The Horn of Africa is a region where power dynamics are rarely straightforward. Influence ebbs and flows through strategic ports, military installations, and discreet negotiations conducted away from public scrutiny. At the heart of these complex geopolitical currents lies Somalia, a nation whose central position makes it a focal point for numerous external actors vying to shape its destiny.
Somalia commands a crucial section of global maritime traffic, vital shipping lanes, and essential trade corridors that provide access to the African interior. This strategic importance explains the profound interest shown by the United Arab Emirates over a decade ago. Their engagement was not driven by altruism but by a clear, calculated strategy.
The UAE, through its capital Abu Dhabi, identified Somalia as an opportunity to exert influence. The approach involved fostering the development of ports and military bases, while simultaneously cultivating relationships that circumvented the federal government in Mogadishu. The underlying principle was to cultivate multiple centres of power, tethered to Emirati financial and security backing. This strategy aimed to weaken the central government by making local leaders dependent on external support.
This playbook has been evident in various regions of Somalia. In Puntland, the establishment of the Puntland Maritime Police Force operated independently of federal authority. In Bosaso, a UAE military presence has become integrated into broader regional security networks. In Somaliland, investments in the port of Berbera have coincided with political backing for its secessionist aspirations. Similarly, in Jubaland, the provision of drones, vehicles, and the establishment of a new base in Kismayo bolstered local power structures, often at the expense of national unity. These developments are not coincidental but represent a deliberate and consistent strategy.
The Implications of Recent Geopolitical Shifts
The current geopolitical landscape in the Horn of Africa is particularly sensitive, and recent developments have amplified these concerns. Israel’s recent decision to recognise Somaliland, for instance, aligns with this same pattern of fragmentation and the rewarding of local actors, potentially disregarding the wider regional consequences.
This recognition transcends Somalia’s borders and poses a direct challenge to the stability of the entire Horn of Africa. It escalates the stakes in the Red Sea, a vital artery for global trade and a region of immense strategic importance. Such a move risks drawing the region into new and potentially destabilising rivalries, placing considerable pressure on nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for whom the Red Sea is a core national security interest.
The precedent set by legitimising breakaway territories along such a critical maritime corridor raises profound questions about future control of these waters, the security of bases, and the overarching political landscape. Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, heavily reliant on stability around the Bab el-Mandeb strait, cannot afford to overlook these implications. They understand that external powers leveraging Somalia for proxy objectives could jeopardise the security of this entire maritime gateway. Consequently, Israel’s recognition of Somaliland is far from a symbolic gesture; it fundamentally alters the regional security equation.
Djibouti’s Role as a Stabilising Force
Amidst these complex power plays, the role of Djibouti, a seemingly small nation, often goes unnoticed. Djibouti has quietly served as a stabilising influence in the region. It has maintained open diplomatic channels, advocated for dialogue within Somalia, and resisted actions that could lead to the fracturing of the Somali state. Furthermore, Djibouti has actively supported regional initiatives aimed at assisting Mogadishu in rebuilding its institutions after decades of collapse.
The work of rebuilding courts, security agencies, and administrative structures may not be glamorous, but it is fundamental to Somalia’s potential for recovery and self-sufficiency. Djibouti’s understanding is rooted in a basic principle: a unified and stable Somalia is beneficial for all nations bordering the Red Sea, fostering improved trade, enhanced security, and lasting peace.
The Crucial Question for the Region
This brings us to a critical juncture: does the region aspire to a strong, functional Somali state, or does it favour a fragmented landscape of smaller entities, manipulated by foreign interests, private military agreements, and clandestine pacts?
Somalia has already endured immense suffering, including civil war, the rise of warlords, and the persistent threat of Al-Shabaab. Each time external powers have favoured specific factions and bypassed the central government, old wounds have been reopened, trust has eroded, state-building efforts have been hampered, and extremist groups have found fertile ground to propagate narratives of perpetual foreign manipulation.
Supporting Somalia’s unity does not necessitate ignoring local autonomy or federal rights. Instead, it means fostering these within a robust legal and national framework, respecting the nation’s sovereignty, and empowering Somali institutions to mature rather than undermining them for short-term gains.
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland directly undermines these vital efforts, creating friction where cooperation is desperately needed. It also invites countermoves from other regional powers, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and risks transforming Somalia into another arena for external competition, with Somalis bearing the ultimate cost.
A Choice for a Different Path
The UAE, and indeed all external actors observing the Horn of Africa, have an opportunity to choose a different trajectory. This alternative path involves supporting stability rather than exploiting fragmentation, and investing in Somali cohesion rather than exacerbating division.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Somalia is important – its significance is undeniable. The more pertinent question is whether the region will engage with a united partner or contend with a divided battlefield. History offers a stark warning about the consequences when outsiders opt for the latter, and the region continues to grapple with the enduring scars of such choices.
