Is secession justified with the existence of a stable and peaceful south?

[Garnaqsi]

With things looking good in the south, if lasting peace and stability is finally reached, on what basis can one argue for secession then? The most convincing argument for me was the sort of 'save at least half of a burning house' type, if you know what I mean.

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Secession what secession?

[Garnaqsi]

Xaaji Xunjuf;828015 wrote:

Secession what secession?

Somaliland's. Don't derail the thread; you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Thats not secession

[faarah22]

I don't think that argument would wash even under conflict. after all it's still our country and no region can unilaterally declare independence. period

[NGONGE]

From your point of view it was (probably) not even justified when Somalia was still burning, saaxib. But this recent peace in Somalia probably gives you a chance to argue with a slightly stronger argument. Thing is though, those in SL don't even entertain such an argument.

 

I don't envy those that will have to mediate between the two sides when the time for talking starts. Poles apart.

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

faarah22;828018 wrote:

I don't think that argument would wash even under conflict. after all it's still our country and no region can unilaterally declare independence. period

Its not you're country its belongs to the indigenous inhabitants you, nor the Koonfurians can't decide the future of the people of Somaliland they do that as they did in 1960 and as they did again in 1991 you just have to listen like you listened in 1960 and now when it comes to talks between Somaliland and Somalia u will listen again.

[burahadeer]

the seeds of conflict still there.Unity will neva happen.The best scenario is to be apart politically like 2 different gov'ts & let people cross ,trade and intermarry without hindrance.Better to be friends.

[Garnaqsi]

NGONGE;828019 wrote:

From your point of view it was (probably) not even justified when Somalia was still burning, saaxib. But this recent peace in Somalia probably gives you a chance to argue with a slightly stronger argument. Thing is though, those in SL don't even entertain such an argument.

 

I don't envy those that will have to mediate between the two sides when the time for talking starts. Poles apart.

On the contrary, I think the argument was somewhat justified when the south was burning. I'm afraid I can't think of any good cases for secession given a peaceful and stable south (provided there is some assurance that this will last, of course). I assume you can?

[Carafaat]

18th of May 1991 Somalia was more stable then Somaliland. So your assumption that secession is based on chaos in south and stability in North, is therefor wrong.

[Garnaqsi]

NGONGE;828019 wrote:

I don't envy those that will have to mediate between the two sides when the time for talking starts. Poles apart.

Reminds me of the song 'dhulkan kala fogaadiyo, labadeenan kala dheer, yaaysu soo dhoweeya'.

 

I remember the song actually had something do with this very issue, but I can't find it anywhere!

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

burahadeer;828022 wrote:

the seeds of conflict still there.Unity will neva happen.The best scenario is to be apart politically like 2 different gov'ts & let people cross ,trade and intermarry without hindrance.Better to be friends.

Burahadeer Somaliland will never give up its statehood , Somalia will never agree with Somaliland statehood so i don't think ur plan can work ur idea would've been good if there were rational thinking people on the other side but that's not the case here.

 

i always ask my self Somalia maxa ka xumaanaya if Somaliland is their brotherly nation, i mean its not like they will be landlocked if Somaliland is gone its not like they will lose fertile land actually its in the best interest for the Koonfurians to agree with Somaliland quest for statehood. Since all the resources are the south they can have that all just for them selves.

[Garnaqsi]

Carafaat;828024 wrote:

18th of May 1991 Somalia was more stable then Somaliland. So your assumption that secession is based on chaos in south and stability in North, is therefor wrong.

Was it, really? By the way, I'm not saying the secession is based on this. It's just that I think it can best be justified on this basis.

[NGONGE]

Garnaqsi;828023 wrote:

On the contrary, I think the argument was somewhat justified when the south was burning. I'm afraid I can't think of any good cases for secession given a peaceful and stable south (provided there is some assurance that this will last, of course). I assume you can?

It's not so much that I can't think of "any good cases for secession", it is that I do not at all view things the way you do. Justifications would have made sense twenty or ninteen years ago but, today, the whole thing is a fact that you need to get your head around and find ways to seduce the north again like you did in the 60s. Wax fahan.

[burahadeer]

they were 2 different countries...one decided to unite unilaterally without preconditions & were left bad taste in their mouth,they then decided to reinstate their legitimate gov't of june 1960.Case close.I don't understand why is it a thorn in their eye.We all know there is no somalinimo as such..when you look here in SOL you see there always certain sector preoccupied with this issue & for their own clannish reasons.Most people in south are either indifferent or don't talk too much about it.That tell you something!