This state is just about the worst state in the entire african continent, it has no effective central government, and various tribes which are unable/unwilling to cooperate with each other.
Unless there is massive foreign intervention and assistance to pacify the tribes bring about a unitary government, and ensure the integrity and stability of the state, whats the point in this country existing?
I don’t personally advocate its breaking up, I just don’t see the point of it existing the way it is if the end result is so shabby as a state.
It’s already as broken up as it can possibly be, except for splitting up cash in out-of-country banks… :smack: :smack: :smack: …that was stolen years ago, silly me.
Colonialism has a lot to answer for. All three major trouble spots in the world right now are the result of that horrible system. Africa, the Middle East, and the USA.
Okay, seriously, it’s really mostly the same problem in the middle east and Africa: The nabobs made countries without actually caring about internal divisions… or occasionally caring, but only so they could cause as much strife as possible. (See: Israel)
I mean more in the sense the UN and international community might as well recognise the various territories which want no affiliation with a unitary Somalian state.
I’m skeptical that the various factions and break away states have territories that are stable enough to recognize. If some warlord takes over anothers plot, or their kids get married and they merge thier holdings or something, do we go back to the UN again.
Also, I belive the UN is supposed to do something if one sovreign state attacks another. I doubt that they want to become responsible for enforcing the boarders of the new states in such a violent area.
Somalia is actually an example of an African state that shouldn’t be broken up. It’s essentially mono ethnic, monolingual, and entirely Muslim. That the various clans can’t get along with each other is awful in the extreme, but there’s no ethnic, religious, or linguistic division that would make a natural basis for forming separate nations.
Nigeria, by comparison, is so thoroughly divided along ethnic, and linguistic lines that it’s a wonder the state has held together this long.
Already pretty much a fait accompli. The northern/western part, the former British-controlled area, has an effective (though not yet internationally recognized) national government calling itself Somaliland (official site).
I read in Modern Times, by Paul Johnson, that if every tribal territory in Nigeria had been granted autonomy, the country would have been a federation of 500 states. Africa was colonized at a time when it was a lot like medieval Europe (without the unifying effects of a common religion, a universal church, and a literate class). What we think of as “national” cultures never had a chance to evolve in most African regions south of the Sahara.
OK, but apart from Somaliland, does any part of Somalia want to declare independence? Shrugging off the troops and tax collectors of a weak central government is one thing; declaring yourself an independent state is a much more daunting proposition – once you do that you have to worry about all kinds of things: setting up a national defense force, formulating a foreign policy, establishing diplomatic relations and trade treaties with other countries – all things that are non-problems for a Somali clan leader under the present, nebulous status quo.
It’s their problem, not ours. If the United States (let’s face it…the UN ain’t-a gonna do jack) has to play the world’s cop and peacemaker where does it end?
Do we pitch into Chechnya?
Do we pitch into Zimbabwe?
Congo?
Colombia?
Where does it end?
It’s not our place to say ‘That country should be broken up…let’s go do it.’
Now if some group inside Nigeria sets up an independent state and begins to function as a government then we could certainly recognize them. But in the end the manufacturing of ‘states’ is the province of the people involved…not those on the outside. To think otherwise is simply to continue to crazed behavior of the post-colonial era. And that’s working out so damn well, isn’t it?
Yet it is our place to say “That country should not be broken up - we have to help them establish a national government before we can pull our people out”.
The reality is that almost everyone in Somalia speaks the same language and follows the same religion. In fact, almost everyone in Somalia is related to everyone else. The fact that one branch of the Somali family wants to kill another branch and take their stuff is terrible, but there’s no evidence that breaking up the state (to the extent that the state exists) will solve the problem. Drawing new arbitrary lines in the sand won’t change the culture of warlordism and clan warfare.
If Somalia were broken up into separate states, you would merely see the clan warfare continue between different states.
BrainGlutton makes a good point about Nigeria, its incredible diversity and the lack of national cultures. Some members of the big three ethnic groups, Hausa, Ibo, and Yoruba, have argued that they do in fact have cultural and regional identities that could form the basis for separate nations. That leaves the numerous smaller ethnic groups SOL, though.
And that’s sort of the terrible issue of ethnic nationalism, isn’t it? How small is too small to qualify for a tribes own nation-state?
Face it, if every tribe became their own nation-state we’d be looking at 10 kabillion nations. And all of them would be about the size of a quarter.
And the minute it happened there would be sub-tribes declaring independence from the just-created tribal state.
Far FAR better to build a coalition nation to help share resources, experience and ability than to keep deconstructing nation-states into every more specific groups.