Regional Powers and Conflict Management in Somalia

Abstract

This paper examines the role of regional powers, with a particular focus on Kenya and Ethiopia, in the Somali conflict. It delves into how their strategic, political, and economic interests have shaped the dynamics of the conflict and influenced ongoing peacebuilding efforts. Using qualitative research methods, the study analyzes both historical and contemporary dimensions of the crisis, offering a nuanced perspective on the interplay between local and regional factors. It highlights the dual role of regional actors as both mediators and stakeholders, uncovering the challenges they pose to achieving a lasting resolution. The findings illuminate the complexities of regional involvement, emphasizing the critical need for impartial, coordinated, and inclusive approaches by external actors to foster sustainable peace in Somalia. Furthermore, the study identifies actionable strategies to address the underlying issues driving the conflict and to harness opportunities for reconciliation and stability.

Introduction

The Somali conflict has endured for decades, leaving a legacy of profound social, economic, and political instability. This persistent turmoil has not only weakened Somalia as a state but has also had far-reaching implications across the Horn of Africa, affecting regional security and stability. As a fragile state, Somalia's internal challenges frequently spill over its borders, creating a complex web of interrelated issues that attract the involvement of neighboring powers, particularly Kenya and Ethiopia.

These regional actors have engaged in Somalia's conflict for various reasons, ranging from security concerns and economic interests to geopolitical strategies. However, their involvement has often been a double-edged sword—at times contributing to peacebuilding efforts, while at others exacerbating the conflict. Understanding the dynamics of this regional involvement is crucial for addressing the broader challenges of conflict resolution in Somalia.

This study aims to explore the multifaceted roles of Kenya and Ethiopia in the Somali crisis, shedding light on how their interventions have shaped the conflict’s trajectory. By identifying the challenges posed by these regional powers and examining viable strategies for sustainable peace, the paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing discourse on conflict resolution in the Horn of Africa. It also highlights the importance of fostering collaborative and impartial approaches that can navigate the complex realities of the region to achieve long-term stability.

Background: Conflict Management Efforts in Somalia

Efforts to resolve the Somali conflict have unfolded over several decades, characterized by a mix of international interventions, regional initiatives, and local peacebuilding efforts. Despite these concerted actions, achieving lasting stability has remained elusive, largely due to the multifaceted nature of the conflict and the interplay of diverse actors and interests.

International organizations, including the United Nations and the African Union, have spearheaded numerous peacekeeping missions and mediation processes aimed at fostering dialogue and rebuilding governance structures. Local stakeholders, such as clan elders and community leaders, have also played critical roles in grassroots peacebuilding, often working to reconcile rival factions and restore social cohesion. While these efforts have achieved localized successes, their impact has often been undermined by the broader, systemic challenges that plague Somalia, including weak state institutions, persistent violence, and economic underdevelopment.

Adding to this complexity is the involvement of regional powers, particularly Kenya and Ethiopia, whose proximity to Somalia and intertwined security concerns have compelled them to intervene directly and indirectly in the conflict. Motivated by national security priorities, counterterrorism efforts, economic interests, and geopolitical strategies, these neighboring states have significantly influenced the trajectory of the Somali crisis. While their interventions have sometimes aligned with international peacebuilding objectives, they have also been criticized for exacerbating tensions, undermining local agency, and perpetuating rivalries.

Understanding the historical and ongoing roles of Kenya and Ethiopia in Somalia’s conflict is crucial for contextualizing the challenges and opportunities associated with managing the crisis. This study seeks to analyze these dynamics, offering insights into how external involvement can be better aligned with sustainable peacebuilding objectives.

Challenges in Managing the Somali Conflict

The Somali conflict presents a complex array of challenges that complicate efforts toward resolution and sustainable peace. These challenges, rooted in both internal and external dynamics, have persisted for decades, undermining progress and deepening the crisis. Key issues include:

1.      Political Fragmentation: Somalia’s political landscape is deeply fractured, with the absence of a strong and cohesive central government allowing the proliferation of rival factions, clans, and warlords. This fragmentation undermines governance, weakens national institutions, and fosters an environment where competing interests obstruct unified decision-making. Efforts to establish a stable government have often been hindered by deep-seated mistrust among various stakeholders and a lack of consensus on power-sharing arrangements.

2.      Cross-Border Issues: Somalia’s instability does not remain confined within its borders; it spills over into neighboring countries, creating regional security threats and disrupting trade and development. The porous borders facilitate the movement of armed groups, refugees, and illicit goods, exacerbating tensions in the region. Neighboring countries, particularly Kenya and Ethiopia, bear the brunt of these challenges, which often strain their resources and complicate their domestic security dynamics.

3.      External Interference: While external actors, including regional powers and international organizations, often intervene with the stated aim of stabilizing Somalia, their involvement is frequently driven by competing interests. Kenya and Ethiopia, for instance, have pursued strategies shaped by national security priorities and geopolitical calculations, which sometimes conflict with the broader goals of peacebuilding. Similarly, the lack of coordination among international stakeholders has led to fragmented efforts, diluting their overall impact and, in some cases, exacerbating local tensions.

These challenges highlight the need for a comprehensive and inclusive approach to conflict management in Somalia—one that addresses internal divisions, mitigates cross-border repercussions, and ensures that external interventions are harmonized with the interests of the Somali people.

The Role of Kenya and Ethiopia

Historical Context

Kenya and Ethiopia have played significant roles in the Somali conflict, driven by a combination of security concerns, geopolitical interests, and regional dynamics. Their involvement is rooted in a shared history of cross-border interactions and the need to address the spillover effects of Somalia’s prolonged instability.

For decades, both nations have faced direct threats stemming from Somalia’s internal conflicts. The collapse of central authority in Somalia created a power vacuum that allowed armed groups, including terrorist organizations like Al-Shabaab, to operate across borders. These groups have conducted attacks within Kenya and Ethiopia, posing serious risks to national security and public safety. Additionally, the porous borders between Somalia and its neighbors have facilitated arms smuggling, human trafficking, and other illicit activities, further destabilizing the region.

Kenya and Ethiopia’s geopolitical interests have also influenced their engagement in Somalia. Ethiopia, for instance, has a long history of contentious relations with Somalia, dating back to territorial disputes over the Ogaden region. This rivalry has shaped Ethiopia’s strategic approach, often characterized by military interventions and efforts to maintain influence over Somali politics. Kenya, on the other hand, has sought to safeguard its border regions, protect its economic interests, and promote stability to ensure the security of its trade routes and investments in the Horn of Africa.

While their involvement is often justified by the need to counter cross-border threats, the actions of Kenya and Ethiopia have sometimes sparked controversy. Critics argue that their interventions, driven by national agendas, have occasionally undermined local governance structures and fueled existing tensions. Understanding this historical context is essential for analyzing the complexities of their roles and the broader implications of regional involvement in the Somali conflict.

National Interests

Kenya and Ethiopia have deeply rooted national interests in Somalia, shaped by security concerns, historical relationships, and geopolitical strategies. These interests have driven their involvement in the Somali conflict, often creating tensions with Somalia’s sovereignty and the broader objectives of regional stability.

For Kenya, border security and the fight against terrorism are paramount. The porous Somali-Kenyan border has long been a conduit for threats such as terrorist infiltration, arms smuggling, and organized crime. The rise of Al-Shabaab has significantly heightened these concerns, as the militant group has conducted numerous attacks on Kenyan soil, including high-profile incidents targeting civilians and critical infrastructure. In addition to security, Kenya is motivated by economic interests, such as protecting trade routes and fostering stability in the region to support its investments in the Horn of Africa. The establishment of a buffer zone, such as the Jubaland region, has been central to Kenya’s strategy, though it has faced criticism for infringing on Somalia’s internal affairs.

Ethiopia’s interests, by contrast, are heavily influenced by its historical and geopolitical relationship with Somalia. A primary concern is the suppression of Somali nationalism, particularly aspirations tied to the Ogaden region, a Somali-inhabited area within Ethiopia. Ethiopia has long sought to prevent any movements that could threaten its territorial integrity or inspire separatist sentiments within its borders. Moreover, Ethiopia views a stable Somalia as essential to curbing cross-border threats, including terrorism and insurgencies, that could destabilize its eastern regions. Its involvement has often been marked by direct military interventions and efforts to influence Somali political processes to align with its strategic goals.

However, the pursuit of these national interests by Kenya and Ethiopia has often clashed with Somalia’s sovereignty and aspirations for self-determination. Critics argue that their actions, while addressing immediate security concerns, have at times undermined Somalia’s state-building efforts and fueled local grievances. Furthermore, these conflicting interests have complicated regional cooperation, highlighting the need for a more balanced and coordinated approach to achieve sustainable peace and stability in Somalia and the Horn of Africa.

Contemporary Intervention and Its Implications: A Deeper Analysis of Regional Involvement in Somalia

The involvement of Kenya and Ethiopia in Somalia has been multifaceted, encompassing military interventions, diplomatic negotiations, and economic engagements. These actions are often presented as part of a broader strategy to stabilize Somalia, a country that has faced decades of civil conflict, political instability, and humanitarian crises. However, a closer examination reveals that these interventions are not without controversy. While the intention behind these actions may be framed as a commitment to regional peace and security, they are frequently seen as a means for Kenya and Ethiopia to advance their own national interests and regional influence.

For Kenya, the security of its northern borders and the threat posed by militant groups such as Al-Shabaab are central drivers behind its military involvement in Somalia. Ethiopia, too, has strategic concerns, particularly regarding its interest in curbing the spread of extremist groups and asserting its influence in the Horn of Africa. Both nations, while claiming to support Somalia's peace, often pursue policies that align closely with their own geopolitical and economic interests.

This dual purpose—of stabilizing Somalia while securing national agendas—has led to growing mistrust among Somali stakeholders. For many Somalis, the interventions are perceived as an extension of foreign dominance, rather than genuine efforts to foster peace. The perception that neighboring countries are more focused on their own regional power struggles has hindered the development of a unified Somali national identity and has undermined the credibility of peacebuilding initiatives.

As a result, these interventions, despite their initial objectives, often complicate the already fragile political landscape in Somalia. The Somali people, who are at the heart of the conflict, remain skeptical of external involvement, which is sometimes viewed as exacerbating the very problems it seeks to solve. This mistrust, coupled with the complex web of regional rivalries, makes effective conflict resolution all the more difficult.

In light of these dynamics, it becomes clear that the success of any intervention in Somalia requires not only military and economic support but also a deep commitment to understanding and addressing the underlying political and social factors at play. The involvement of Kenya and Ethiopia, while important in certain respects, must be carefully managed to ensure that it genuinely contributes to the long-term peace and stability of Somalia, rather than becoming another layer of complication in an already complex conflict.

Critical Analysis: A Comprehensive Perspective on Regional Involvement in Somalia

The findings of this study underscore the complex, often paradoxical nature of regional involvement in Somalia’s ongoing conflict. While both Kenya and Ethiopia have legitimate and pressing security concerns—ranging from the threat of extremist groups such as Al-Shabaab to the broader instability in the Horn of Africa—their actions in Somalia are frequently shaped by national interests that may not always align with the broader goal of achieving lasting peace and stability in the country. This duality is a critical aspect of the regional dynamics that must be carefully considered when analyzing the effectiveness of external interventions.

Kenya and Ethiopia’s involvement, while rooted in security, economic, and political motivations, sometimes serves to advance their own strategic agendas, creating tensions that complicate the prospects for peace. Their actions, whether military or diplomatic, often reflect a prioritization of regional power dynamics over the long-term well-being of Somalia itself. This is particularly evident in how interventions may sometimes exacerbate existing divisions within Somalia, rather than contributing to a cohesive and unified peacebuilding effort.

Given these complexities, it is clear that a more comprehensive, multi-faceted approach to peace in Somalia is necessary. The following strategies should be emphasized:

1.      Regional Collaboration: It is crucial that neighboring countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia enhance cooperation with one another, as well as with Somalia, to ensure that their interventions align with the broader interests of the Somali people. Such collaboration would involve a unified regional strategy that prioritizes peace and stability over individual national agendas. Shared responsibility, transparency, and accountability in their actions would help build mutual trust and foster a more constructive regional approach.

2.      Impartial External Actors: The involvement of neutral international organizations, such as the United Nations or the African Union, is vital for mediating the peace process and supporting Somalia’s efforts to rebuild its state institutions. These actors can provide an impartial perspective that ensures the interests of Somalia are prioritized, rather than those of its neighboring countries. They can also help broker agreements, facilitate dialogue, and mobilize resources for long-term peacebuilding, without the baggage of regional rivalries or national interests overshadowing the process.

3.      Addressing Root Causes: One of the most pressing needs in Somalia is addressing the underlying factors that fuel conflict, such as weak governance, widespread poverty, and deep social inequalities. Effective peacebuilding requires that these root causes be tackled head-on through comprehensive social, political, and economic reforms. Without addressing the systemic issues that perpetuate instability, any external intervention—no matter how well-intentioned—will likely fail to achieve lasting peace. International partners and local stakeholders must work together to build resilient institutions, promote economic development, and foster inclusive governance that benefits all segments of Somali society.

Ultimately, these approaches should not be viewed in isolation but rather as interconnected elements of a holistic strategy for peace. Each component reinforces the others, creating a framework in which regional collaboration, impartial mediation, and attention to Somalia’s domestic challenges work together to overcome the barriers to peace. Only by adopting such a multi-pronged approach can the international community and regional actors contribute to a future in which Somalia can chart its own course toward lasting stability and prosperity.

Recommendations: A New Approach to Resolving the Somali Conflict

Based on the findings of this study, it is evident that a more nuanced and inclusive approach is required to effectively address the Somali conflict and foster long-term peace. The recommendations outlined below provide a strategic framework for enhancing the prospects of sustainable peace in Somalia, emphasizing the importance of neutrality, local empowerment, and regional cooperation.

1.      Involving Neutral Actors: One of the fundamental recommendations is the active involvement of external actors who do not have any vested interests in the outcome of the conflict other than ensuring peace and security. This includes neutral international organizations, such as the United Nations or the African Union, as well as impartial third-party mediators. These actors can play a critical role in facilitating dialogue, monitoring ceasefires, and helping to broker peace agreements that reflect the interests of the Somali people, rather than those of any single regional or international player. Their neutrality ensures that the focus remains on the broader objective of peace, rather than on advancing political, military, or economic agendas that may undermine the peace process.

2.      Strengthening Local Institutions: Another key recommendation is the empowerment of Somali governance structures to take a more active and central role in conflict resolution. This can be achieved by building the capacity of local institutions, enhancing the effectiveness of the Somali government, and ensuring that Somali leaders are equipped to manage the political, security, and social challenges the country faces. Strengthening the rule of law, promoting inclusive governance, and ensuring that all Somali citizens have a voice in the political process will be essential for creating a stable and sustainable peace. By placing greater responsibility in the hands of local actors, the international community can help foster a sense of ownership and accountability within Somalia, which is crucial for the success of any peacebuilding effort.

3.      Promoting Regional Unity: The study also emphasizes the need for greater regional unity, particularly in how neighboring countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia engage with Somalia. While regional actors have important security concerns that may necessitate intervention, it is critical that they prioritize the long-term stability of the Horn of Africa over narrow national interests. To this end, Kenya and Ethiopia should be encouraged to adopt a more collaborative approach, working together to support Somalia’s sovereignty and peace process rather than pursuing actions that might further entrench divisions or exacerbate conflicts. This includes supporting Somali-led peace initiatives, providing resources for reconstruction and development, and avoiding actions that could be perceived as attempts to exert undue influence over Somalia’s internal affairs. By prioritizing regional stability and the collective interests of the Horn of Africa, Kenya and Ethiopia can contribute to a more balanced and sustainable approach to resolving the Somali conflict.

In addition to these key recommendations, it is important to recognize the need for a comprehensive, long-term strategy that goes beyond immediate security concerns and addresses the deeper socio-political and economic challenges facing Somalia. This includes fostering social cohesion, addressing historical grievances, and promoting economic development that can provide opportunities for all segments of Somali society. Only by adopting a holistic approach that balances local, regional, and international efforts will the international community and Somalia itself be able to build a lasting peace that is resilient to both internal and external challenges.

Ultimately, these recommendations represent a paradigm shift in how external actors engage with the Somali conflict—moving from a model focused on short-term military interventions and national interests toward one centered on sustainable peace, local empowerment, and regional cooperation. By embracing this shift, there is a genuine opportunity to chart a new course for Somalia, one that can lead to stability, prosperity, and a lasting resolution to its decades-long conflict.

Conclusion: Toward Sustainable Peace in Somalia

The Somali conflict continues to be one of the most intricate and persistent challenges in the Horn of Africa, with far-reaching implications for both regional and international actors. Despite the well-intentioned involvement of neighboring countries, such as Kenya and Ethiopia, their engagement in Somalia has often been shaped by national interests, security concerns, and regional power dynamics. While these concerns are legitimate, they frequently result in interventions that, instead of facilitating peace, exacerbate existing tensions and hinder the progress of conflict resolution efforts. The involvement of these countries, therefore, has created a paradox: while they seek to address immediate security threats, their actions often complicate the path toward long-term stability by undermining Somalia’s sovereignty and fostering distrust among Somali stakeholders.

The challenge of resolving the Somali conflict requires a comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach that goes beyond simply addressing military or political issues. First and foremost, the participation of neutral external actors is essential. These impartial organizations can offer mediation, facilitate dialogue, and help ensure that peace processes are not tainted by external agendas. Such actors, whether in the form of international organizations like the United Nations, regional bodies such as the African Union, or third-party mediators, must be able to operate free from the influence of regional powers with their own interests at stake. Their involvement will allow Somalia to take center stage in its own peace process, enabling the country to make decisions in its best interest, free from external manipulation.

Equally important is the need to strengthen local institutions within Somalia. Somalia’s internal governance structures must be empowered to lead the charge in addressing the root causes of conflict, including poor governance, social inequality, and economic underdevelopment. Effective governance and the rule of law are the bedrock upon which long-term peace must be built. To achieve this, both the Somali government and civil society must be supported in their efforts to build resilient institutions that are inclusive, transparent, and responsive to the needs of all Somali people. Only by fostering a robust and capable Somali state will the country be able to resolve its internal conflicts and lay the foundation for lasting peace.

Lastly, regional cooperation and unity must be prioritized. Kenya, Ethiopia, and other neighboring countries have an essential role to play in supporting Somalia’s recovery, but this involvement must be rooted in a shared commitment to peace and stability in the Horn of Africa. Rather than pursuing narrow national interests, regional powers must focus on collaborative efforts that respect Somalia’s sovereignty and foster collective security. This cooperative approach can reduce the potential for friction and conflict among regional states and promote a unified strategy for peacebuilding that benefits all nations in the region.

In conclusion, the path to lasting peace and stability in Somalia is undeniably complex, but it is not insurmountable. By adopting a multi-faceted strategy that integrates neutral international actors, empowers local Somali institutions, and fosters regional collaboration, the cycle of conflict in Somalia can be broken. Only through these comprehensive and coordinated efforts can the country overcome its challenges and move toward a future where peace, prosperity, and stability are not only achievable but sustained for generations to come. It is clear that the resolution of the Somali conflict is not just a matter for Somalia alone but requires the commitment and cooperation of the entire region and the international community.

Our Actions Reflect Our Intentions

Intentions form the foundation of every action we undertake, shaping not only how others perceive us but also determining how our deeds are evaluated in the sight of Allah. Whether guided by pure or corrupt motives, the intentions residing in our hearts imbue our actions with their true meaning. This profound reality highlights the necessity of scrutinizing our intentions before we speak or act.

The Significance of Intentions in Islam

In Islam, the centrality of intentions is beautifully encapsulated in the renowned hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

“Actions are judged by intentions, and every person will be rewarded according to their intention.” (Bukhari and Muslim)

This prophetic wisdom underscores that the value of our deeds is intrinsically linked to the motivations behind them. An outwardly virtuous act performed with the aim of gaining worldly recognition or material benefit loses its worth in the sight of Allah. Conversely, even the smallest act, when carried out with sincere intention solely for Allah’s pleasure, can earn immense reward.

The Dual Nature of Intentions

Intentions possess the power to elevate our actions to acts of worship or render them void of meaning. When driven by noble intentions—such as a desire to please Allah, serve humanity, or foster personal growth—our actions can yield positive outcomes and divine blessings. However, if rooted in arrogance, selfishness, or deceit, even the most seemingly righteous deeds may become a source of harm or regret.

For instance, giving charity is undoubtedly commendable. Yet, if the act is motivated by a desire to showcase one’s wealth or attain social prestige, its spiritual value is compromised. Similarly, a kind word offered with the ulterior motive of manipulation transforms an otherwise virtuous deed into one of moral duplicity.

The Imperative of Self-Reflection

Recognizing the profound influence of intentions on our actions necessitates the cultivation of regular self-reflection. Before engaging in any deed or uttering any word, it is wise to ask oneself:

1.      Why am I doing this?

2.      Is my intention to seek Allah’s pleasure?

3.      Am I acting with sincerity and humility?

By making such introspection a habitual practice, we can purify our intentions, ensuring that our actions align with our ultimate purpose: to worship and obey Allah.

Conditions for Acceptance by Allah

For any action to be accepted by Allah, it must meet two essential criteria:

1.      Correct Intention (Ikhlas): The deed must be performed solely for Allah’s sake, free from ulterior motives.

2.      Compliance with Islamic Teachings (Sunnah): The action must adhere to the guidance provided by the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

When both conditions are fulfilled, we can hope for Allah’s acceptance and reward, insha Allah.

Transforming Everyday Actions into Worship

In our daily lives, countless opportunities arise to perform good deeds. By prioritizing the purification of our intentions, even mundane tasks can be transformed into acts of worship. Whether it is helping a neighbor, performing prayers, or sharing a smile, acting with sincerity and mindfulness allows us to draw closer to Allah.

Conclusion and a Call to Action

Let us strive to make the purification of our intentions a lifelong endeavor. By doing so, we can ensure that our actions, regardless of their scale, carry spiritual significance and merit. May Allah grant us the strength to refine our intentions, accept our deeds, and reward us abundantly for our efforts. Ameen.

Can the Ankara Agreement Finally End the Centuries-Old Somalia-Ethiopia Conflict?

The recent agreement between Somalia and Ethiopia, brokered by Türkiye and announced by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has sparked a wave of both optimism and skepticism across the region and beyond. This historic deal is aimed at resolving long-standing diplomatic tensions and territorial disputes that have simmered for generations. Among the issues at the forefront is the contentious matter of Ethiopia’s maritime access deal with Somaliland, which had recently ignited tensions. Erdogan, in his announcement, heralded the accord as a "historic reconciliation" and a "new beginning based on peace and cooperation," framing it as a significant breakthrough for the Horn of Africa.

The agreement followed eight months of delicate mediation in Ankara, where officials from both sides engaged in rigorous talks to forge a path toward a more cooperative future. The result was a joint declaration that placed a strong emphasis on future collaboration, steering clear of revisiting past grievances. Both Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed expressed their unwavering commitment to the process, signaling a willingness to prioritize dialogue and mutual understanding.

However, despite the optimism surrounding the deal, several critical questions remain unanswered. Is this agreement truly a transformative step toward lasting regional stability, or is it merely a tactical maneuver designed to address immediate political pressures and avoid further conflict? Given the complex history between the two nations and the broader geopolitical dynamics at play, the true long-term impact of this deal remains uncertain. The region, known for its volatility, will likely continue to scrutinize the unfolding developments closely, with many wondering whether this newfound collaboration will be able to withstand the challenges that have historically undermined peace efforts in the Horn of Africa.

Historical Context: A Legacy of Conflict

The Somali-Ethiopian conflict has deep historical roots, stretching back to the 1300s, with tensions intensifying during the late 19th century when the Ethiopian Empire expanded into the Ogaden region, an area heavily populated by Somalis. This territorial dispute, which has shaped the relationship between the two nations, continued to simmer throughout the 20th century. It reached a boiling point in the Ogaden War of 1977-1978, a violent conflict that further entrenched animosities. Over the decades, these unresolved tensions have been compounded by a complex array of political, ethnic, and territorial issues that remain unresolved to this day.

One of the most critical elements in this long-standing rivalry has been Ethiopia’s lack of direct access to the sea. Following Eritrea’s independence in 1991, Ethiopia lost its access to Red Sea ports, which exacerbated its landlocked status. This loss significantly increased Ethiopia’s desperation for maritime access, a need that has influenced many of its regional policies and actions. The quest for ports and trade routes has often been a driving force in its foreign policy, particularly with its Somali neighbors.

In January 2024, tensions between Somalia and Ethiopia reached a new high when Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed signed a controversial memorandum with Somaliland’s President Muse Bihi Abdi. The deal granted Ethiopia a 50-year lease on 20 kilometers of seafront land at Berbera Port, a strategically important location along the Red Sea coast. In return, Somaliland would receive diplomatic recognition from Ethiopia, further legitimizing its self-declared independence, which has not been recognized by Somalia or the broader international community.

The Somali federal government was quick to reject the agreement, condemning it as a violation of Somalia’s sovereignty. The deal exacerbated the already fragile relations between Somalia and Ethiopia, drawing sharp lines in the sand over territorial and political control in the Horn of Africa. This development underscored the region’s delicate balance of power, where economic interests, territorial disputes, and geopolitical ambitions intersect. Ethiopia’s thirst for maritime access, Somaliland’s pursuit of international legitimacy, and Somalia’s claims to territorial integrity all continue to shape the complex dynamics of this volatile region. The ongoing tensions reflect not only historical grievances but also the enduring competition for resources and influence in one of the world’s most strategically significant areas.

The Role of Türkiye

Türkiye's involvement in mediating the historic agreement between Somalia and Ethiopia marks a significant step in the country’s growing influence across Africa, a region where it has steadily expanded its diplomatic, economic, and strategic footprint in recent years. Through its active engagement in African affairs, Türkiye has demonstrated a commitment to fostering peace and cooperation on the continent, positioning itself as a reliable and influential partner in regional diplomacy. The mediation effort, particularly in the context of the Somali-Ethiopian conflict, underscores Türkiye's role in facilitating dialogue between countries with complex historical relationships.

Central to Türkiye's mediation strategy was President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s "Ankara Process," an initiative focused on promoting mutual respect, understanding, and collaboration among nations. By offering a platform for Somalia and Ethiopia to engage in open, constructive discussions, Türkiye has helped create an environment where both sides could confront their historical grievances and explore pathways toward reconciliation. Rather than dwelling on past conflicts, the Ankara Process emphasized the importance of focusing on common interests and fostering cooperation in areas such as trade, security, and infrastructure development.

Türkiye’s diplomatic efforts have been crucial in facilitating the necessary dialogue to move the two countries toward a more stable and cooperative future. As a result, Türkiye has successfully positioned itself as a key player in the region’s geopolitical landscape, particularly in promoting regional stability and peacebuilding initiatives. Erdogan, in his public remarks, stressed that the success of the agreement would hinge on sustained, collective efforts by both Somalia and Ethiopia to implement joint projects that focus on peace, economic development, and prosperity for the people of both nations. This long-term commitment to cooperation and peacebuilding is central to Türkiye's broader strategy of being an active and influential participant in shaping the future of the Horn of Africa.

Moreover, Türkiye’s involvement in this diplomatic breakthrough highlights its strategic foresight in engaging with African countries not only to address immediate political concerns but also to help create enduring partnerships that will benefit both sides in the long run. As the Horn of Africa continues to grapple with complex regional challenges, Türkiye’s role in fostering dialogue and cooperation serves as a model for other nations seeking to address similarly entrenched conflicts. In this way, Türkiye is solidifying its position as a pivotal force in Africa's evolving geopolitical dynamics.

The Maritime Access Conundrum

A central and highly sensitive issue at the heart of the agreement between Somalia and Ethiopia is Ethiopia’s longstanding quest for maritime access. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud openly acknowledged Ethiopia's urgent need for direct access to ports, recognizing the economic and strategic importance of maritime trade. However, he simultaneously emphasized the need to protect Somalia’s territorial integrity, asserting that any arrangements should not compromise Somalia’s sovereignty. This delicate balancing act between accommodating Ethiopia’s economic aspirations and safeguarding Somalia's national interests raises profound questions: Can Somalia afford to make concessions on its sovereignty in the name of regional stability and economic cooperation? And, more importantly, will Ethiopia’s pursuit of maritime access lead to further tensions, particularly with Somaliland, whose own claims to territorial autonomy complicate the situation?

The issue of maritime access is deeply entangled with the region’s broader geopolitical and territorial disputes. For Ethiopia, securing a reliable and accessible port has long been a priority, especially after the loss of its coastal territories following Eritrea’s independence. Access to the sea is seen as essential for Ethiopia’s economic development and regional influence, but it remains a contentious issue due to the complex web of territorial claims in the Horn of Africa. In particular, Somaliland, which declared independence from Somalia in 1991, has been pursuing its own path toward international recognition and self-determination. The prospect of Ethiopia gaining a foothold at Berbera Port has the potential to further complicate the delicate relations between Somalia, Somaliland, and Ethiopia.

Critics of the Ankara-mediated talks argue that the agreement fails to fully address these complexities and underlying tensions. While the joint declaration emphasizes peace and cooperation, it offers little in the way of concrete solutions for the most contentious issues, including Somaliland’s quest for autonomy and Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions. The document lacks clear, actionable mechanisms to navigate these thorny problems, leaving significant uncertainties regarding how the parties will address their respective claims and concerns moving forward. This oversight has led some to question whether the agreement will serve as a meaningful step toward regional cooperation or if it will ultimately prove to be little more than a symbolic gesture—a well-intentioned but ultimately insufficient attempt at reconciliation.

Without addressing the fundamental issues that underpin the Ethiopia-Somalia-Somaliland triangle, the agreement risks falling short of its potential to transform the region’s dynamics. The lack of a comprehensive framework for resolving these disputes could render the deal fragile and vulnerable to future setbacks. As such, the real challenge lies in whether the parties involved can move beyond political rhetoric and craft a lasting resolution that truly addresses the core issues at stake—particularly the competing territorial claims and Ethiopia’s urgent need for maritime access. Until then, the agreement may remain an incomplete solution to a complex and enduring geopolitical puzzle.

Optimism and Skepticism

Supporters of the recent agreement between Somalia and Ethiopia view it as a potentially transformative moment for the Horn of Africa, one that could usher in a new era of collaboration and regional cooperation. By emphasizing dialogue over conflict and focusing on mutual interests, Somalia and Ethiopia have the opportunity to set aside their historical grievances and explore avenues for joint economic ventures, shared infrastructure projects, and greater regional integration. Advocates believe that such collaboration could foster stability and economic growth, creating a more interconnected and resilient Horn of Africa. The agreement, in this light, is seen as a step toward breaking the cycles of conflict and mistrust that have long plagued the region, offering hope for a future where cooperative efforts take precedence over division.

However, despite the optimism surrounding the deal, there is a considerable degree of skepticism among those who question whether the agreement can overcome the deep-rooted mistrust and competing interests that have historically defined the relationship between Somalia and Ethiopia. The Somali government's swift rejection of Ethiopia’s deal with Somaliland, which grants Ethiopia a lease on land at Berbera Port, highlights the fragility of the agreement and underscores the complexities of the situation. For many, the fact that Somalia and Ethiopia are still grappling with unresolved territorial disputes and divergent political goals suggests that the path to genuine reconciliation will not be straightforward. While both countries may have agreed to engage in dialogue, the deep-seated distrust and conflicting priorities could derail the process if not carefully managed.

In addition to the historical and political complexities between Somalia and Ethiopia, the situation is further complicated by ongoing insurgent activities in the Ogaden region, where ethnic Somali rebels continue to resist Ethiopian control. The unrest in this region remains a significant obstacle to peace and stability, and its resolution will require delicate negotiation and meaningful concessions from both sides. Furthermore, Somaliland’s ongoing push for international recognition as an independent state adds another layer of tension to an already fraught situation. While Somaliland’s quest for recognition is supported by some international actors, it remains a contentious issue for Somalia, which views Somaliland as part of its sovereign territory.

To address these multifaceted challenges, the agreement will require not only skilled diplomacy but also the political will from all parties involved to make difficult compromises. The road to lasting peace and stability in the region will demand that Ethiopia, Somalia, and Somaliland find ways to reconcile their differing aspirations and settle the longstanding disputes that have defined their relations for decades. The success of the agreement, therefore, hinges on the ability to balance optimism with the pragmatic realities of regional politics, where entrenched interests and historical grievances continue to shape the actions of key players. Without careful management and sustained efforts, the agreement could risk falling short of its potential, leaving the region mired in unresolved tensions and conflict.

Can Abiy Ahmed and Hassan Sheikh Mohamud Implement This Agreement?

The success of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud in implementing the Ankara agreement is uncertain and depends on a range of factors that go beyond their personal leadership. At the forefront is the complex landscape of domestic political dynamics within both Ethiopia and Somalia. Both leaders face significant internal challenges that could affect their ability to fully deliver on the terms of the agreement. In Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed has already had to navigate political unrest, particularly in the Oromia and Tigray regions, where ethnic tensions and insurgencies have tested his leadership. Similarly, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud must contend with Somalia's ongoing political instability, including the challenge of unifying a country fragmented by clan rivalries, militant groups, and competing factions within the federal government.

Another critical factor is the historical grievances between the two nations, which are deeply entrenched in their shared past. The legacy of the Ogaden War and the ongoing dispute over the Ogaden region continues to shape the political mindset in both countries, and any efforts to reconcile may be hindered by nationalistic sentiments and a long history of mistrust. While the leaders have pledged to move forward with peace and cooperation, these unresolved issues threaten to undermine any attempts at lasting reconciliation.

Equally concerning is the ambiguity surrounding contentious issues like Ethiopia’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Somaliland. This deal, which grants Ethiopia a lease on a portion of Berbera Port, has not only angered Somalia’s federal government but also raises questions about the future status of Somaliland. The push for Somaliland’s international recognition is a sensitive issue that complicates any attempt at resolving territorial disputes. The Somali government views this as a direct challenge to its sovereignty, which could make it difficult for President Mohamud to sell the agreement to his domestic constituents, many of whom view any concessions to Ethiopia or Somaliland as unacceptable.

Moreover, the status of the Ogaden region remains a flashpoint in Ethiopian-Somali relations. The Somali region of Ethiopia continues to experience insurgent activity from ethnic Somali groups who seek greater autonomy, or in some cases, independence. Abiy Ahmed must contend with the ongoing security challenges in the Ogaden, where the Ethiopian government has historically faced armed resistance. Any peace deal with Somalia that fails to address the situation in the Ogaden could leave the agreement vulnerable to backlash from insurgent groups and undermine the credibility of both leaders.

The implementation of the Ankara agreement will thus require far more than just political will from Abiy and Hassan. They will need to address these deeply entrenched issues and find solutions that satisfy not only their respective governments but also their populations, which may view the concessions as compromising national interests. The absence of clarity on key contentious issues and the lack of clear mechanisms for resolving these disputes means that the road ahead will be fraught with difficulties. Unless both leaders can navigate these complex and volatile issues—balancing historical grievances with the need for political stability—the agreement may struggle to take root, leaving questions about its long-term viability and success.

Ethiopia’s Stance on the Somaliland MOU

The agreement between Somalia and Ethiopia, while hailed as a step toward regional cooperation, notably fails to address one of the most contentious issues in Ethiopian-Somali relations: Ethiopia’s January 2024 memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Somaliland. This MOU, which grants Ethiopia access to the strategically important Berbera port, is seen by Ethiopia as a crucial solution to its long-standing landlocked status. In exchange for securing maritime access, Ethiopia agreed to recognize Somaliland’s autonomy, a move that directly challenges Somalia's territorial integrity and its longstanding stance against Somaliland's push for international recognition.

Despite the Somali government's rejection of the MOU and the tensions it has caused, Ethiopia has not publicly rescinded or modified the agreement. This continued silence on the matter during the Ankara talks raises concerns about Ethiopia’s true commitment to fully resolving all outstanding issues with Somalia. The failure to directly address the MOU signals Ethiopia’s reluctance to antagonize Somaliland, which has emerged as a key partner in Ethiopia’s broader strategy to secure vital access to the sea. For Ethiopia, the MOU remains a strategic asset that goes beyond the immediate economic benefits of port access. It serves as a critical component of Ethiopia’s broader geopolitical strategy in the region, strengthening its influence and positioning it as a major player in the Horn of Africa’s evolving dynamics.

Ethiopia's silence is likely rooted in its desire to avoid alienating Somaliland, especially considering that Berbera port is of immense economic and security value. The deal offers Ethiopia a lifeline for trade and regional influence, as it faces the continued challenge of navigating its landlocked geography. For Ethiopia, the MOU with Somaliland aligns with its national interests, providing not just a port for maritime trade but also the potential for long-term economic growth and increased access to global markets.

However, this situation creates a significant diplomatic conundrum. While the MOU benefits Ethiopia in several key areas, it exacerbates tensions with Somalia, which sees the agreement as a direct challenge to its sovereignty and territorial claims over Somaliland. The Somali government views the recognition of Somaliland’s autonomy as a violation of its territorial integrity, further complicating the task of achieving a comprehensive peace agreement between the two nations. The MOU’s omission from the Ankara talks demonstrates Ethiopia’s awareness of the sensitivities surrounding the issue, but it also highlights the delicate balancing act that both nations must perform as they attempt to navigate their respective interests without further escalating the situation.

Until Ethiopia publicly addresses the MOU and clarifies its position on Somaliland’s autonomy, the potential for lasting reconciliation between Somalia and Ethiopia remains uncertain. The silence on this issue casts a shadow over the agreement’s long-term viability, leaving unresolved questions about how Ethiopia intends to balance its strategic needs with the demands of its Somali counterpart. Without a clear resolution to the MOU, the agreement may remain incomplete, with lingering tensions and conflicting priorities that continue to undermine efforts at fostering regional stability and cooperation.

Somalia’s Position and Public Sentiment

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud faces substantial political challenges within Somalia as he navigates the fallout from the recent agreement with Ethiopia. The Somali government’s strong rejection of the Ethiopia-Somaliland memorandum of understanding (MOU), which grants Ethiopia access to Berbera port in exchange for recognizing Somaliland’s autonomy, reflects the deep-rooted sentiment of the Somali populace. Many Somalis view Ethiopia’s actions as an affront to Somalia’s sovereignty, reinforcing a perception of Ethiopia as an aggressor with expansionist ambitions in the region. This perception is not a new development—historically, Ethiopia has been seen by many Somalis as an occupying force, particularly due to its longstanding control over the Ogaden region, which remains a sensitive issue. By signing the Ankara agreement without explicitly addressing the MOU, Mohamud risks alienating a significant portion of the Somali population, who may view the deal as a concession to Ethiopia at the expense of Somalia’s territorial integrity.

The provision in the agreement that allows Ethiopia to gain maritime access to Somali waters has raised significant concerns among Somalis both at home and in the diaspora. For many, this is seen as a betrayal of Somalia’s sovereignty, a direct compromise to its national interests. The notion that Somalia would allow Ethiopia, a landlocked country, to establish maritime access through Somali waters—especially without addressing the long-standing issue of the Ogaden—has sparked anger and disillusionment. The Somali government’s willingness to engage in such an agreement, without securing clear commitments on sensitive issues like the MOU or the future of the Ogaden region, is perceived as a capitulation to Ethiopia’s demands. This perception could severely damage President Mohamud’s political standing, as his leadership is closely tied to upholding Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The Ogaden issue, in particular, remains a deeply emotional and unresolved chapter for many Somalis. The region, officially known as the Somali Regional State of Ethiopia, is home to a large ethnic Somali population that has long sought greater autonomy or independence from Ethiopia. For Somalis, the Ogaden represents an ongoing struggle for self-determination, and any agreement that appears to overlook or sideline this issue is likely to provoke widespread opposition. The idea that Somalia might tacitly accept Ethiopia’s access to Somali waters without a clear resolution to the Ogaden question risks reigniting the historical grievances that continue to shape Somali national identity. This situation places President Mohamud in a precarious position, as he must balance the need for regional cooperation and economic development with the expectations of a population that views territorial integrity and sovereignty as paramount.

The public sentiment in Somalia is crucial, and the widespread skepticism toward the agreement could translate into significant domestic opposition. If the Somali government is perceived as compromising on key national issues to appease Ethiopia, it may face intense political backlash, not just from opposition groups but also from civil society, clan leaders, and the general populace. The challenges ahead for President Mohamud will be immense, as he seeks to navigate the delicate balance between regional cooperation and maintaining the trust and support of the Somali people. The success of the agreement, therefore, hinges not only on the diplomatic efforts of both countries but also on how it resonates with the Somali public and whether it is seen as a genuine step toward stability or a betrayal of national interests.

The Future of the Ogaden Region

The silence surrounding the status of the Ogaden region in the Ankara agreement is particularly glaring and has raised significant concerns. Historically, the Ogaden has been a central and deeply sensitive issue in Somali-Ethiopian relations. For many Somalis, the Ogaden represents a region that was unjustly annexed by Ethiopia in the early 20th century, and its contested status has long fueled Somali nationalism and regional tensions. The aspirations of the ethnic Somali population in the Ogaden for autonomy, self-determination, or even alignment with Somalia remain powerful, emotional drivers of public sentiment in the country. The ongoing struggle for greater rights and recognition by the people of the Ogaden is seen by many Somalis as a key chapter in their broader quest for national unity and territorial integrity.

By not addressing the Ogaden question explicitly in the Ankara agreement, the deal risks being interpreted as an implicit recognition of Ethiopia’s continued sovereignty over the region, a move that could spark considerable backlash among Somalis. For many, this silence is seen as a failure to acknowledge the legitimate aspirations of the Ogaden’s ethnic Somali population, who continue to push for greater autonomy or even the prospect of joining Somalia. The omission of the Ogaden issue in the context of an agreement that touches on sensitive territorial matters, such as the maritime access deal with Somaliland, could be perceived as a tacit abandonment of Somalia's historical claim to the region.

For Somalis, particularly those with family ties to the Ogaden region, this perceived neglect could be viewed as a betrayal of their kin and their struggle for self-determination. The historical ties between the people of Somalia and the Ogaden have long been a source of solidarity, and any suggestion that Somalia is willing to overlook or abandon their cause would resonate deeply with the public. The failure to explicitly address the Ogaden in the Ankara agreement risks reinforcing the view that the Somali government is prioritizing short-term diplomatic gains over long-standing territorial claims and the fundamental rights of its people in the region.

The question of the Ogaden remains a deeply emotional and unresolved issue, with potential to inflame national tensions and destabilize efforts at regional cooperation. As such, the lack of a clear stance on the Ogaden in the Ankara talks could undermine the perceived legitimacy of the agreement, leaving a significant portion of the Somali population feeling alienated and betrayed. For the agreement to truly serve as a platform for peace and cooperation, it would need to directly confront the Ogaden issue, offering some form of resolution or at least a framework for addressing the aspirations of the region’s Somali population. Without this, the agreement risks being seen not as a step toward reconciliation, but as a symbolic gesture that disregards one of the most deeply held national concerns in Somalia.

Understanding the Agreement Within the Somali Diaspora

The Ankara agreement is likely to be met with skepticism, and in some cases outright hostility, by Somalis living in the diaspora. For many, the agreement’s failure to address Ethiopia’s perceived violations of Somali sovereignty, particularly through the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Somaliland, undermines its legitimacy and raises concerns about its true intentions. The MOU, which grants Ethiopia maritime access in exchange for recognizing Somaliland’s autonomy, is seen by many Somalis as a direct affront to Somalia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The absence of concrete provisions in the agreement to address or resolve this issue leaves a bitter aftertaste, leading many to view the agreement as a diplomatic maneuver that compromises Somali national interests.

Moreover, the silence on the Ogaden region in the Ankara agreement further fuels fears that the deal is a concession to Ethiopia at the expense of Somalia’s unity and historical territorial claims. The Ogaden, with its large ethnic Somali population, remains a sensitive and deeply emotional issue for many Somalis. The omission of any discussion of the Ogaden is perceived by some as an abandonment of Somalia's long-standing claim to the region, which could be seen as a betrayal of the Somali people living there. For members of the Somali diaspora, who have often been vocal in advocating for the rights and self-determination of the people in the Ogaden, the lack of attention to this issue in the agreement represents a troubling signal that Somalia may be willing to sacrifice its historical claims in exchange for short-term political gains.

The agreement, as it stands, raises uncomfortable and urgent questions among Somalis worldwide, prompting them to critically examine the motivations and implications of the deal. Key concerns include:

• Is the Somali government prioritizing regional peace over national sovereignty? Many in the diaspora worry that the desire for regional cooperation and economic development is being used to justify concessions that undermine Somalia’s sovereignty, with potential long-term consequences for the country’s territorial integrity.
• Does this deal signal a willingness to abandon the Ogaden issue? For many Somalis, the Ogaden is not just a regional dispute but a symbol of the broader struggle for self-determination and justice. The lack of any mention of the Ogaden in the Ankara agreement suggests that the Somali government may be willing to put this issue on the back burner in pursuit of diplomatic gains, a stance that is deeply unsettling for those who view the Ogaden as a core issue of Somali identity.
• How can Somalia trust Ethiopia, given its recent actions and historical behavior? The recent actions of Ethiopia, particularly the signing of the MOU with Somaliland and its ongoing control over the Ogaden region, have left many Somalis wary of Ethiopia’s true intentions. The lack of transparency and the failure to directly address these issues in the agreement prompt questions about Ethiopia’s long-term commitment to peace and cooperation, and whether the Somali government is putting too much trust in a neighbor with a history of territorial disputes and military actions.

These concerns highlight the deep divide between the Somali government’s actions and the sentiment within the diaspora. Many in the Somali diaspora feel disconnected from the decision-making process and view the agreement as a betrayal of national principles. The failure to address critical issues such as the Ogaden and the Ethiopia-Somaliland MOU casts doubt on the agreement’s ability to foster genuine peace and cooperation in the Horn of Africa. Instead, it risks being seen as an attempt to appease Ethiopia at the expense of Somalia’s long-term national interests and the aspirations of its people.

Conclusion

The Somalia-Ethiopia agreement brokered by Türkiye presents a potential breakthrough in one of Africa’s most enduring and complex conflicts, offering a glimmer of hope for long-awaited resolution. However, this agreement is not without significant hurdles. The historical grievances between the two nations, coupled with unresolved territorial disputes such as those related to the Ogaden region and Ethiopia’s maritime access, present deep-seated challenges that cannot be easily overlooked. These contentious issues continue to fuel skepticism and mistrust, particularly among the public and key stakeholders in both nations.

For the agreement to truly succeed and bring lasting peace, it will require much more than just diplomatic maneuvering. It must be underpinned by a genuine political will from all parties involved, coupled with robust and sustained efforts to rebuild trust. These efforts must be inclusive and transparent, addressing not only the surface-level concerns but also the root causes of the conflict. This includes finding equitable solutions to territorial disputes, resolving the question of maritime access, and ensuring that all communities feel fairly represented and heard.

If these complex issues are not effectively addressed, the Ankara agreement risks becoming a short-term diplomatic gesture rather than a transformative step toward lasting peace. Without meaningful engagement with the underlying causes of the conflict, the potential for the agreement to foster genuine cooperation and stability in the Horn of Africa remains uncertain. The path forward will require commitment, patience, and a clear vision of what true reconciliation and cooperation can look like for Somalia, Ethiopia, and the wider region. Only then can the agreement evolve from a hopeful initiative into a cornerstone of peace and prosperity.