The historical relationship between the Republic of Somaliland and Somalia is indeed complex, and many in  Somalia’s particularly scholars, politicians, Egyptian writers, and journalist mercenaries tend to misrepresent or misunderstand the key facts. Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

1. Somaliland’s Independence and Sovereignty (1960)

• June 26, 1960: Somaliland became independent after gaining sovereignty from the United Kingdom. It was recognized by 35 countries, including Egypt, Israel, and the United States, and had all the attributes of a sovereign nation. This independence was celebrated, and for five days, Somaliland functioned as an independent nation with its own government and legal standing.

2. Voluntary Union with Somalia (1960)

• July 1, 1960: Five days after independence, Somaliland voluntarily united with Somalia, which had gained independence from Italy on the same day. However, the union was not based on a fully ratified legal framework. The “Act of Union” was hastily put together, and significant parts of it were never ratified, especially by Somaliland’s representatives.
• This unratified agreement left many unresolved issues, including the terms of the union and representation in the new state, fueling dissatisfaction in Somaliland from the beginning.

3. Background on the 1961 Constitutional Referendum :

• After the union of the British Somaliland Protectorate (North) and the Trust Territory of Somalia (South, formerly Italian Somalia) on July 1, 1960, a new constitution for the unified Somali Republic was drafted.
• This draft constitution was subjected to a national referendum on June 20, 1961.

What Happened in the Referendum:

• The referendum aimed to legitimize the union and ratify the 1960 constitution of the Somali Republic.
• In the south (Italian Somalia), the majority of voters approved the new constitution.
• In the north (former British Somaliland), a majority of the population rejected it.

Key Reasons for the North’s Rejection:

• Lack of Equal Representation: Northerners felt that the political structure disproportionately favored the south.
• Concerns about the Union Process: The union was rushed, without a detailed legal agreement or binding framework.
• Fear of Marginalization: Northern elites feared their institutions and identity would be overshadowed by the south’s larger population.

4. The 1961 Revolt by Northern Military Officers (British Somaliland)

Shortly after the union of British Somaliland and Italian Somalia in 1960, several military officers from the north (Somaliland) became deeply disillusioned by the way the union was handled. This led to a failed military revolt in 1961.

• A group of British-trained Somali officers (from the former Somaliland Scouts) who had served under the British colonial administration.
• What happened:

• These officers refused to take orders from southern Somali officers sent to command them.
• They saw the union as illegitimate, especially after the 1961 constitutional referendum, in which most northerners voted against the new Somali constitution, yet it was adopted anyway.
• They attempted a coup or revolt, aiming to reverse the union and restore Somaliland’s independenceMarginalization and Civil War (1960s-1991)

1. Over time, Somalilanders felt increasingly marginalized within the unified Somali Republic. Key leadership positions in the government were dominated by southern politicians, and the concerns of the north (Somaliland) were often ignored.
2. The grievances worsened during the dictatorship of Siad Barre (1969-1991). The north faced brutal suppression, with systematic violence committed against the Isaaq people in Somaliland during the late 1980s, culminating in the infamous 1988 genocide in Hargeisa, where tens of thousands of civilians were killed, and the city was leveled by government forces.
3. This period of violence and destruction deeply scarred Somaliland and solidified the resolve of its people to reclaim their independence.

• Somaliland’s Reinstating of Independence (1991)

1. May 18, 1991: Following the collapse of Siad Barre’s regime and the subsequent civil war, Somaliland declared its withdrawal from the union with Somalia, citing the unratified union and the decades of injustice and violence as reasons. This was not an act of “secession” but a restoration of its pre-1960 independence.
2. Since 1991, Somaliland has established a stable government, held democratic elections, maintained peace and security, and developed its economy—achievements that contrast starkly with the instability in Somalia.

• Misrepresentation by Southern Scholars

1. Many scholars from southern Somalia or those in the diaspora either deny or overlook Somaliland’s unique history and its right to self-determination. They often frame Somaliland’s actions as “separatism” or portray it as an illegal breakaway region.
2. The term “separatist” is both misleading and inflammatory. Somaliland is not trying to secede from Somalia, but rather reclaiming the sovereignty it willingly gave up in 1960. This historical distinction is critical but is often ignored in southern discourse.
3. This misrepresentation often stems from either a lack of historical knowledge or a refusal to acknowledge Somaliland’s legitimate grievances. Some of these scholars may be influenced by a nationalistic narrative that emphasizes the unity of “Greater Somalia” at all costs.

• The Role of the Diaspora

1. Much of the divisive rhetoric against Somaliland comes from the Somali diaspora, who often have a romanticized view of a united Somalia but lack the lived experience of those in Somaliland who endured decades of suffering.
2. Many of these diaspora voices are disconnected from the realities on the ground in Somaliland, which has built a functioning state while Somalia continues to struggle with governance, security, and political instability.

• Somaliland’s Call for Respect and Dialogue

1. People in Somaliland are not advocating for enmity or hostility. The government and its citizens have repeatedly called for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the issue of statehood. They have stressed the need for mutual respect and dialogue based on historical facts, rather than denial or inflammatory accusations.
2. Republic of Somaliland’s leadership has reached out to Somalia for negotiations on how to settle their political differences, but these overtures are often ignored or met with hostility.

• The Future: Uncertainty and Regional Stability

1. The future cannot be predicted, but it is evident that promoting dialogue and reconciliation would bring significant benefits to the two countries. The animosity directed towards Somaliland, particularly from members of the diaspora and individuals associated with Villa Somalia, only exacerbates the existing divisions. History demonstrates that embracing peace and stability is contingent upon cultivating understanding, mutual respect, and acknowledging historical realities.
2. Many in Somaliland believe that regional cooperation, particularly with countries like Ethiopia and Djibouti, is essential for future stability, while keeping a healthy distance from ongoing instability in our neighbor country of Somalia.

• Brotherly Advice

1. Our advice to  Somalis to drop the hostility and approach the situation with mutual respect is vital. The constant labelling of Somalilanders as “separatists” or “traitors” is counterproductive and rooted in a misunderstanding of the historical relationship.
2. A more constructive approach would involve acknowledging Somaliland’s historical rights and engaging in sincere dialogue about how the two countries can coexist as two separate nations.

In conclusion, Somaliland has a rich and unique history, and denying this only exacerbates tensions. By encouraging respectful and historically informed dialogue, we propose a path toward peace and mutual understanding, which is much healthier than the confrontational approach that Villa  Somalia currently adopts.