlier for which if I am right you are a brave man indeed.
Regards
Gbenga

----- Original Message -----
From: Aletheia Kallos <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever
To: [log in to unmask]

> but aha again
> as well as yikes
> & hopefully not in quadruplicate any more either
>
> for even more clever than conflict avoidance in this case would
> be the
> realization that no extended shelf claims are even possible in the
> referenced dispute areas
> of the kuriles & senkakus & takeshima 
> as this handy & probably reliable map also appears to confirm
> http://geology.usgs.gov/connections/mms/landscapes/508_descriptions/shelf_map_image_text.htm
>
> so most likely no puzzle at all here after all barbara
>
>
> & for gbenga et al
> if i might conserve a message by also adding here to the other current
> discussion
> about boundary ultraconservatism in africa
> whether of the purely sentimental or the really proactive variety
> i feel the present drift of international boundary practice is
> already far
> too conservative everywhere on earth for the general well being
> to really be
> served
> but most especially too conservative as applied by africans in africa
>
> the unexamined & sometimes even express assumption is that boundary
> conservatism & boundary conservation
> no matter how inappropriate or ignorant the boundary being conserved
> actually is
> prevents wars & genocides & other miseries
>
> but our actual experience appears to fly directly into the face
> of such a
> lame belief
>
> the fact that places like the congo or sudan or somalia etc dont
> & wont &
> cant be allowed to disintegrate into more natural groupings
> but are artificially sustained in all their dysfunctionality by the
> international system
> led by the usa & other majors
> while functional & sensible places like somaliland or south
> sudan etc go
> begging & hoping & praying for recognition
> is an extra tragedy that africans are inexplicably visiting upon
> themselveseven today
> as if they hadnt yet had enough of the enslavement & other
> exploitationvisited upon them by outsiders
>
> & this appears to happen
> mainly if not exclusively
> because the oas & au have always been so largely comprised of
> thug regimes
> that are simply paranoid on principle about their personal
> security & turf
> that anything novel which might work better or that already
> clearly works
> remains a nonstarter
>
> it is not a matter of letting sleeping dogs lie or not
>
> the solution in my view is simply to elevate the principle of self
> determination above the principle of territorial socalled integrity
> where it rightly belongs
>
> first things first
> & then we will have real integrity
>
> just as the sea follows the land
> so in reality does the land follow the people
>
> & only then would it make any real sense to repair the few technical
> imperfections in the delimitations & densify the demarcations etc
>
> cheers
> ak md
>

Dr. Gbenga Oduntan
Lecturer in International Commercial Law,
Kent Law School,
Eliot College,
University of Kent,
Canterbury,
Kent CT2 7NS, UK.

Phone:
Switchboard 0044 (0)1227 764000 (ext 4817)
Direct Line 0044 (0)1227 824817
Fax: 0044 (0) 1227 827831

Email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/people/index.htm