Somaliland

map of somaliland and somalia

Somaliland is home to approximately six million people and occupies an area of 176,000 square km, which makes about three quarters the size of Britain. It borders Somalia to the east and is not recognised as an independent state by any country except Israel.

The area edged blue in this map is Somalia. From Somalia’s point of view the blue line continues around the pink area. In the view of Somaliland the pink area is Somaliland.

Somaliland is not a breakaway province of Somalia. Rather, in the late 19th century, the Somali sultanates were colonised by the Italian and British empires, who created two colonies from the tribal territories: Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland.

Britain formally granted independence to the State of Somaliland in June 1960, and almost immediately Somaliland voluntarily united with the former Italian Somaliland to form the Somali Republic.

Things didn’t go smoothly, however, and the union didn’t last. Eventually war broke out, and after ten years Somaliland declared independence in 1991.

Israel recognised Somaliland as an independent state last December. To cement that, the first official delegation from Somaliland arrived in Israel on Monday 23rd February 2026.

So from 1991 until last December, Somaliland has been in a nether world of being home to its people but not recognised as a country.

That is not to say it was ignored, because it has relations with a number of countries. But by making the step to formally recognise Somaliland, perhaps Israel will cause the floodgates to open.

Israel has reason to want a partner in the Horn of Africa. It helps to counter Iranian-back Houthis in Yemen. But as of just a day or two ago, that dynamic has changed with the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. That said, a partner is a partner, particularly in this changing world. I guess the parties probably stressed that when they met.

President Nicolás Maduro

President Trump has consistently berated Zelensky for not giving way to Putin’s demands. He seems to be saying that sometimes the best deal is the one that hurts but at least is a deal, because without a deal the outcome will be much worse. Is he looking as an outside observer? Does he think that cutting Europe loose is a better outcome for the USA than taking a stand with Europe? Does he have another agenda?

With the invasion of Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro, the USA has nicely undercut its ‘sovereign territory’ objection to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I am sure that President Trump, President Zelenskyy of the Ukraine, and President Putin of Russian Federation are acutely aware of this.

Each will have their own reasons and motives for drawing parallels and of saying that the analogy has limits and what applies to one does or does not apply to the other. But whichever way it is described, President Trump has handed President Putin an argument that sways the balance away from support of Ukraine. Perhaps that is what he wants. He might have handed himself an argument for abandoning Ukraine and Europe without having to shoulder responsibility for having done that.

Self Sacrifice – Self Interest

Let’s say that approximately ten percent of the people are naturally altruistic. The rest are self interested. This is not my calculation. It is the assertion of someone whose work I respect and who wrote about these things. Where did he get the figure of ten percent? Why not only five percent? I don’t know, but let’s work with it.

You may have seen the film Enemy At The Gate. It is set during the battle of Stalingrad in WWII. The hero is Vassili Zaitsev – a soldier who for his skill with a rifle is promoted to sniper. He comes to the attention of Commisar Danilov, whose task it is to inspire the army in its time of dire need.

Commisar Danilov’s stock in trade is inspiration, and so he promotes Zaitsev’s reputation until even the enemy hear of the famous sniper.

Things are going well until Danilov falls for the very woman who is attracted to Zaitsev. And in following his desires, he acts against everyone’s interest but his own.

Things continue until Danilov is lying in wait with Zaitsev, trying to winkle out the famous German sniper who has been sent to kill the famous Russian sniper and so reinstate Germany’s honour.

Zaitsev and Danilov are lying there, and then a realisation he can no longer evade comes to Danilov. He reflects on the damage he has secretly done to Zaitsev and the woman who loves him. Danilov sees that he has made a fundamental error in his understanding human nature. He sees that all his work to promote equality in the Soviet Union. all his exhortations, are undone because man will always find something to envy in his fellow – taller, more attractive, more popular, cleverer.

Danilov wants to make things right. He raises his head a little to present himself as a target to the German sniper, and is shot dead. Once he is dead, the enemy sniper reveals himself, believing he has killed the famous Zaitsev – only to find that he has made an error and the Russian sniper has him in his sights.

So what to make of Danilov’s self sacrifice other than that he is fulfilling an obligation to the very thing he recognises is impossible to achieve? To what logic, to what feeling did he attach himself that obliged him to sacrifice himself?

Was it just the pain of self knowledge? Maybe, but equally he might have said to himself that although he had no redeeming qualities and nor did man, he could live with that.

Had he done that he would have been free – free of care and free of conscience.

But he doesn’t.

Is he a romantic self-deceiving fool who throws his life away for nothing? We can’t think so, not from the way he has behaved. Certainly he is not altruistic by nature.

Does he see something else, a bigger picture beside which his own life is a cog in the process of bringing about something worthwhile?

Who can answer these questions? Where would one go for answers?

Listening Against the Tide

Tamara and I went to Covent Garden to see three pieces, one of which was “Against the Tide” – a ballet choreographed this year by Cathy Marston, set to Benjamin Britten’s 1938-39 Violin Concerto. As I was listening to the music it kept reminding me of Samuel Barber, so I looked up whether one influenced the other because the similarities cannot have been accidental, there were too many of them.

It turned out that they were born and died within a year or three of each other, knew each other through music but did not have a close friendship.

Until I heard this piece I never really liked Britten’s music, so now I like it more, and that is partly because I like Barber – and so the psychological fact is thatI am not listening to Britten alone when I think of his music. That’s how the mind works.

I could look up who composed what first, maybe I will but then I feel myself resisting that because I have an idea in my head and if the chronology demands that I adjust that, then I will have to reconfigure my thoughts, and that is an effort I can do without for now. That’s also how the mind works.

I remember reading that Barber was very hurt after the poor reception of two of his later works and it put him off composing. 

It’s strange when you think that the unpopularity of those later works contrasts with his Adagio for Strings, that is so very well known and loved even among people who couldn’t put a name to it.