Jubbaland Forces Reclaim Strategic Border Town Amid Escalating Rift with Federal Government

By Ahmed Farah

Beled Hawo, the volatile border town in Somalia’s Gedo region, descended into chaos once again on Tuesday as fierce fighting broke out between Jubbaland regional forces and units loyal to the Federal Government of Somalia. The confrontation, which lasted several hours, marks a significant escalation in the long-standing dispute over political authority in Gedo and further complicates Somalia’s already fragile federal structure.

The immediate cause of the fighting was the deployment of Abdirashid Janan, a controversial former Jubbaland security minister and now a staunch ally of the federal government, who arrived in Beled Hawo aboard a military helicopter. His arrival was not only unexpected but also highly provocative, reigniting political tensions that had been simmering just beneath the surface. Within hours, gunfire erupted across the town as Jubbaland-aligned forces launched what they called a “defensive operation” to repel what they viewed as an unconstitutional federal incursion.

Eyewitnesses described scenes of panic and confusion as civilians fled their homes, seeking shelter from the artillery and small arms fire that echoed through the streets. Businesses and schools closed abruptly, and entire neighborhoods emptied as residents fled toward the Kenyan border fearing a prolonged battle. Jubbaland’s Darawiish forces claimed by nightfall that they had regained full control of the town, including key administrative buildings and military positions. According to local sources, federal troops were forced to retreat and Janan reportedly fled the area.

The clash resulted in the deaths of at least five soldiers, with dozens more wounded including civilians. Medical teams struggled to access the wounded due to ongoing security threats and road blockages, while humanitarian organizations warned of a growing crisis in a region already grappling with displacement, food insecurity, and limited access to services.

Beyond the immediate violence, the battle for Beled Hawo exposes the deepening constitutional crisis in Somalia. Gedo has long been a battleground in the power struggle between the federal government in Mogadishu and the Jubbaland administration led by President Ahmed Madobe. While Jubbaland claims constitutional jurisdiction over the region, federal authorities have repeatedly sought to assert direct control, often through military deployments and controversial appointments.

Abdirashid Janan’s involvement adds yet another layer of complexity. Once a key figure within Jubbaland’s security apparatus, Janan defected to Mogadishu amid internal disagreements and mounting criminal allegations including charges of extrajudicial killings. His recent reappearance as a federal proxy in Gedo has outraged regional leaders and reignited accusations that Mogadishu is attempting to dismantle federalism through coercion.

In response to the events, Somalia’s Ministry of Internal Security issued a strongly worded statement condemning the illegal aggression by Jubbaland forces and accusing them of undermining national stability. The ministry warned that those responsible for the attack would be held accountable. Jubbaland, in turn, denounced the deployment of Janan as a blatant violation of Somalia’s provisional constitution and an assault on regional autonomy.

The strategic location of Beled Hawo on the border with Kenya makes it more than just a local flashpoint. Control over the town offers both political leverage and economic advantage, particularly in terms of cross-border trade and security coordination. As such, the struggle for Beled Hawo is not merely a territorial dispute but a fight over the future of federalism in Somalia.

This latest clash is a grim reminder that Somalia’s transition from a centralized to a federal state remains incomplete, contested, and prone to violence. Despite years of donor-backed reconciliation efforts and constitutional review processes, the underlying issues of power distribution, regional representation, and legal authority remain unresolved. Each episode of violence erodes public trust, weakens institutions, and risks pushing the country further from peace.

As the situation stabilizes in the aftermath of the fighting, the calls for dialogue and mediation grow louder. But the window for political resolution is narrowing. If the federal government and Jubbaland leadership continue to rely on force rather than negotiation, the consequences could extend far beyond Beled Hawo, threatening the fragile cohesion of the entire Somali federation. For now, the people of Gedo remain trapped between rival claims to power, paying once again the highest price for Somalia’s political dysfunction.

Somalia Deserves Leadership, Not Political Survival
By Ahmed Farah

From afar, Somalia is often seen through a narrow lens: conflict, piracy, famine, and instability. But those who take a closer, more honest look know that this Horn of Africa nation has extraordinary potential. Its people are resilient. Its youth are ambitious. Its coasts are rich. Its culture is deep. The tragedy is not that Somalia has been broken. The tragedy is that even now, with so many opportunities within reach, the country’s leadership appears more invested in consolidating personal power than uniting and rebuilding a nation that deserves so much better.

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud returned to power in 2022 with considerable goodwill. Many, inside and outside Somalia, hoped he had learned from his first term and would now govern with the maturity and foresight the country urgently needed. Instead, more than two years into his presidency, Somalia remains dangerously divided, its federal system under stress, and its people left to wonder whether the top priority in Villa Somalia is national transformation or political survival.

There have been military operations against al-Shabaab, to be sure. Speeches have been made, drone strikes have landed, towns have been "liberated." But these victories are repeatedly hollowed out by a lack of follow-through. Governance does not replace the gunmen. Services do not follow the soldiers. And sooner or later, the militants return stronger, more embedded, more lethal. This cycle continues because the state remains weak at its core, riddled with corruption, reliant on foreign forces, and lacking a clear vision of inclusive national development.

Then came the bold announcement of electoral reform. Somalia would move to universal suffrage, for the first time in over half a century. It sounded like progress. But almost immediately, key federal member states, especially Puntland, rejected the process not because they oppose democracy, but because they were not consulted. The move felt less like a sincere attempt to give Somalis their voice and more like a political calculation to fast-track re-election through a centralized process that tilts the playing field. Puntland, alarmed by creeping authoritarianism, declared its withdrawal from the federal political system, a sign of just how fractured the national fabric has become.

More worrying still are the economic decisions being made in secrecy, far from public scrutiny. The recently publicized agreement with Turkey, which grants Ankara 90 percent of Somalia’s future hydrocarbon revenues in exchange for naval support, has shocked even longtime observers of Somali politics. This is not partnership. This is surrendering the country’s future wealth, perhaps its only ticket to self-sufficiency, before a single drop of oil has been commercially extracted. In any country, this would be considered political malpractice. In Somalia, it is potentially irreversible damage.

What is particularly painful is that the Somali people are not failing their country. They are moving forward wherever they can. In the diaspora, Somalis are thriving as doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, scholars. At home, they are building businesses, educating their children, and holding their communities together with little help. But their leaders continue to betray their efforts with short-term thinking, corruption, and political gamesmanship.

The president's frequent international travel does little to ease these concerns. While he courts global attention and international handshakes, the urgent work of nation-building at home is neglected. Somalia is not a project to be marketed abroad. It is a homeland that demands sweat, sacrifice, and presence.

There is still time. Hassan Sheikh Mohamud can abandon the path of electoral self-interest and become the unifier Somalia needs. He can reject the temptation to trade away the nation’s resources for temporary support. He can sit with the federal states, not as a commander but as a partner, and begin rebuilding trust. He can choose to lead with humility and wisdom, instead of calculation and control.

To move forward and avoid another decade of lost opportunity, several urgent steps should be taken:

First, the president must rebuild trust through genuine federal dialogue. He should immediately initiate an inclusive national conversation with all federal member states, particularly Puntland and Jubaland, possibly with neutral mediation. Only through consensus can the federal model be repaired and made functional again.

Second, all foreign agreements, especially those involving Somalia’s natural resources and security sovereignty, must be subject to parliamentary oversight and public transparency. The Turkish hydrocarbon deal, in particular, must be re-evaluated with national interest in mind. A national resource council should be formed, involving federal states, civil society, and independent experts.

Third, military victories must be tied to long-term stabilization. Clearing areas from al-Shabaab without restoring basic governance is not a strategy, it is a stalling tactic. Somalia needs to train and deploy local police, re-establish services, and empower communities to protect peace once the military leaves.

Fourth, the administration must end the culture of political appointments based on loyalty and clan favoritism. Public institutions cannot serve the nation when they are packed with cronies. A credible anti-corruption commission should be created, and appointments should be based on qualifications, not personal alliances.

And finally, the president must lead by being present. Symbolism matters. Somalia does not need a jet-setting head of state; it needs a grounded, visible leader who visits neglected areas, listens to ordinary citizens, and delivers on promises. Rebuilding trust starts with proximity.

From the outside, we see a country that should be a regional anchor. A crossroads of trade. A cradle of culture. A hub of innovation. But none of that will come to pass if the politics at the top continue to revolve around preserving power at the expense of building institutions. The Somali people are not asking for perfection. They are asking for leadership. For fairness. For peace. For a chance to write a new chapter.

If Somalia’s president cannot deliver that, then someone else must. Because the country cannot afford another lost decade. The window is closing. The world is watching. And history will not be kind to those who chose power over progress.

Racial Profiling in Social Spaces: Policy Analysis and Recommendations for Promoting Social Integration and Inclusivity in Sweden

Abstract:
This paper provides an analysis of the findings from the Swedish investigative program 200 sekunder, which revealed systemic racial discrimination in Stockholm’s nightlife. Specifically, the investigation uncovered racial profiling at nightclubs, where white patrons were granted access while Black patrons, despite similar behavior and attire, were denied entry. The paper further discusses the implications of such discrimination on societal cohesion, cultural identity, and the mental well-being of marginalized youth. It also analyzes the ideological stance of political parties, such as the Sweden Democrats, and their emphasis on assimilationist policies, which threaten the multicultural fabric of Swedish society. Based on these insights, this paper offers recommendations for policymakers to address the issue of racial profiling and improve social integration and inclusion.

Introduction: The Need for Action

The issue of racial discrimination, particularly in social spaces such as nightclubs, has gained increasing visibility following the exposé in 200 sekunder. The program's findings revealed clear patterns of racial profiling, with white patrons gaining access while Black patrons were denied entry, despite similarities in appearance, behavior, and attire. This example of racial exclusion raises urgent questions about the state of social integration and equality in Sweden. While Sweden has long been seen as a progressive society committed to diversity and inclusivity, the persistence of discriminatory practices in public spaces calls into question the extent to which these ideals have been truly realized.

This paper aims to provide an academic analysis of the issue, highlighting the psychological, cultural, and societal implications of racial profiling. It will also explore the policies promoted by right-wing political parties like the Sweden Democrats, whose assimilationist approach threatens the multicultural fabric of Swedish society. In conclusion, this paper will offer recommendations for policymakers to address these challenges and foster a more inclusive and equitable society.

Racial Profiling: A Persistent Issue in Social Spaces

The findings of the 200 sekunder investigation reflect the ongoing problem of racial discrimination in Sweden. Despite a legal framework that condemns discrimination and promotes equal treatment, ethnic profiling remains widespread. Participants in the 200 sekunder experiment, who were matched in terms of age, clothing, and behavior, experienced differential treatment based solely on their racial background. Black patrons were turned away from nightclubs with reasons such as "full capacity" or "guest list required," while their white counterparts were allowed entry without issue.

Racial profiling in social spaces, particularly in the context of leisure activities like nightlife, has been well-documented in academic literature. As Essed (1991) notes, racism operates through both overt actions and subtle, systemic exclusion that marginalizes individuals based on race or ethnicity. This phenomenon is not limited to Sweden but is a widespread issue across many Western societies. Racial profiling in public spaces not only denies individuals access to equal opportunities but also contributes to the reinforcement of societal hierarchies that disadvantage racial minorities.

The findings of the 200 sekunder program underscore the need for further research and policy intervention. Racial discrimination in public spaces has serious consequences for the psychological well-being and cultural identity of affected individuals. As Hage (1998) points out, such discrimination contributes to a sense of alienation and marginalization, especially for young people trying to navigate their identity in a society that demands conformity to dominant cultural norms.

The Psychological and Cultural Impact of Exclusion

The psychological consequences of racial profiling are far-reaching. Studies have shown that individuals who experience discrimination in public spaces suffer from heightened stress, anxiety, and depression (Williams et al., 2003). For marginalized youth, particularly those from immigrant or racial minority backgrounds, exclusion from social spaces like nightclubs signals a broader issue of social belonging. The denial of access to these spaces, which are seen as markers of social integration, exacerbates feelings of isolation and reinforces the perception that one is not fully accepted in society.

Additionally, for many immigrant and Muslim youth, the desire to engage with Swedish society often comes into conflict with cultural or religious values that discourage participation in activities like drinking alcohol or attending nightclubs. This dynamic creates a paradox where individuals from minority backgrounds are asked to either conform to mainstream Swedish values or remain on the periphery of social life. Such experiences of exclusion undermine the sense of belonging that is essential to social integration.

The issue is compounded by the increasing prevalence of an assimilationist ideology promoted by political groups such as the Sweden Democrats. This political party advocates for the integration of immigrants, but their approach is predicated on the idea that immigrants must adopt Swedish cultural norms at the expense of their own identities. Such a framework, which demands that individuals assimilate into a singular Swedish identity, does not account for the complexity of cultural diversity or the lived experiences of minority groups.

The Political Context: Assimilation vs. Multiculturalism

The rise of the Sweden Democrats and their policies on immigration and integration poses a significant challenge to Sweden’s multicultural identity. The party’s stance on integration emphasizes assimilation — the idea that immigrants must conform to Swedish cultural norms in order to be fully integrated into society. This view is in direct contrast to the principles of multiculturalism, which recognizes the value of cultural diversity and promotes inclusivity.

Assimilationist policies, as advocated by the Sweden Democrats, often lead to the marginalization of minority groups. By focusing on conformity, these policies ignore the richness that diversity brings to society. Hage (1998) argues that policies centered on assimilation fail to address the structural inequalities that persist in society, leading to increased social division and disenfranchisement. Furthermore, such ideologies undermine the social fabric by suggesting that cultural differences are inherently problematic and must be suppressed in favor of a dominant national identity.

The Sweden Democrats’ emphasis on an exclusionary vision of Swedish identity risks perpetuating the very forms of discrimination that the 200 sekunder investigation highlights. If such policies gain traction, they may exacerbate racial tensions and deepen divisions within Swedish society, making it more difficult to foster the social cohesion necessary for a harmonious multicultural society.

Policy Recommendations

In light of the issues outlined above, this paper offers the following policy recommendations aimed at addressing racial profiling in social spaces and promoting social integration:

1. Implement Stricter Anti-Discrimination Laws: Strengthening laws that prohibit racial discrimination in public spaces, such as nightclubs, is crucial. This could include more robust enforcement mechanisms and higher penalties for establishments found guilty of racial profiling.
2. Promote Cultural Competency Training: Nightclub owners and staff should be required to undergo cultural competency training to ensure they understand the importance of inclusivity and respect for cultural differences. This training should include awareness of unconscious bias and its role in perpetuating racial discrimination.
3. Foster a Multicultural Vision of Integration: Policymakers should prioritize an approach to integration that values cultural diversity. This approach should encourage mutual understanding and respect rather than demanding assimilation. Public policies should reflect the understanding that individuals from different cultural backgrounds contribute to the richness of Swedish society.
4. Increase Public Awareness Campaigns: Public campaigns should be launched to raise awareness about the negative impact of racial profiling and discrimination. These campaigns should highlight the importance of inclusivity in all aspects of social life and challenge stereotypes that contribute to exclusion.
5. Strengthen Community Support Networks: Creating and supporting community networks for minority youth can help mitigate the negative effects of exclusion. These networks can provide a space for young people to express their concerns, build solidarity, and gain a sense of belonging.
6. Monitor and Regulate Political Discourse: Given the rise of exclusionary political ideologies, it is critical to monitor the rhetoric of political parties like the Sweden Democrats. Policymakers must ensure that political discourse remains focused on fostering inclusivity and social cohesion, rather than promoting divisive ideologies that undermine Sweden’s multicultural identity.

Conclusion

The findings of the 200 sekunder investigation into racial discrimination in Stockholm’s nightclubs serve as a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by marginalized communities in Sweden. While the country is often viewed as a model of equality and social justice, the reality of racial profiling and exclusion highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to integration. The rise of assimilationist ideologies, particularly those espoused by the Sweden Democrats, threatens to undermine the multicultural fabric of Swedish society.

To build a truly inclusive society, Sweden must prioritize policies that promote cultural diversity, respect for difference, and the elimination of racial discrimination. By taking concrete actions to address racial profiling and fostering a vision of integration that values diversity, Sweden can strengthen its social fabric and ensure that all individuals, regardless of their background, feel welcomed and included.

References

Essed, P. (1991). Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. Sage Publications.
Hage, G. (1998). White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. Pluto Press.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). The Souls of Black Folk. A.C. McClurg & Co.
Williams, D. R., Neighbors, H. W., & Jackson, J. S. (2003). Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and Health: Findings from Community Studies. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 200-208.
TV4. (2025). 200 sekunder: Rasism på Stockholms krogar. [Broadcast]. Available at: https://www.tv4.se/200-sekunder
Sweden Democrats. (2025). Policy Platform: Immigration and Integration. Available at: https://www.sverigedemokraterna.se

This Is How ChatGPT Chose Islam

When evaluating the world’s religions from a neutral, reasoned, and philosophical standpoint, one might ask: "If I had to pick just one religion as the most coherent and complete, which would it be?"

Based on a range of intellectual and spiritual criteria, the choice becomes clearer. Here are the key benchmarks used for analysis:

Criteria Considered:

• Internal consistency and logic

• Historical foundation

• Claim to divine revelation

• Clarity of doctrine

• Global impact

• Preservation of scripture

• Personal accountability and spiritual depth

The Conclusion: Islam

After comparing various traditions against these standards, Islam emerges as the most compelling choice.

Why Islam? A Reasoned Perspective

1. Pure Monotheism (Tawhid)

Islam teaches the belief in a single, indivisible God—Allah—with no partners, children, or incarnations. This theological purity avoids philosophical complications like the Trinity and upholds a clear concept of the Creator that is consistent across the Quran.

2. Preservation of Revelation

Among the world’s scriptures, the Quran stands out for its unparalleled preservation. It has remained unchanged for over 1400 years in its original Arabic form. This is acknowledged by both Muslims and non-Muslim historians alike. No other major religion can make the same claim with the same degree of textual certainty.

3. Continuity of Prophethood

Islam affirms all previous prophets—from Adam to Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus—and presents Prophet Muhammad as the final messenger, completing the divine message. This continuity provides both a respectful acknowledgment of other traditions and a final framework in the Quran.

4. Comprehensive Life System

Islam is more than theology—it is a full way of life. It offers guidance in ethics, economics, family, law, governance, and spirituality. This completeness appeals not only to the soul but also to social order and justice.

5. Rational Appeal

The Quran invites readers to reflect, ponder, and use reason. Verses often begin with rhetorical questions like “Do they not reflect?” Islam encourages the pursuit of knowledge and critical thinking rather than blind belief.

6. Simplicity of Salvation

Salvation in Islam is direct and personal: believe in God, do good deeds, repent sincerely, and live a righteous life. There is no need for blood sacrifice or intermediaries—just a sincere relationship between the individual and the Creator.

A Word of Respect for Other Religions

This conclusion is not a rejection of the value or sincerity found in other religions. Many faiths have deep moral teachings, rich traditions, and have profoundly shaped human civilization.

However, when assessed by the criteria of clarity, coherence, preservation, and comprehensiveness, Islam stands out as the most compelling and unified path to understanding the divine.

FROM KYIV TO GAZA: THE DOUBLE STANDARD IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
By Ahmed Farah

In the ever-volatile realm of international politics, words matter. They signal intent, shape alliances, and influence the behavior of adversaries. That’s why current President Donald Trump’s recent comments about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are more than just another controversial soundbite—they are a revealing indicator of a broader shift in narrative that risks eroding the United States’ credibility on the world stage.

Speaking to the press at the White House, Trump asserted that Russia has made “a pretty big concession” by stopping short of conquering the entirety of Ukraine. This statement—framed as if Vladimir Putin has demonstrated restraint rather than engaged in a prolonged, brutal war of aggression—raises serious concerns from a foreign policy perspective. It is not just factually incorrect; it reframes the aggressor as a reluctant participant and implicitly places blame on the defenders and their allies.

Legitimizing the Aggressor

To characterize Russia’s failure to overrun Ukraine as a concession is to rewrite history while it is still being written. Since 2022, Russia has launched an unprovoked invasion, committed documented war crimes, and sought to destabilize the European security architecture built since the Cold War. Ukraine, with the backing of Western powers, has defended its sovereignty with remarkable resilience—liberating large swathes of territory despite paying a tremendous human cost.

Trump’s framing of events not only misleads the public; it signals to Moscow—and to other authoritarian regimes—that the U.S. may be willing to reward aggression if the aggressor doesn’t go “too far.” Such statements shift the Overton window of acceptable discourse around war and diplomacy. They also undercut the West’s efforts to maintain a united front in support of Ukraine.

A Dangerous Precedent in Peace Negotiations

If peace negotiations are to have any credibility or legitimacy, they must begin from a position that respects international law and defends the principle of territorial integrity. Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. is pushing for peace, while describing Russian restraint as a gift to the West, reveals a readiness to trade Ukrainian land and sovereignty for a short-term political win.

This aligns disturbingly with a leaked seven-point peace plan that allegedly demands only minimal concessions from Russia. If accurate, such a plan would reinforce Trump’s rhetoric and present a deeply flawed model for future U.S.-brokered negotiations: one that privileges the aggressor’s comfort over the victim’s rights.

Gaza, Ukraine, and the Double Standard in U.S. Rhetoric

Even more troubling is how this rhetoric mirrors inconsistencies in U.S. foreign policy elsewhere—most notably in Gaza.

While the Biden administration has cautiously acknowledged humanitarian concerns in Gaza, it has stopped short of labeling Israeli military actions against civilians as war crimes or genocide—despite growing international consensus on the severity of the humanitarian crisis. The U.S. continues to provide military aid to Israel, while offering muted criticism and blocking ceasefire resolutions in international forums.

The contrast is stark: in Ukraine, Russia is rightly condemned for targeting civilian infrastructure and violating international law. In Gaza, the same standards are inconsistently applied. This selective outrage undermines the very international norms the U.S. claims to uphold.

Trump’s comments exacerbate this double standard. By soft-pedaling Russia’s actions while U.S. policy remains silent or complicit in the face of Palestinian suffering, Washington projects a troubling message: that international law is negotiable, and that the identity of the aggressor—not the act itself—determines moral judgment.

The Foreign Policy Cost of Mixed Messaging

For a superpower that has long positioned itself as the defender of liberal democracy, these contradictions are not merely symbolic—they have real strategic consequences. U.S. allies, particularly in the Global South, increasingly question the sincerity of American values. Meanwhile, adversaries see an opening to reshape the global order on terms more favorable to autocracy.

If the U.S. wants to retain moral leadership, it cannot afford to send mixed messages. It cannot cast Russia as a rogue actor in one theater while excusing or justifying similar behavior in another. Nor can it allow political figures to describe restraint in a war of aggression as a form of diplomacy.

Conclusion: The Need for Consistent Moral Clarity

In an era of rising authoritarianism and democratic backsliding, consistency is power. It is how nations build alliances, deter adversaries, and uphold the international system that has, however imperfectly, preserved global peace for decades.

Trump’s remarks, therefore, are not merely a domestic political play—they are a test of America’s foreign policy coherence. If left unchallenged, they risk normalizing a worldview in which might makes right and peace is bought at the cost of justice.

In both Ukraine and Gaza, the United States must speak with clarity, act with principle, and negotiate with integrity. Anything less weakens not only its credibility—but the very foundations of the world order it helped build.

 

Burkina Faso and the Facade of Western Democratic Concern: A Case of Strategic Hypocrisy in the Sahel

Abstract

The political crisis and power transition in Burkina Faso under Captain Ibrahim Traoré has sparked significant condemnation from Western governments and institutions, frequently framed in terms of democratic decline and human rights violations. However, this paper argues that such criticism is less about genuine concern for democracy or human rights and more about the West's anxiety over its waning geopolitical influence, particularly in light of growing Russian engagement in the Sahel. The discourse of democracy and rights, while powerful, often serves as a strategic veneer for preserving Western dominance in post-colonial African states. This article examines the case of Burkina Faso as a microcosm of a larger reconfiguration of global power and African sovereignty.

Introduction

Since gaining independence from France in 1960, Burkina Faso has experienced a turbulent political history marked by coups, foreign interference, and underdevelopment. The latest chapter began in 2022 with a military coup led by Captain Ibrahim Traoré, who ousted the transitional government amid growing insecurity and popular disillusionment. While the coup has been met with popular support in many quarters within Burkina Faso, Western governments have largely denounced it, citing concerns over democratic backsliding and human rights violations. This response, however, raises a fundamental question: are these criticisms grounded in principled defense of liberal democratic values, or are they a reaction to the geopolitical implications of a government increasingly distancing itself from Western influence?

The Selective Application of Democratic Ideals

Western nations, particularly France and the United States, have long championed democracy and human rights as cornerstones of their foreign policy, especially in Africa. Yet this commitment has often been selective. In countries where leaders have seized power through non-democratic means but maintained favorable ties with Western interests—such as in Chad or Egypt—criticism has been muted or entirely absent. In contrast, when leaders like Traoré emerge with a popular mandate but challenge the existing geopolitical alignment, the West reacts with swift condemnation. The inconsistency reveals a preference not for democracy per se, but for governments that uphold Western strategic interests.

In Burkina Faso’s case, the West’s reaction was particularly intense following Traoré’s expulsion of French troops and termination of military cooperation agreements. These actions were not only symbolic but struck at the heart of France’s long-standing post-colonial influence in West Africa. By asserting national sovereignty and exploring security partnerships with non-Western actors, notably Russia, Traoré directly challenged the entrenched power dynamics of the region. The backlash from Western media and governments has since been framed in normative language, but the subtext is unmistakably geopolitical.

The Weaponization of Human Rights Discourse

The invocation of human rights violations under Traoré’s government also fits into a broader pattern of politicized humanitarianism. While reports of abuses committed during counterinsurgency operations in Burkina Faso are deeply concerning, they exist within a context of extreme insecurity, state fragility, and the use of irregular armed groups. Yet similar or worse violations by Western allies often escape equal scrutiny. For instance, Israeli military operations in Gaza, which have resulted in large-scale civilian casualties and have been condemned by international bodies, receive relatively restrained criticism from Western governments, often accompanied by justifications grounded in security.

This double standard underscores how human rights discourse can be selectively deployed to delegitimize governments that deviate from Western strategic preferences while shielding allies from accountability. It is not the universality of human rights that determines Western engagement, but the political alignment of the violator.

The Burkinabé Perspective and Popular Legitimacy

Within Burkina Faso, Traoré enjoys significant popular support, especially among the youth and rural populations disillusioned with years of ineffective governance and foreign-led security efforts. For many, the military government represents a break from decades of dependency, failed democracy, and foreign tutelage. It is critical to acknowledge that while Traoré’s government lacks electoral legitimacy in the conventional liberal-democratic sense, it may hold a different form of legitimacy rooted in national survival, anti-colonial sentiment, and the promise of security.

Western critics often ignore these domestic dynamics, instead projecting a one-size-fits-all model of democratic governance that fails to account for local conditions, histories, and aspirations. By doing so, they risk alienating populations who increasingly view Western powers not as partners, but as obstacles to genuine sovereignty and self-determination.

Conclusion

The case of Burkina Faso exposes the profound contradictions in Western foreign policy toward Africa. Under the guise of defending democracy and human rights, Western powers often act to preserve strategic influence and economic interests. The rise of Ibrahim Traoré and the country’s pivot away from French and Western alliances have been met not with engagement, but with condemnation cloaked in moralistic rhetoric. This response reveals the limitations and hypocrisies of a global order that privileges stability and control over authentic expressions of sovereignty and agency.

Rather than dismissing the Burkinabé political shift as illegitimate or dangerous, the international community must grapple with the possibility that a new political order is emerging—one in which African nations assert greater autonomy, seek alternative partnerships, and redefine what governance means in a post-colonial world. To ignore this transformation is not only shortsighted, but a disservice to the very ideals the West claims to uphold.

Global Affairs in 2025: A Year of Uncertainty and Transformation

The world in 2025 is a complex and evolving landscape, influenced by geopolitical tensions, economic fluctuations, rapid technological advancements, and pressing environmental concerns. Nations and global institutions continue to navigate these challenges, striving for stability and progress amid uncertainty.

Geopolitics and Conflicts

Geopolitical conflicts remain at the forefront of global affairs, with Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia being particularly volatile regions. The ongoing war in Ukraine continues to impact global security dynamics, with NATO and Western allies providing substantial military and economic aid. Despite enduring economic sanctions, Russia remains resilient, forging stronger ties with China, Iran, and North Korea to counter Western influence.

The Israel-Palestine conflict has escalated, drawing widespread international criticism and diplomatic efforts to broker peace. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has led to renewed international calls for a two-state solution, but diplomatic progress remains slow. Meanwhile, the U.S.-China rivalry remains a dominant issue, with increasing tensions over Taiwan, trade, and military presence in the Pacific. The South China Sea continues to be a flashpoint, with territorial disputes involving multiple Southeast Asian nations adding to regional instability.

Africa continues to grapple with regional instability, particularly in Sudan, Ethiopia, and the Sahel region, where terrorism and insurgencies challenge governmental control. Climate-induced conflicts over scarce resources have intensified, leading to cross-border tensions and mass displacements. In Latin America, political instability, economic downturns, and migration crises dominate discussions, with Venezuela, Haiti, and Nicaragua being key focal points. The resurgence of leftist governments in several Latin American countries has led to shifts in alliances, while drug cartels continue to wield significant influence over governance and security.

Economic Challenges and Trade Shifts

The global economy faces numerous uncertainties as inflation, supply chain disruptions, and energy price volatility persist. While the U.S. and EU have largely recovered from the economic downturns caused by the pandemic, high interest rates and debt concerns continue to pose significant challenges. The labor market remains tight in some sectors while automation threatens job security in others.

China, once a powerhouse of economic growth, is experiencing a slowdown due to real estate market crises, regulatory crackdowns, and declining foreign investment. Efforts to shift from an export-driven economy to a consumer-driven model have been met with mixed success. Foreign companies are increasingly diversifying supply chains to reduce dependence on China, benefiting countries like India, Vietnam, and Mexico.

The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) continue to push for a more multipolar economic order, challenging the dominance of the U.S. dollar in global trade. The expansion of BRICS to include additional members has strengthened its influence, though internal divisions persist. Additionally, AI-driven automation and green energy transitions are reshaping industries, creating new economic opportunities while posing challenges for developing nations striving to keep pace with technological advancements.

Cryptocurrency and decentralized finance (DeFi) continue to disrupt traditional financial systems. Governments are increasingly regulating digital assets, but adoption remains uneven, with some nations embracing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) while others ban crypto transactions outright.

Technological Advancements and Cybersecurity Threats

Technology remains a driving force of change, with artificial intelligence (AI) revolutionizing sectors such as healthcare, finance, defense, and education. However, ethical concerns surrounding AI development and deployment are prompting global discussions on regulatory frameworks. Governments and private sector leaders are debating AI governance models, with concerns about data privacy, bias, and automation-driven job displacement at the forefront.

Quantum computing is advancing rapidly, promising breakthroughs in data processing and encryption. Governments and corporations are in a race to achieve quantum supremacy, which could have profound implications for cybersecurity, financial modeling, and medical research.

Meanwhile, space exploration is accelerating, with NASA, SpaceX, China, and India competing to expand their presence on the Moon and Mars. The growing commercial space industry is driving innovations in satellite communications, asteroid mining, and deep-space travel. However, concerns about the militarization of space persist, with major powers investing in anti-satellite weaponry and space-based defense systems.

Cybersecurity threats continue to pose serious risks, with cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure, businesses, and governments. Nations are investing heavily in cybersecurity to counter espionage, ransomware, and misinformation campaigns that threaten global stability. Cyber warfare has become a key element of geopolitical strategy, with state-sponsored hacking groups launching coordinated attacks on rival nations.

Environmental and Climate Concerns

Climate change remains a pressing issue, with extreme weather events such as storms, droughts, and wildfires becoming more frequent. Rising sea levels are threatening coastal cities, prompting urgent discussions on climate adaptation and disaster resilience. Despite global agreements like the Paris Accord, many nations struggle to meet emissions reduction targets. The transition to renewable energy is accelerating, but political and economic hurdles slow the pace of change.

Investments in renewable energy—particularly solar, wind, and nuclear power—are increasing, yet dependence on fossil fuels remains a significant challenge. Oil and gas-producing nations are facing economic restructuring pressures as global demand for alternative energy sources grows. Green hydrogen is emerging as a key player in the energy transition, with major investments being made in its development and infrastructure.

Water scarcity and food security are emerging crises, particularly in Africa and South Asia, prompting international organizations to push for sustainable solutions. Climate-induced agricultural disruptions are affecting global food supply chains, leading to price spikes and food shortages in vulnerable regions. The debate over genetically modified crops and lab-grown meat is intensifying, with proponents arguing for increased food security and critics warning of unforeseen ecological consequences.

Social and Cultural Shifts

Migration continues to be a major global issue, driven by conflicts, poverty, and climate change. Countries such as the U.S., Australia, and several European nations are tightening immigration policies, leading to heated debates on humanitarian responsibilities. Conversely, labor shortages in some developed countries have spurred selective immigration reforms. The migrant crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border remains a politically divisive issue, with debates over asylum policies and border security intensifying.

Social movements advocating for human rights, gender equality, and digital freedoms continue to gain traction. However, authoritarian regimes are increasingly cracking down on dissent, leading to a global conversation on the balance between free speech and government regulation of online content. Internet censorship is on the rise in many countries, with governments using AI-driven surveillance technologies to monitor and control public discourse.

The rise of the metaverse and virtual reality (VR) technologies is reshaping entertainment, work, and social interactions. While some see the metaverse as a revolutionary digital frontier, others warn of privacy concerns and the potential for social isolation. The debate over the ethical implications of AI-generated content, deepfakes, and virtual influencers is intensifying.

Conclusion

As 2025 unfolds, the world remains in a state of flux. Power struggles, economic transitions, and technological breakthroughs shape the geopolitical landscape, while climate change and social movements demand urgent attention. In this era of rapid change, nations and institutions must collaborate to navigate challenges, foster stability, and drive progress in an increasingly interconnected world.

The future will be defined by how global leaders respond to these crises and opportunities. Will nations prioritize diplomacy over conflict? Can humanity harness technology for the collective good? Will climate commitments translate into tangible actions? The answers to these questions will shape the trajectory of the coming decades, determining whether the world moves toward a more sustainable, inclusive, and peaceful future or succumbs to deepening divisions and crises.

SOMALIA'S JOURNEY TO BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY: OPPORTUNITIES, CHALLENGES, AND THE PATH FORWARD

Somalia's journey to becoming a member of the East African Community (EAC) culminated in its official admission as the bloc's eighth partner state on November 24, 2023. This milestone was achieved during the 24th Ordinary Summit of the EAC Heads of State in Arusha, Tanzania, where President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud announced Somalia's accession.

The Long Road to Membership

The process began in March 2012 when Somalia first applied for EAC membership. Over the years, the application underwent various evaluations and discussions. A significant development occurred on June 6, 2023, when the EAC Heads of State Summit adopted the verification report assessing Somalia's readiness to join the community.

Following the November 2023 announcement, Somalia signed the Treaty of Accession on December 15, 2023, at a ceremony held at the presidential residence in Kampala, Uganda. The final step in the membership process was completed on March 4, 2024, when Somalia's Minister of Commerce and Industry, Jibril Abdirashid Haji, presented the instrument of ratification to the EAC Secretary-General at the EAC headquarters in Arusha, Tanzania.

Pros and Cons of Somalia’s Membership

Pros:

1. Economic Integration: Somalia can benefit from increased trade opportunities, economic partnerships, and access to the EAC common market, which can drive economic growth.
2. Infrastructure Development: Membership can attract investment in infrastructure, including roads, ports, and energy, vital for regional connectivity.
3. Security Cooperation: Somalia can benefit from regional security initiatives, which can help combat terrorism and piracy.
4. Labor Mobility: Somali workers can find opportunities within EAC states, helping to reduce unemployment and boost remittances.
5. Market Expansion for Somali Businesses: Access to EAC markets can help Somali businesses expand their reach and increase trade volumes.

Cons:

1. Institutional Challenges: Somalia still faces governance and institutional stability issues that may hinder full integration.
2. Economic Disparities: The Somali economy remains fragile, and integration could expose local industries to stiff competition from more developed EAC economies.
3. Security Concerns: Ongoing conflicts and insecurity in Somalia could pose challenges to regional stability.
4. Visa-Free Movement Delays: Despite pledges for free movement, Somali passport holders still require visas to enter EAC states, creating barriers to full integration.

Somalia’s Contributions to the EAC

1. Natural Resources: Somalia possesses untapped oil, gas, and mineral resources that can boost the regional economy.
2. Maritime Trade and Ports: With its strategic location along the Indian Ocean, Somalia can enhance regional maritime trade and shipping logistics.
3. Livestock and Agriculture: Somalia’s livestock industry can provide a reliable supply of meat and dairy products to EAC markets.
4. Cultural and Human Resource Exchange: The Somali diaspora and entrepreneurs can bring investments, skills, and innovations to the EAC region.

Challenges to EAC Integration

Despite Somalia’s accession, the full realization of its benefits remains hindered by:

1. Delayed Visa-Free Movement: Somali passport holders are still required to obtain visas, contradicting EAC’s principle of free movement.
2. Legal and Regulatory Reforms: Somalia needs to harmonize its policies with EAC regulations to facilitate smoother economic and trade integration.
3. Political Stability: Continued efforts are needed to ensure internal stability and effective governance to build confidence among EAC partners.
4. Infrastructure Deficiencies: Somalia needs investments in transport and energy sectors to improve connectivity within the region.

Recommendations for Strengthening Somalia’s Role in the EAC

1. Fast-Track Free Movement Agreements: The Somali government must engage with EAC member states to ensure Somali passport holders can travel freely without visas.
2. Enhance Economic Reforms: Implement policies that support trade, investment, and business growth to maximize the benefits of EAC membership.
3. Strengthen Security and Governance: Political stability and security reforms will foster trust among EAC partners and encourage further economic cooperation.
4. Invest in Infrastructure: Prioritize the development of roads, ports, and communication networks to facilitate trade and mobility.
5. Leverage Diplomatic Engagement: Somalia should actively participate in EAC meetings, negotiations, and regional projects to assert its influence within the community.

Conclusion

Somalia’s membership in the EAC marks a historic step towards regional integration, economic cooperation, and security collaboration. However, challenges remain in fully realizing its benefits, particularly in ensuring visa-free travel for Somali citizens. By addressing institutional weaknesses, investing in economic reforms, and leveraging its strategic resources, Somalia can play a significant role in making the EAC a beacon of prosperity within Africa. A well-integrated Somalia in the EAC could unlock untapped potential and create a stronger, more united East African region.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP: PRESIDENT HASSAN SHEIKH MOHAMUD VS. FORMER PRESIDENT MOHAMED ABDULLAHI FARMAJO IN SOMALIA

Introduction

Somalia has experienced significant political transitions over the past decade, with leadership playing a crucial role in shaping the country's stability, security, and governance. Two key figures in Somalia's modern political landscape are President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and former President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo. Their contrasting leadership styles, policies, and approaches to governance have sparked extensive debates among Somalis and international observers alike. This article provides a comparative analysis of their leadership, focusing on governance, security, foreign policy, national unity, and economic reforms.

Governance and Political Stability

Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (2012–2017, re-elected in 2022) has emphasized reconciliation and institution-building. His administration has focused on dialogue with political actors, federal states, and opposition groups, striving for a more inclusive government. However, challenges such as corruption and weak state institutions remain persistent.

Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo (2017–2022) prioritized centralized power and strong executive control, often clashing with federal states. His tenure saw delays in elections and accusations of authoritarianism. However, his administration attempted key reforms in financial transparency and anti-corruption measures, including securing debt relief agreements with international lenders.

Security and Counterterrorism

Security remains Somalia’s most pressing issue, primarily due to the persistent threat of Al-Shabaab.

• Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s approach has been centered on rebuilding national forces and fostering community-led resistance against Al-Shabaab. His second term has seen an intensified military campaign backed by clan militias and international allies.
• Farmajo’s tenure focused on strengthening Somalia’s security forces, with efforts to reduce dependency on AMISOM (now ATMIS). However, his government was criticized for politicizing security institutions, especially during election disputes.

Foreign Policy and Regional Relations

Somalia’s diplomatic stance under both leaders has been shaped by geopolitical rivalries in the Horn of Africa.

• Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has pursued a balanced foreign policy, seeking improved ties with neighbors like Kenya and Ethiopia while maintaining Somalia’s sovereignty.
• Farmajo’s administration leaned toward a strong alliance with Ethiopia and Eritrea, straining relations with Kenya and the UAE. His decision to cut diplomatic ties with Kenya over maritime disputes was controversial.

Economic Reforms and Public Finance Management

Both leaders made efforts to improve Somalia’s economic framework, though with differing priorities.

• Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo’s administration introduced key reforms in public finance management, particularly in increasing revenue collection, reducing reliance on donor aid, and improving fiscal discipline. His government achieved a major milestone in securing Somalia’s eligibility for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, allowing Somalia to access international financial support. However, Farmajo’s administration faced criticism for a lack of transparency in managing public funds, with allegations of misappropriation of resources, particularly in security and infrastructure projects.
• Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s second term has focused on continuing the debt relief process and expanding economic opportunities through regional trade and investment partnerships. However, his administration faces significant challenges, including accusations of corruption within key government sectors and a weak institutional framework for economic governance. Critics argue that despite international financial aid, tangible improvements in Somalia’s economic conditions remain slow.

Corruption Allegations and Accountability

Both administrations have been marred by allegations of corruption, although the nature and scale of the accusations differ.

• During Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s first term (2012–2017), his government faced major corruption scandals, including mismanagement of international donor funds and allegations of embezzlement within key ministries. The UN Monitoring Group on Somalia reported significant irregularities in how aid money was handled, which contributed to his electoral loss in 2017. His second term has been met with renewed scrutiny, particularly regarding government contracts and revenue-sharing agreements with foreign entities.
• Farmajo’s administration made efforts to improve financial transparency, but was accused of using state funds for political gain. Reports surfaced about funds being directed toward pro-government security forces and political allies, especially during the contentious election period. Additionally, opposition figures accused Farmajo’s government of lacking accountability in its financial dealings with foreign partners, including Qatar and Turkey.

National Unity and Federalism

Federalism remains a divisive issue in Somalia.

• Hassan Sheikh Mohamud promotes a conciliatory approach, engaging with regional states to foster cooperation.
• Farmajo sought a more centralized governance model, often clashing with federal states like Puntland and Jubaland, which accused him of authoritarian tendencies.

Conclusion

Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo have each shaped Somalia’s political, security, and economic landscape in different ways. Farmajo's tenure was marked by efforts to strengthen state institutions, improve financial transparency, and assert a more centralized governance model. However, his confrontational approach to federal states and election-related disputes led to political instability and accusations of authoritarianism. His administration’s focus on security sector reforms and economic restructuring, including securing debt relief, was seen as a positive step, though allegations of financial mismanagement persisted.

On the other hand, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has prioritized reconciliation and institutional rebuilding, aiming to mend relations with federal states and regional partners. His leadership style leans towards consensus-building, which has helped ease tensions but has also faced criticism for slow progress in governance and economic reforms. While his administration continues the debt relief process and expands military campaigns against Al-Shabaab, corruption concerns remain a significant challenge.

Ultimately, the success of Somalia’s leadership depends not just on individual presidents but on the ability to build sustainable institutions, enforce accountability, and foster long-term stability. As Somalia moves forward, addressing corruption, strengthening federal-state cooperation, and ensuring political inclusivity will be key in shaping the country's future.