Geopolitics and Recognition: Israel-The New Ally in The Horn

African sovereignty in the post-colonial era has never been a static or uncontested concept. It has evolved through struggle, compromise, and collective restraint, shaped by the historical trauma of colonial partition and the pragmatic need to prevent endless territorial conflict. Within this fragile but carefully maintained political order, the question of secession has always been treated as exceptionally dangerous. It is within this context that Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, whether viewed as a strategic diplomatic choice or a calculated geopolitical intervention, has generated deep anxiety across Africa. The act is not merely bilateral in consequence, but reverberates across the continent’s legal norms, integration projects, and collective identity.

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland undermines African sovereignty and regional integration by weakening the principle of territorial integrity, destabilizing the Horn of Africa, and placing African states, particularly those allied with Israel, in a profound diplomatic and normative dilemma. The Somaliland case exposes unresolved tensions within Africa’s post-colonial state system while simultaneously highlighting the growing influence of external powers in shaping African political outcomes. The recognition has unleashed a geopolitical controversy that goes far beyond the Horn of Africa. It strikes at the heart of foundational African norms regarding colonial borders, unity, and legal sovereignty, while also involving global strategic rivalries, security interests in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, and diplomatic alliances shaped by decades of post-colonial statecraft.

The modern African state is a product of contradiction. Its borders were drawn largely without African consent, yet those same borders became the foundation upon which African sovereignty was asserted. At independence, African leaders faced a stark choice: reopen colonial boundaries in pursuit of ethnic or historical justice or preserve them to avoid perpetual war. The decision to preserve inherited borders was not an endorsement of colonial cartography, but a strategic compromise designed to protect fragile new states from fragmentation. This principle was institutionalized through the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and later reaffirmed by the African Union (AU). Territorial integrity became more than a legal concept as it was a political doctrine aimed at ensuring survival. In a continent characterized by ethnic diversity, uneven development, and weak institutions, the recognition of secessionist movements poses an existential threat to state cohesion.

African sovereignty is therefore developed as a collective norm rather than a purely national attribute. Individual states agreed to restrain themselves from supporting separatism elsewhere in order to safeguard their own territorial integrity. This mutual restraint allows Africa to avoid the kind of border wars that devastated other regions. While conflicts still occurred, they were largely contained within existing borders rather than fought over their redrawing. Israel’s recognition of Somaliland challenges this foundational bargain. By endorsing the independence of a region that emerged through unilateral secession rather than negotiated settlement, the recognition reopens the question of whether African borders remain inviolable or are subject to external reinterpretation. This shift threatens to erode the collective understanding upon which African sovereignty has rested for decades.

Somaliland’s claim to independence is rooted in historical, political, and administrative arguments. It was once a British protectorate, briefly independent in 1960 before voluntarily uniting with Italian-administered Somalia. Following the collapse of the Somali state in 1991, Somaliland declared independence and has since maintained relative peace and internal governance. From a governance perspective, Somaliland’s achievements are notable. However, African responses to Somaliland have consistently distinguished between effective administration and legal sovereignty. Stability alone has never been considered sufficient grounds for recognition in Africa, particularly when such recognition risks destabilizing a larger sovereign state.

African and international institutions have repeatedly reaffirmed Somalia’s territorial integrity. Despite its prolonged internal conflict, Somalia remains a recognized sovereign state with internationally accepted borders. The African norm has been that internal political arrangements, whether federalism, autonomy, or decentralization, must be resolved internally or through African-led mediation, not through unilateral external recognition. Israel’s recognition of Somaliland disrupts this norm. It reframes Somaliland not as a regional autonomy issue within Somalia, but as an international sovereignty question. This shift has far-reaching implications. It weakens Somalia’s negotiating position, incentivizes hardline stances on both sides, and reduces the space for compromise. More broadly, it signals that external strategic interests can override African consensus on secession. Under international law, recognition of statehood is a discretionary act of sovereign states. However, it is also anchored in widely accepted norms regarding territorial integrity and non-interference. The UN Charter, for example, prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of states, and widespread diplomatic practice discourages unilateral recognition of secessionist territories. By recognizing Somaliland, Israel has according to many critics, undermined these principles, a point stressed at an emergency UN Security Council meeting convened to address the matter.

The danger lies not only in Somaliland itself, but in the precedent it sets. If one secessionist entity can gain recognition without continental consent, others may follow. In a continent where many states face internal grievances rooted in marginalization, resource distribution, or identity politics, the erosion of the anti-secession norm threatens to unleash new cycles of instability. Israel’s engagement with Africa has historically been shaped by security, diplomacy, and strategic positioning. In recent decades, this engagement has intensified, particularly in regions of geopolitical importance such as the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. Somaliland’s location along key maritime routes makes it strategically attractive, offering potential advantages in surveillance, trade, and regional influence.

From Israel’s perspective, recognition of Somaliland can be framed as pragmatic diplomacy rewarding stability, fostering partnerships, and countering rival influences. However, from an African perspective, this framing obscures the broader consequences of unilateral recognition. Strategic interests pursued without regard for continental norms risk being interpreted as neo-interventionist, regardless of intent. The recognition also reflects a wider global trend in which external powers increasingly prioritize bilateral strategic gains over multilateral consensus. In Africa, where collective norms serve as a protective mechanism against fragmentation, such behavior is particularly destabilizing. It shifts power away from African institutions and toward external actors with the capacity to legitimize or delegitimize political entities.

For African states allied with Israel, this creates a profound dilemma. Cooperation with Israel in areas such as security, technology, and development offers tangible benefits. Yet these partnerships now exist alongside actions that undermine African unity. Allies must choose between silent accommodation, which risks eroding their credibility within Africa, and open opposition, which may strain valuable bilateral relations.

The Horn of Africa occupies a pivotal position in global geopolitics. It sits astride major maritime corridors linking Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, making it a focal point for security and trade. This strategic significance has drawn increasing attention from global and regional powers, transforming the Horn into a theatre of competition. Within this context, Somaliland’s recognition takes on added significance. It risks turning an internal African political issue into a node of international rivalry. External powers may view Somaliland as a gateway for influence, investment, or military presence, further complicating regional dynamics.

For African states, the militarization or geopolitical instrumentalization of the Horn is deeply concerning. The region already faces challenges, including terrorism, piracy, climate stress, and fragile governance. Introducing new layers of external competition threatens to overwhelm existing conflict-management mechanisms and undermine regional cooperation. African sovereignty in the Horn is thus inseparable from broader questions of global power. When external actors act unilaterally, they weaken Africa’s ability to manage its own security environment. Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, regardless of intent, contributes to this dynamic by internationalizing a dispute that African institutions have sought to contain.

African integration represents one of the continent’s most ambitious political projects. Initiatives such as the African Union, the African Continental Free Trade Area, IGAD, and the East African Community aim to transcend national fragmentation through economic, political, and security cooperation. These efforts depend fundamentally on stable borders and shared norms. The recognition of Somaliland undermines integration in both symbolic and practical terms. Symbolically, it challenges the idea that Africa can speak with one voice on matters of sovereignty. Practically, it complicates regional planning, trade corridors, and security coordination, particularly in the Horn of Africa.

Integration is not merely an economic project, it’s a political strategy to reduce the incentives for secession by making borders less relevant. When external recognition validates fragmentation, it weakens this strategy. Regions may conclude that international legitimacy is more easily obtained through separation than through engagement with continental institutions. For African integration to succeed, external partnerships must reinforce, not undermine, continental norms. Israel’s recognition of Somaliland tests Africa’s capacity to enforce this principle. If Africa fails to respond collectively, it risks signaling that integration is subordinate to external geopolitical interests.

The recognition of Somaliland by Israel represents a critical juncture in Africa’s post-colonial political evolution. It challenges foundational norms of sovereignty, destabilizes a sensitive region, and exposes the vulnerabilities of African integration. While Somaliland’s internal stability is undeniable, the method by which its status is internationalized matters profoundly for the continent as a whole. Africa now faces a choice: reaffirm collective sovereignty through unity and institutional strength, or allow external actors to reshape its political landscape incrementally. The outcome of this choice will determine not only the future of Somalia and Somaliland but the credibility of African sovereignty in an increasingly competitive global order.