By Goth Mohamed Goth
Last night, Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud took to the airwaves for a prime-time address directed squarely at the people and leaders of Somaliland. On the surface, the performance was polished: the president read smoothly from a teleprompter, dressed impeccably, and presented a coherent set of arguments. He appealed for dialogue, warned against secessionist projects, denounced external alliances with Ethiopia and Israel, and extended an offer of accommodation from Mogadishu.
Yet, for anyone in Hargeisa or with a stake in Somaliland’s future, the speech rang profoundly hollow. It was not merely unconvincing—it was a case study in how a message can be perfectly delivered yet entirely devoid of meaningful substance when divorced from political reality and moral authority. Here is why President Mohamud’s words failed to land, and why they underscore the very reasons Somaliland seeks its own path.
The Disconnect Between Word and Deed
The most fatal flaw of the speech was its staggering hypocrisy. President Mohamud positioned himself as a unifying figure, calling for Somaliland to return to the “mother country” in the name of unity and shared destiny. However, his own conduct over the past four years paints the picture of a leader who has systematically dismantled unity within Somalia itself.
While lecturing Somaliland on the perils of division, his administration has:
· Pushed through controversial constitutional amendments without national consensus.
· Ostracized and attacked Federal Member States, leading to Puntland’s effective estrangement and military incursions into Jubaland.
· Governed unilaterally, ignoring pleas from opposition groups and regional leaders for inclusive politics.
How can a leader who has fractured the existing Somali union present himself as the credible architect of a new, larger one? His appeal for Somaliland to engage in dialogue ignores the fact that he has refused meaningful dialogue with significant portions of Somalia proper. The call for unity loses all moral force when it comes from a president who has weaponized division for political gain.
The Misreading of Somaliland’s Reality
The president’s framing of the issue—as a “secessionist project” that requires talking to the “mother country”—fundamentally misrepresents Somaliland’s position. Somaliland does not see itself as a breakaway region seeking permission to leave; it views itself as a sovereign state reclaiming the independence it briefly held in 1960 before entering a disastrous and ultimately dissolved union.
By reducing Somaliland’s three decades of stable self-governance, democratic elections, and distinct national identity to a mere “secessionist project,” the speech insulted the intelligence and lived experience of Somalilanders. It offered no recognition of their achievements, no acknowledgment of the trauma inflicted during the civil war, and no substantive vision of what a new union would look like beyond vague “accommodation.”
The Tactical Focus on External Bogeymen
In lieu of a positive vision, the speech relied on a familiar tactic: attacking Somaliland’s external partnerships. By condemning engagements with Ethiopia and Israel, President Mohamud attempted to isolate Somaliland and frame its quest for recognition as a destabilizing act.
This approach is not only dismissive but strategically flawed. For Somaliland, seeking international partnerships and recognition is a logical, sovereign response to Mogadishu’s intransigence and the international community’s paralysis. Denouncing these efforts while offering nothing in return except a return to a dysfunctional and abusive union is not a persuasive argument. It is a threat disguised as an offer.
The Missing Substance: What Union? On What Terms?
Ultimately, the speech’s greatest failure was its lack of any substantive content regarding the proposed union. What does “accommodation” mean? What political structure is envisioned? How would Somaliland’s hard-won peace, governance systems, and economic autonomy be protected? The address was completely silent on these critical details.
Somalilanders are not opposed to dialogue on principle, but they demand it as equals, not as wayward children being summoned home. A convincing case for a future union would require:
1. Acknowledgment: Full recognition of Somaliland’s separate history, agency, and grievances.
2. A Concrete Proposal: A detailed, principled framework for a potential confederation or partnership, not an absorption.
3. Moral Authority: A demonstrated commitment to unity, democracy, and consensus-building within Somalia first.
President Mohamud, with 127 days left in a term marked by division and unilateralism, offered none of these. He offered only well-delivered words from a position of profound weakness.
Conclusion: The Credibility Deficit
In the end, the speech was a performance aimed more at an international audience than at Somalilanders. It sought to project a image of a reasonable leader extending an olive branch, hoping the world would not look too closely at the thorns on the branch or the fractured ground from which it was extended.
For Somalilanders, the message was clear: the same Mogadishu that cannot govern itself justly, manage its own federal relationships, or uphold the basic tenets of inclusive politics is now asking us to entrust it with our future. President Mohamud’s 91% spent term is the most powerful argument against his plea. Why would Somaliland trade its stability for a union with a capital that, under his watch, has become synonymous with division?
True persuasion requires credibility, consistency, and a compelling vision. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s speech, elegant in delivery but empty in substance, proved he possesses none of the three. The path to any meaningful conversation does not begin with a prime-time lecture, but with Mogadishu putting its own house in order and approaching Hargeisa not as a supplicant to a “mother country,” but as a respected neighbor and potential partner. Until that day, such speeches will continue to be heard in Somaliland for what they are: the echo of a failed idea.
