For the record Somaliland follows colonial borders since it was a British Protectorate from 1884-1960. After one week of independence it joined a voluntary union with Italian Somaliland to form modern Somalia. So in essence a recognized Somaliland state would be following the "sacred rule" of African nations not meddling with colonial borders. I would have expected better research from a publication as well known as FP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Somaliland

Nigeria already fought a civil war over this issue.
This is an issue every Nigerian has thought about.
Do you really think those in the North or the West will give up oil rich land?

Muammar al-Qaddafi is a dictator who gave military training and support to Charles Taylor, who then launched a bloody civil war to become a warlord president in Liberia.
Neither Muammar al-Qaddafi or the West knows what is best for independent african countries.

Who is to draw the new borders? Where exactly does, say Eastern Congo start and stop? Is Katanga part of Eastern Congo, or a separate state? Who decides?

Or is the answer to recognize and legitimize de facto states that emerge from the chaos?

Frankly put, this suggestion would do nothing more than get more people killed. Furthermore there exists no nation in the world with the power to accomplish this, nor the interest in trying. For very good reason the Great Powers have shown great dislike of separatist movements and redrawing borders, and I don't think that this should be changed.

but the implementation would undoubtedly be bloody and drawn-out. I believe that the idea, if done cleanly, could provide a measure of security in Africa that generally isn't there right now. I also know that current leaders of states that are most likely to split up will fight tooth and nail for it not to, for the exact reasons you said in your article. Also, Great Powers would be leery of recognizing the myriad breakaway states that will come from them, just like Somaliland. I have a friend from there and he constantly asks why noone bothers with Somaliland. They are relatively secure, their governement revolves around the tribal chiefs of the area and peace is maintained throughout the country, yet every major power supports the Transitional Government in Mogadishu. This government doesn't even control all of its capital city and is under constant attack from militias like al-Shabab.

Until major powers start acting to support states that are actively seeking to improve their populace and generally conforming to international standards of government instead of defunct wannabes from the colonial era, nothing is going to change.

Maybe Sudan will change that. Most likely it will be ridden with corruption and ballot-stuffing and everything else followed by brutal civil war and nothing will actually change because no one outside of Africa wants to help. Somalia 91 is exactly why this perpetual state of un-state is going to continue. No one wants to have a repeat. Political suicide. And this fear has extended itself to fill the Lost Continent.

Will and African-American President change this feeling? One can hope, but until Obama does more than talk, I wouldn't hold out much hope at all. Just because he has roots there doesn't mean he will possibly commit political suicide for the greater good. He's still a politician.

like his UN speech wasn't enough ... this guy is like what comes out of
gumball machines always fun but sometimes not what you want...

Gaddafi has never given a serious thought to what he says, or paid much attention to the consequeces of his irrational diatribe. He simply craves media attention, whether it is positive or negative. I believe reponsible media should not avail the opportunity to see his name in print, as this feeds his ego.

OR perhaps Texas should follow the "Texas Ranger" in seceding from other parasitic states OR The Union should isolate debt riddled California and loan them money for tent cities!

The article was good until the last paragraph of the second page. Economic growth is less tied to national boundaries than to local innovation. People don't even care about economics only their social well being. A more sober suggestion is one the encourages Africa to develop regional centres of innovation around natural resources, instututions of higher learning and more prosperous cities and regions, that create jobs and wealth for her people.I An inside-out not outside-in approach that is as weak as trying to effect social change through economic policy instead of culture.

This will result in new cities the network of which will evolve into a United States of Africa in 14 - 21 years.

Drawing boundaries should have a firm basis in wealth creation centres as a sensible nucleus. Remember, we are a species not unlike ants, roaches, seals, trees, birds (heck some schools of thought would even say mountains!!!!!)

Africa has the sublime advantage of being able to innovate herself by taking the best knowlege, technology and enterpreneurial practices of the world to create superior institutions.

Africa is dirt poor.

It will only get poorer and messier if the countries start splitting up along ethnic lines. The solution is to depoliticize the continent and its peoples.

It's a delusion, I know, but it's an even bigger delusion to split them up into million pieces and call each piece a country.

Most people, in the end, just want to live in piece and enter modernity in style. It's the politicians and the so-called nationalistic academics that keep getting in the way - whipping up people's emotions in the name of the Igbo or whatever else.

People flock to the West as fast as they can, in pursuit of the good life, without so much as a thought on culture loss, identity... the very stuff they dwell on at home.

There is no group more homogeneous than the Somalis - they have one language and one religion. Yet somehow, they are fighting. I just don't get the human psychology.

~Addis