Addis Ababa-The Minister of Commerce and Tourism of the Republic of Somaliland, Mr. Abdirahman Hassan Nur, led a delegation to Addis Ababa this week, engaging in pivotal talks with Ethiopian officials to bolster cross-border trade and regional cooperation. Accompanied by Mr. Ridwan Abdurashid Sh. Mohamed, Director of the Minister’s Office, and Somaliland’s Trade Attaché in Ethiopia, Minister Nur met with Dr. Kassahun Gofe, Ethiopia’s Minister of Trade and Regional Integration, to advance shared economic priorities.
During the meeting, Minister Gofe emphasized Ethiopia’s commitment to deepening ties with Somaliland, stating, “Our historic relationship and geographic proximity create immense opportunities for mutual growth.” Key outcomes of the discussions include:
Enhanced Bilateral Trade. Both parties pledged to expand cooperation under a proposed Simplified Trade Regime (STR), designed to reduce bureaucratic hurdles, lower tariffs, and stimulate commerce for businesses and communities along shared borders.
Accelerated Agreements: The ministries agreed to prioritize finalizing pending trade and cross-border goods exchange pacts, with a focus on swift ratification to unlock new economic opportunities.
Joint Technical Committee: A bilateral task force will be formed to operationalize the STR and draft actionable strategies for resolving trade bottlenecks, improving customs efficiency, and fostering people-to-people ties.
Minister Nur highlighted the significance of the talks, remarking, “This collaboration marks a critical step toward economic integration, benefiting millions in both regions.”He further thanked Ethiopia for its hospitality and presented Minister Gofe with a symbolic gift reaffirming Somaliland’s commitment to partnership.
The U.S. military is backing off its usual talk of good governance and countering insurgencies’ underlying causes, instead leaning into a message that its fragile allies in Africa must be ready to stand more on their own.
At African Lion, its largest joint training exercise on the continent, that shift was clear: “We need to be able to get our partners to the level of independent operations,” Gen. Michael Langley said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“There needs to be some burden sharing,” Langley, the U.S. military’s top official in Africa, said on Friday, the final day of the exercise.
For four weeks, troops from more than 40 countries rehearsed how to confront threats by air, land, and sea. They flew drones, simulated close-quarters combat and launched satellite-guided rockets in the desert.
Maneuvers mirrored previous editions of African Lion, now in its 21st year. But mostly gone now is language that emphasizes ideas the U.S. once argued set it apart from Russia and China.
Messaging about the interwoven work of defense, diplomacy and development once formed the core of Washington’s security pitch. In their place now are calls for helping allies build capacity to manage their own security, which Langley said was a priority for President Donald Trump’s Defense Department.
“We have our set priorities now — protecting the homeland. And we’re also looking for other countries to contribute to some of these global instability areas,” he said, referencing U.S. support for Sudan.
The shift comes as the U.S. military makes moves to “build a leaner, more lethal force,” including potentially cutting military leadership positions in places like Africa, where America’s rivals continue to deepen their influence.
China has launched its own expansive training program for African militaries. Russian mercenaries are recalibrating and cementing their role as security partner of choice throughout North, West and Central Africa.
In an interview a year ago, Langley emphasized what U.S. military officials have long called a “whole of government approach” to countering insurgency. Even amid setbacks, he defended the U.S. approach and said force alone couldn’t stabilize weak states and protect U.S. interests against the risk of violence spilling out.
“I’ve always professed that AFRICOM is not just a military organization,” Langley said last year. He called good governance an “enduring solution to a number of layered threats — whether it be desertification, whether it be crop failure from changing environments, or whether it be from violent extremist organizations.”
The “whole of government approach” no longer occupies the same place at the center of U.S. messaging, though Langley said holistic efforts have worked in places like Ivory Coast, where development coupled with defense had reduced attacks by jihadi groups near its volatile northern border.
But such successes aren’t a pattern.
“I’ve seen progression and I’ve seen regression,” said Langley, who is scheduled to exit his post later this year.
The U.S. military’s new posture comes even though many African armies remain ill-equipped and insurgent groups expand.
“We see Africa as the epicenter for both al-Qaida and Islamic State,” a senior U.S. defense official said earlier this month, noting both groups had growing regional affiliates and the Islamic State group had shifted command and control to Africa. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly.
Africa has rarely ranked high on the Pentagon’s list of priorities, but the U.S. has still spent hundreds of millions of dollars on security assistance and has roughly 6,500 Africa Command personnel on the continent. In some regions, the U.S. faces direct competition from Russia and China. In others, regional affiliates of al-Qaida and the IS still require direct military action, Langley said.
The messaging shift from “whole of government” to more burden-sharing comes as fears grow that rising violence could spread beyond hotspots where insurgents have expanded influence and found vacuums in which they can consolidate power.
Parts of of both East and West Africa have emerged as epicenters of violence. In 2024, more than half of the world’s terrorism victims were killed across West Africa’s Sahel, a vast desert territory ruled by military juntas, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace. The group, which compiles yearly terrorism statistics, also found Somalia accounted for 6% of all terrorism-related deaths, making it the deadliest for terrorism in Africa outside the Sahel.
Since Trump took office, the U.S. military has escalated airstrikes in Somalia, targeting IS and al-Shabab operatives. But despite air support, Somalia’s army remains far from being able to maintain security on the ground, Langley acknowledged.
“The Somali National Army is trying to find their way,” Langley said, adding that they had regained some footing after years of setbacks. “There are some things they still need on the battlefield to be very effective.”
Similarly in West Africa, the notion that states could soon have the capacity to counter such threats is a distant prospect, said Beverly Ochieng, an analyst at Control Risks, a security consulting firm. Even before Western influence began to wane in the Sahel, needed military support was limited, threats remained active, and local militaries were left without the tools to confront them.
Western powers with a presence in the Sahel have gradually scaled back their engagement, either by choice or after being pushed out by increasingly hostile governments.
“Many of them do not have very strong air forces and are not able to monitor the movement of militants, especially in areas where roads are very difficult to traverse, the infrastructure is extremely poor,” Ochieng, who specializes in the Sahel and Great Power competition in Africa, said.
The Kenyan government has pulled the brakes on a planned inauguration of the Somaliland Liaison Office into a diplomatic office citing the country’s “unwavering recognition” of the federal government of Somalia.
In a statement released on Monday evening, the State Department for Foreign Affairs directed that the event scheduled for Tuesday, May 27, be abandoned as it had not received necessary approval.
“The Ministry further notes with concern that to the extent the event of 27th May 2025 has not been granted approval from this Ministry, its investiture of the status of a Diplomatic Office does not enjoy the imprimatur of the Republic of Kenya and cannot be allowed to proceed,” read the statement.
Just hours before the ban, Kenya reaffirmed her recognition of the federal government of Somalia amid speculation of a planned Nairobi visit of Somaliland President, Abdirahman Mohamed Abdillahi.
In the initial statement, Kenya said that it acknowledged President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s federal administration out of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, national unity and political independence of Somalia.
“Kenya unequivocally recognises the authority of the Federal Government in Mogadishu as the sole and legitimate body responsible for administering the affairs of Somalia, including those pertaining to its regions,” read the statement in part.
“The government of Kenya considers Somalia as a strategic ally in advancing these shared objectives, and reaffirms its commitment to fostering bilateral relations based on mutual trust, respect for sovereignty and recognition of territorial integrity.”
According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kenya will seek concurrence of the federal government of Somalia as it continues diplomatic engagements with both Jubaland and Somaliland.
The statement coincides with speculations of a visit of Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdillahi to, among other things, inaugurate a diplomatic mission in Nairobi.
Somalia is one of Kenya’s export destinations notably for the Miraa produce, and partners with Kenya on security including the fight against terrorism.
“As Somalia continues to advance its state building and institutional development agenda, the Government of Kenya stands ready to support these efforts through sustained dialogue, enhanced regional cooperation, and mutually beneficial partnerships,” stated Kenya.
Somalia is navigating domestic political crises including Somaliland’s disputed self-declaration of independence.
Additionally, the federal government has disputed the reelection of Jubaland President Ahmed Madobe.
By any legal standard, Republic of Somaliland is a fully sovereign state from June 26, 1960. It entered the international stage with formal treaties and an independent legal personality.
Yet within five days, this independent state was plunged into a chaotic and unratified “union” with Somalia Italiana. the center of it was Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal, a leader whose political gamesmanship and lack of resolve cost Republic of Somaliland its rightful continuity as a sovereign state. Far from being a strategic mastermind, Egal’s actions documented in British historical documents which exposes him as a leader who lacked clarity, firmness, and foresight.
The Bluff That Backfired: Mohamed’s Rushed Motion
One of the most damning insights comes from internal British correspondence dated early April 1960, just before Somaliland’s Legislative Council session. The British representative described Egal and his colleagues as playing a dangerous game:
“They rejected my repeated advice that the motion should be so framed as to allow some room for manoeuvre.”
Here, Egal is shown to have ignored British warnings. Rather than proposing a flexible resolution that allowed for proper negotiation and legal coordination with Somalia, he insisted on pushing a firm motion calling for union on July 1st, 1960 – just days after Somaliland’s independence.
But why the rush?
Egal came under intense pressure from his own political party and colleagues, including members of the Executive Council (equivalent to a cabinet) to change the motion he put forward and demand immediate union with Somalia on July 1, 1960.
“Had he been strong at the start he could probably have got away with it…”
This shows the UK believed Egal caved under political pressure rather than sticking with a more cautious plan.
What was Egal’s original plan?
A moderate motion likely meant:
Entering negotiations with Somalia after its independence.
What motion was actually adopted?
A request for immediate union with Somalia on July 1, just 5 days after Somaliland’s own independence.
But here’s the kicker:
The UK Governor calls this idea “an impossibility” and warns of serious consequences:
Somalia wouldn’t even be independent until July 1, so it couldn’t legally form a union before then.
• British Parliamentary approval and legal preparations would be required in London, which could not be done in five days.
• There were also diplomatic complications (especially with Ethiopia, because of the 1954 Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement).
Why is this so important legally?
This is direct evidence that:
1. No legal mechanism existed for Somaliland and Somalia to form a union by July 1, 1960.
2. The union was politically driven, not lawfully constructed.
3. Even British officials described the “immediate union” as impractical, rushed, and dangerous.
“Mohamed has shown increasing signs of weakness and lack of leadership…”
Mohamed refers to Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal, then Chief Minister of the Somaliland Protectorate. The British are openly stating that he was not acting as a strong, sovereign leader should especially on matters as critical as union. He was not safeguarding national interests and yielded to pressure rather than asserting a constitutional process.
“…since pressure was put on him last Saturday by some members of the Party, including at least one member of Executive Council…”
The push for immediate union was coming not from a legal framework, but from internal political party pressure. Even the Executive Council, which was supposed to uphold governance, joined the populist tide.
The pressure wasn’t from international treaties, legal agreements, it was from his own internal political faction.
“…that the moderate and sensible motion he was going to propose about union with Somalia should be modified to ask for immediate union on 1st July.”
This was sabotaged by internal pressure demanding a rushed and reckless approach: “immediate union on 1st July.”
“Had he been strong at the start he could probably have got away with it…”
If Egal had stood firm, he could have implemented a gradual and constitutional union, or perhaps protected Somaliland’s sovereignty altogether. But his failure to assert leadership let the extremists of his party hijack the agenda.
“…and Mohamed only found three supporters against it.”
Egal was virtually unskilled and couldn’t resist this illegal and rushed motion. Only three others supported his original approach.
“I have, of course, pointed out to the four Ministers that such a request is an impossibility…”
The British government flatly stated that union on July 1 was legally and constitutionally impossible. Somalia wouldn’t be independent until July 1 and you can’t unite with a state that doesn’t yet exist. The UK Parliament still had to debate relevant legislation. This is concrete proof that the so-called union was illegal – the timing made it unrealizable.
“…because the independent Government of Somalia will not exist until that date and legislation must be enacted in England…”
Britain was saying: “You cannot pass a motion to unite with a country that hasn’t even been born.” Moreover, even British legislation and legal frameworks for Somaliland’s independence had not been completed.
The “union” was based on a fantasy. No treaties were signed, no laws were passed, no ratification occurred.
“I have also emphasized ad nauseam the appalling disadvantages which would flow from so quick a change…”
Ad nauseum means repeatedly to the point of exhaustion. The British official had warned over and over again that rushing into union was deeply dangerous and irresponsible. “So quick a change” refers to the demand for immediate union with Somalia on July 1, 1960, just days after Somaliland’s independence on June 26, 1960.
This was not a strategic, planned transition it was a rash, political stunt. A legitimate union requires time, treaties, ratification, legal frameworks, and protections for both sides. None of that existed. The British saw this as a self-inflicted collapse of the newly born Somaliland state.
“…mentioning particularly the 1954 agreement with Ethiopia and the position with the Civil Service and the sudden rundown which takes place.”
This refers to the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of 1954, in which the UK (on behalf of Somaliland) negotiated grazing rights and administration of the Haud and Reserved Areas.
These were international legal agreements between Britain and Ethiopia on behalf of Somaliland and administered by the British.
• If Somaliland merged instantly with Somalia, the new “Somali Republic” would inherit none of these obligations unless a formal succession plan was in place. There was no treaty ensuring Somalia would honor Somaliland’s prior agreements.
So the 1954 agreement could be voided, harming Somaliland, and violating international law regarding treaty succession.
The British were also deeply concerned about the fate of civil servants both British and local working in the Protectorate’s administration. Many were under contractual obligations that required stable governance and legal protections. If union occurred instantly, their legal status, pay, and pensions would collapse overnight.
This issue later became the basis for the UK Somaliland Public Officers Agreement (POA) signed after independence &recognized Somaliland’s independent legal personality.
It also shows that no mechanisms were in place to merge administrative systems or protect civil servants during the so-called union.
“…and the sudden rundown which takes place.”
“Rundown” refers to a sudden collapse or withdrawal of existing governance structures and administrative systems. The UK expected a transition period where it would gradually transfer power. But with this reckless plan for immediate union, there would be no such transition. Somaliland would effectively be abandoned administratively with no plan in place. This would lead to chaos in courts, finance, education, and security. It confirms that Somaliland’s after independence was sabotaged, not preserved or united responsibly.
Legal and Political Conclusion:
This line proves that no legal safeguards, no treaty frameworks, and no transition mechanisms were in place for a legitimate union. Instead, the government of Somaliland committed constitutional suicide under political pressure, and the British clearly saw it coming.
> “…he and his colleagues in Executive Council have now got themselves into the position with their parties that makes it impossible for them to do otherwise than to introduce a motion requesting union on 1st July.”
Egal’s leadership had locked himself into a political position, he was no longer in control of the state. The language “makes it impossible” shows that he was forced by party dynamics, not legal reasoning. There was no free and sovereign decision to unite. It was coerced internally and politically thus not valid under international law.
“I am afraid that we must now accept that a motion proposing 1st July will be introduced. I think the Ministers themselves realize that they cannot obtain what they ask… and they are now attempting to put the responsibility for delay either on to the Somalia Government or to Her Majesty’s Government.”
This quote is revealing: Egal and his minsters knew full well that a July 1st union was legally and logistically impossible. Somalia wasn’t even independent yet, and there was no time to ratify a formal Act of Union on the day they become independent. The motion was a political gimmick, calculated bluff meant to force Somalia to reject the union, thereby relieving Somaliland of responsibility in the public eye.
But as the British warned, this plan was deeply flawed:
“They believe it is quite possible that the Somalia representatives will say that their request is impossible. If Abdullahi Issa should take this line, embarrassing pressures could be built up in Somalia…”
Abdullahi Issa (1922–24 March 1988) was the first Prime Minister of Somalia from 29 February 1956 to 1 July 1960
Egal gambled that Somalia’s Prime Minister, Abdullahi Issa, would reject the rushed date. That way.. he could blame Somalia for the failure and walk away without consequences. But if Somalia accepted, Egal would have to commit Somaliland to an unnegotiated union, without a constitution, without guarantees, and without legal ratification.
This, in fact, is exactly what happened.
British Officials Saw It Coming: Mohamed’s Lack of Strength
“This involves obvious dangers, not only for them but also for Somalia and for Her Majesty’s Government.”
The British saw the risks of what was happening. If Somalia said no, it could cause instability inside Somalia against Abdullahi Issa. But if the British said no, it could cause trouble in Somaliland, where people might blame the British for interfering. The British didn’t openly agree with the july 1st date yet, and their government stayed quiet. In fact, the British were so careful they warned against making any public promises about the July 1st union in their official messages.
“I do not feel that Her Majesty’s Government should show its hand about the date at this stage.”
This tells us clearly: Even the colonial power saw the union as premature, and Egal’s motion as unwise.
No Legal Framework, No Ratified Union, No National Interest
Egal’s fatal weakness was this: he tried to satisfy political sentiment about Somali unity, while ducking the responsibility of legally securing Somaliland’s future. Instead of standing firm and demanding a legal process and a negotiation between two sovereign states, he rushed to appease pan-Somalist excitement without protecting Somaliland’s sovereignty.
“They have told me that immediately after Legislative Council they will have informal talks with members of the Somalia Government…”
Informal talks after passing a motion for union? That is the very opposite of statecraft. Egal bypassed the formal treaty process, violating the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and allowed a so-called Act of Union (drafted unilaterally in Mogadishu) to define the terms of the union after the fact a move never ratified by Somaliland’s legislative body.
The UK openly admits that 1 July 1960 is impossible for union:
“…I cannot, however, implement Mr. Lennox-Boyd’s undertaking unless the independent Somalia Government is in being; it is therefore clearly impossible for union to take place on the 1st July.”
Then softened to:
“clearly impossible as a practical matter.”
This is crucial legal evidence that:
• The UK knew union was impossible on 1 July.
• They also knew Somalia was not yet a functioning state (and thus not a legal party to any union).
• The phrase “as a practical matter” is a legal meaning: union could not lawfully occur.
The Outcome:
The July 1 “union” was not a union at all it was an annexation disguised as merger. Somalia continued to use its own colonial flag, its own constitution (drafted in Mogadishu without Somaliland’s input), and its own administrative systems. There was no new flag, no negotiated merger of laws, and no legal continuity for Somaliland.
“Should the Somalia representatives raise no difficulties, we would have to face up to a strong demand for a date…”
This quote shows how Egal’s plan completely relied on Somalia rejecting the union date. Once Somalia didn’t object, Egal had no fallback, no bargaining chip, no legal cover.
“Persuade Mohamed and his colleagues of the unwisdom of introducing a motion which is unrealistic…”
This line proves that even Her Majesty’s Government viewed Mohamed’s motion for union as premature and unrealistic. They recognized legal, procedural, and political gaps – but chose not to stop him outright.
Why Egal pushed ahead anyway?
Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal was politically trapped. He feared being blamed by Somaliland nationalists if he didn’t deliver a quick union (which was falsely sold as pan-Somali unity), and by Somalia if he delayed. He pushed for the motion not because it was legally sound, but because it was politically expedient a way to absolve himself of responsibility by “delivering union” fast and leaving the legal mess to someone else.
British awareness:
The British clearly understood the consequences: if Egal pushed this motion forward, it would backfire on everyone, him, Somalia, and Britain itself. They were warning him not out of concern for Somaliland’s sovereignty, but to avoid political fallout.
“…and may prove embarrassing to them [Mohamed], the Government of Somalia, and Her Majesty’s Government.not yet too late… persuade him that a statesmanlike intention [is better]”
The British were trying to talk Egal down, encouraging him to act “statesmanlike” meaning, take a long-term, careful view rather than rushing into a motion that would lack legitimacy. The fact that they were still trying to stop him at this late date shows how politically desperate Egal had become.
This line underscores that the union was not being driven by legality or statecraft, but by fear, image, and colonial fatigue.
“…there are many practical problems including those which would arise from the termination of the 1954 Agreement…”
If Britain had transferred obligations to Somalia without a ratified union, they’d be breaching international law. Britain’s concern here was that Egal’s motion, if passed and treated as binding, would create a legal vacuum and potentially make Britain liable for damages or international claims.
Britain resolved this potential legal trap by choosing the only course that would protect its own international obligations and prevent legal exposure, On June 26, 1960. Britain granted full sovereignty to Somaliland, as a legally independent state.
The “union” was not ready there was no ratified treaty, no agreed constitution, no binding legal mechanism.
2. Britain had treaty obligations to Somaliland (e.g., the 1954 Public Officers Agreement) that couldn’t just be “inherited” by a third party unless a legitimate successor state existed.
3. Transferring sovereignty to Somalia (instead of to Somaliland itself) without a ratified agreement would have been a direct violation of international law.
So what did Britain do?
Instead of transferring Somaliland directly into a union (which would make them liable), Britain granted Somaliland full independence first, making it a:
• Separate, de jure sovereign entity
• Equal to Somalia
• Free to negotiate a union – or not – on its own terms
This legal independence absolved Britain of any further responsibility or liability. From that point on, any union would have to be conducted as a bilateral agreement between two sovereign states.
British Warnings: The Impossible July 1 Union
British officials were clear and consistent in their documents leading up to July 1, 1960. The Governor of Somaliland protectorate at the time repeatedly communicated the practical and legal impossibility of executing a union by the designated date. Among the most telling excerpts:
• “It was quite impossible to arrange a union by 1st July, 1960, negotiations would necessarily be prolonged…”
• “The independent Government of Somalia will only be established on that day [July 1], so formal agreement could not be reached beforehand.”
• “There would be great difficulties to overcome if union were to be effected on 1st July, given that the contemplated constitutional changes would require legislation in both countries.”
The Retroactive “Fix”: The Italian-Somalian Act of Union
Faced with the legal vacuum and political pressure, the solution came in the form of a retroactive Act of Union drafted and signed only by Somalian representatives months after July 1. This document was an attempt to legitimize the union after it had already been proclaimed and to cover up the lack of Somaliland’s participation.
• No Somaliland signatories appear on the Act of Union.
• The document was effectively imposed on Somaliland without its consent.
• It served as a political tool to justify Somalia’s claim to Somaliland’s territory and sovereignty.
This retroactive “fix” was facilitated by the Italian administration in failed Somalia and Somalian political actors eager to solidify the union narrative. However, it stands as a legal and historical anomaly, a unilateral act that Somaliland has continuously rejected.
Conclusion: A Weak Leader at a Pivotal Moment
Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal may have had noble intentions, but his actions during the 1960 union crisis paint the picture of a leader who lacked the strength to defend the legal identity of his people. He gambled with Somaliland’s sovereignty, tried to shift responsibility through political trickery, and ultimately facilitated the annexation of a sovereign state into a fragile, artificial union.
His behavior was not bold statecraft, it was a failure to lead.
As history has shown, that rushed and unratified “union” collapsed in 1991, when Somaliland finally reasserted and restored its sovereignty back. But the damage Mohamed’s weakness inflicted in 1960 remains. His legacy is not of unity, but of surrender a moment when legal sovereignty was traded for a political illusion, and Somaliland paid the price.
This analysis adds critical legal and historical weight to the core thesis:
There was no legal union between Somaliland and Somalia on 1 July 1960.
• The UK publicly and privately acknowledged this.
• Even internal motions pushing for union were semantic, symbolic, and unofficial.
• No treaty, no joint ratification, and no simultaneous independence and union.
• British officials were fully aware that this was impractical, premature, and lacked legal foundation
In a significant boost to regional development, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Somaliland have made substantial progress on key infrastructure projects, including the expansion of Berbera Port, the development of the Berbera Corridor, and enhancements to the local airport. These initiatives are part of a broader strategic partnership aimed at transforming Somaliland into a major trade hub in East Africa.
Ambassador Bashe Omar, Somaliland’s former envoy to the UAE, highlighted the transformative impact of these projects, stating, “The UAE-Somaliland partnership is delivering real progress. Berbera Port, the Corridor, and the Airport are just the beginning of a new era of development and connectivity for Somaliland and the broader region.” His remarks underscore the collaborative efforts and the vision behind these infrastructure developments.
The Berbera Port, a critical component of this partnership, has seen increased capacity and improved logistics facilities, thanks to investments from UAE-based DP World and support from British International Investment. The port’s expansion is expected to facilitate trade equivalent to nearly 27% of Somaliland’s GDP by 2035, supporting over 53,000 jobs and enhancing access to vital goods for millions in the region.
UK MP Gavin Williamson, during a recent visit, praised the developments, stating, “We see the future, we see its potential, and we recognize that it will lead the whole of East Africa.” His comments reflect growing international recognition of Somaliland’s strategic importance and the UAE’s role in catalyzing this growth.
The Berbera Corridor, a complementary project, aims to improve connectivity between the port and inland areas, further boosting trade and economic activity. Simultaneously, upgrades to the airport are enhancing Somaliland’s capacity to handle international flights, facilitating both commercial and humanitarian operations.
Ambassador Omar also emphasized the broader implications of these projects, noting, “Actions speak louder than accusations. Despite challenges, the tangible progress in infrastructure is a testament to our commitment and the potential for regional stability and economic growth.” His words highlight the resilience of the partnership amidst geopolitical tensions, particularly with neighbors.
As these projects continue to unfold, they promise to deliver long-term benefits, including job creation, improved access to essential goods, and enhanced regional stability. The partnership’s success is a testament to the power of strategic collaboration in driving sustainable development in challenging environments.
The President of the Republic of Somaliland, His Excellency Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi (Irro), today began a multi-day official working visit to Nairobi, the capital of Kenya.
Accompanying the President are the Minister of Presidential Affairs, the Minister of Planning and National Development, the Minister of Communications and Technology, the Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency, and the Chief of Staff of the Presidential Office. He is also joined by his Senior Economic Advisor and the Special Envoy of the President of Somaliland .
During their stay in Nairobi, President Cirro and his delegation will hold high-level talks with the Kenyan government, led by President William Ruto, to address matters of strategic importance to Somaliland.
Additionally, the President will engage in bilateral discussions with representatives of international organizations and foreign embassies based in Nairobi.
A highlight of the visit will be the groundbreaking ceremony for a state-of-the-art complex that will serve as the new Embassy of the Republic of Somaliland in Kenya.
Henry Kissinger, the architect of détente and author of Diplomacy, emphasized that foreign policy must be anchored in realism. He famously wrote, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”
In The Prince, Machiavelli argued that leaders must be both lion and fox strong and shrewd. As global dynamics shift rapidly, particularly in the Middle East, it is essential to analyze recent developments that have implications for Somaliland’s diplomatic strategy. These include U.S.
President Donald Trump’s trip to the Gulf region, his recalibrated approach to Middle Eastern diplomacy, and the recent activities of Somaliland’s Foreign Minister, H.E. Abdirahman Dahir Adam, who is currently in Washington to meet with members of the Senate and House of Representatives.
In a revealing interview with The National, a news outlet owned by the Abu Dhabi government, former U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan shared insights into President Trump’s diplomatic approach. According to Sullivan, Trump stated, “I am not entering the Middle East through Israel but rather through the Gulf countries.” Trump emphasized that he views Gulf leaders as genuine partners in peace and expressed skepticism about Israel’s role in advancing regional stability.
This statement marked a significant departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy and signaled a broader transformation in how America engages with the region. For Somaliland, this evolving doctrine presents a valuable opportunity. Foreign policy is no longer guided solely by the UN Charter or African Union consensus. Instead, national interest, geo-politics, geo-economy, and geo-strategy now shape international relations. This shift creates space for emerging states to engage directly and persuasively with U.S. decision makers.
This is precisely what H.E. Abdirahman Dahir Adam has begun to do. The new Foreign Minister launched a high-level diplomatic mission to Washington, D.C., aimed at deepening Somaliland’s engagement with influential U.S. lawmakers. His outreach coincided with broader shifts in American Middle East policy and ongoing discussions about alternative frameworks for regional cooperation and security.
During his visit, Minister Abdirahman met with several key congressional figures, including:
• Rep. Ronny Jackson
• Rep. John Moolenaar
• Rep. Scott Perry, a longtime advocate for Somaliland and sponsor of the Republic of
Somaliland Recognition Act
• Senator Ted Cruz, a high-profile lawmaker and former presidential candidate
• Rep. Tim Burchett, Vice Chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa
These meetings are not only timely but also strategically important. They take place as the U.S. reevaluates its approach to the Middle East, favoring partnerships with Gulf states over more traditional allies such as Israel. Trump’s statement to Israeli leaders, indicating a preference for working with the Gulf countries, and his administration’s recognition of Syria’s transitional government reflect a willingness to break from conventional diplomatic pathways.
From Somaliland’s perspective, this changing global context presents a critical opportunity to redefine its role in U.S. regional strategy. While Somalia continues to grapple with insecurity, terrorism, and institutional collapse despite receiving billions in international aid, Somaliland remains a stable, democratic, and peaceful country. The contrast is stark: Mogadishu is under siege by Al Shabaab, while Hargeisa serves as a center of governance and order.
This is an opportunity for the administration of President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdillahi, known as
“Ciro,” to seize. Stronger and more consistent engagement with the U.S. government is essential.
One of the previous key weaknesses in Somaliland’s diplomacy in recent years has been the lack of continuity in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. During former President Muse Bihi and President Silaanyo terms, multiple individuals held the Foreign Minister position, which sometimes disrupted how the international community communicated with the foreign office. It takes time for countries to engage with a new minister, especially since Somaliland does not have a permanent secretary in the foreign office. This inconsistency hindered the ability to build long term relationships and deliver sustained results. Like neighboring Djibouti, Somaliland needs a dedicated Foreign Minister who serves a full term to institutionalize diplomatic momentum and strengthen the ministry’s capacity.
Recognition of Somaliland is no longer an abstract dream; it is a strategic necessity grounded in historical legitimacy, regional stability, and practical security benefits. Minister Abdirahman Dahir Adam, known for his charm, prudence, and sense of humor, qualities vital in diplomacy, has already begun laying the foundation for a more effective and enduring relationship with American policymakers.
In a world where agility and timing are everything, Somaliland is well positioned to make meaningful progress in its quest for international recognition provided it continues to engage with clarity, strategy, and consistency in the world’s most influential capitals. It is also important for the foreign minister to travel and engage actively with the global community.
Strategic Insights from the Masters of Statecraft Henry Kissinger: Diplomacy Rooted in National Interest Henry Kissinger, the architect of détente and author of Diplomacy, emphasized that foreign policy
must be anchored in realism. He famously wrote, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”
For Somaliland, this means recognition will not come by appealing solely to sympathy or history. It must convince the world, especially the United States, Gulf powers, India, Japan, and the African Union, that its stability, democratic governance, and geographic position serve their core interests in trade, counterterrorism, and maritime security. Somaliland must present itself as a vital node in the Red Sea corridor and an indispensable ally for those seeking regional balance.
As we all know, not a single piracy incident has happened in the waters off Somaliland, unlike Somalia, where the International Maritime Organization records piracy incidents every month and sometimes every week.
Niccolò Machiavelli: Power, Image, and Strategic Boldness
In The Prince, Machiavelli argued that leaders must be both lion and fox strong and shrewd. For Somaliland, perception is as powerful as reality. The world must see it not as a breakaway region of Somalia, but as a functioning democracy with a proven record of governance and peace. It was a former British protectorate that gained independence in June 1960, formed an unratified union with Somalia, and then reclaimed its independence in 1991.
Machiavelli also taught that opportunity must be seized with courage. Somaliland must take the Initiative in shaping its international image. It should host conferences, engage think tanks, launch digital diplomacy, and spotlight its success stories. Strategic communication is essential to shift international attitude.
Otto von Bismarck was the first Chancellor of the German Empire from 1871 to 1890. He is famous for his skillful use of diplomacy and realpolitik (practical politics): Bismarck unified Germany through patience, alliances, and mastery of realpolitik. He famously said, “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best.”
Somaliland must adopt a similar mindset. Recognition will likely come in stages. Gaining support from a few key states such as Lativia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Israel, Taiwan, or the United Arab Emirates could trigger a domino effect. Bilateral recognition by smaller or mid-sized powers can create momentum that larger institutions may eventually follow.
The legendary British foreign secretary once said, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
Somaliland must avoid aligning too rigidly with any single power. Instead, it should build flexible and dynamic partnerships based on mutual benefit. Its foreign policy should be guided by national interest, not by ideology or historical grievance. Somaliland must remain open to cooperation with diverse players from Gulf countries and the United States to India, Japan, and the African countries Strengthening Somaliland’s Diplomatic Machinery to succeed internationally, Somaliland must build institutional strength at home. One of the main
weaknesses in recent years has been the frequent reshuffles in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
During the tenures of Presidents Muse Bihi and Silaanyo, several foreign ministers were appointed, undermining continuity and strategic planning. Somaliland must professionalize its Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This requires:
• Retaining the current foreign minister for a full term
• Building a skilled diplomatic corps trained in international law, negotiation, and media
relations
• Ensuring consistent messaging across all levels of government
• Establishing long term bilateral task forces with key partner countries.
A state that aspires to recognition must act like a recognized state in every way.
Recognition is Achieved Through Strategy, Not Sentiment Somaliland’s recognition is no longer an abstract dream. It is a plausible outcome, if pursued with strategic clarity, diplomatic consistency, and historical wisdom.
Minister Abdirahman Dahir Adam’s diplomatic outreach in Washington represents a promising new direction. His intellect and measured style offer the potential for deeper engagement with global powers. However, Somaliland must go further. It must think like Kissinger, act with the cunning of Machiavelli, maneuver with the patience of Bismarck, and build partnerships in the spirit of Palmerston.
In a world where perception, timing, and national interest guide global affairs, Somaliland must rise to the occasion. The moment is now.
The Republic of Somaliland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, H.E. Abdirahman Dahir Adan, led a high-level delegation to Washington, D.C., this week, where they held strategic consultations with senior U.S. government officials, lawmakers, and policy experts. The visit focused on advancing shared priorities under the new administrations of President H.E. Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi and President Donald J. Trump, with particular emphasis on strengthening bilateral cooperation in regional security, democratic governance, and international engagement.
The delegation met with officials from key U.S. agencies, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and members of Congress, including Senator Ted Cruz and Representatives Tim Burchett, Tom Tiffany, Pat Harrigan, Scott Perry, Ronny Jackson, and John Moolenaar. The delegation also participated in a closed-door roundtable hosted by the Hudson Institute, attended by former U.S. officials, diplomats, and Africa policy experts.
In addition, the delegation joined the Somaliland diaspora in Washington to commemorate the 18 May National Day. The event celebrated Somaliland’s democratic progress and national resilience, including the peaceful transfer of power in 2024. Minister Adan emphasised Somaliland’s enduring commitment to peace, democracy, and responsible international cooperation, reinforcing the country’s distinct identity and achievements as a stable and self-governing democracy in the Horn of Africa.
The visit marked a strategic milestone in Somaliland–U.S. relations, reflecting the United States’ growing acknowledgement of Somaliland as a reliable and strategic partner. The momentum generated through these engagements has laid a solid foundation for future cooperation, grounded in shared values, mutual respect, and long-term interests. Somaliland remains committed to building a transformative partnership with the United States that contributes to regional stability and democratic advancement.
In solidarity with his people he brave heavy downpour and declines umbrella
By M.A. Egge
The President of the Republic of Somaliland jetted back into the country on Friday evening from a three day visit to the neighbouring country of Djibouti, in a visit that rekindled regional cooperation and stability.
Upon arrival at Egal International Airport to a heavy downpour, the Head of State braved the rains, walking into it as he disembarked the plane, hence to the surprise of dignitaries and the servicemen who mounted the reception guard of honour, refused the solace of an umbrella extended to him in a rare show of solidarity, depicting epitome of humbleness.
According to the Minister of Information, Culture and National Guidance Hon. Ahmed-yasin Sh Ali Ayaanle who was part of the Presidential entourage, the visit was one that open a new page in the bilateral relations with Djibouti.
It had thawed in the last year of the past administration.
The minister noted that focus on the visit rekindles and solidifies bilateral relations crucial to the development of the region such as security, commercial social and associated affairs.
As he briefed the press at the Presidency, he reminded the nation that the two countries shared not only religion, culture and language, but almost all families in both nations had their kin or extended families across both borders.
He noted that an indispensable highway to connect the countries is not only in the offing but is to be constructed, courtesy of the Africa Development Bank.
This was the first visit by President Abdirahman Irro since taking over the helm of the country’s leadership six months ago, hence what stark out quite distinctly different from his predecessors’ visits is the fact that he was joined by foreign ambassadors of partner nations for breakfast, a meeting that was engaging an eventful.
The President lauded the bilateral relations with Ethiopia, UK and the French as he had breakfast with their Djibouti based ambassadors. They talked of ways and means of strengthening diplomatic and economic relations.
Similarly, the President addressed the Somaliland diaspora in Djibouti in a heartwarming speech.
Somaliland and Djibouti hold high stakes in the Red Sea region, with the countries positioned at a most strategic point.
In a changing geo-political economical world, stability is the main core of development and progress hence a core foundation and focus for H.E. Abdirahman Irro’s administration.
In a powerful address to the Somaliland diaspora in Djibouti, Somaliland’s Minister of Information, Culture, and Awareness, Hon. Ahmed Yassin Sheikh Ali Ayanle, emphasized the importance of unity and collaboration between Somaliland and Djibouti. Speaking as the government’s spokesperson, the Minister underscored President Abdirahman Irro commitment to fostering peace and societal harmony as the cornerstone of his administration’s policy.
Highlighting the deep and unbreakable bond between Somaliland and Djibouti, Minister Ayanle described the two nations as inseparable brothers, bound by shared history and mutual interests. “The relationship between Somaliland and Djibouti is one that cannot be severed,” he stated, noting the strong ties that continue to define their partnership.
The Minister elaborated on President Irro’s vision, which focuses on reinforcing shared values and resolving differences through skillful diplomacy. “The President’s policy is to strengthen what unites us. Differences of opinion are natural, but managing them with wisdom and professionalism is at the heart of his leadership,” Ayanle remarked.
He further expressed optimism about the future of Somaliland-Djibouti relations, emphasizing the shared commitment of both nations’ leaders to reduce conflict and enhance cooperation. “We hope for a future where disputes are minimized, and collaboration thrives. The forward-thinking leadership of both Presidents ensures that our nations remain united and inseparable,” he said, adding, “With Allah’s guidance, we will succeed in this shared endeavor.”
The Minister’s remarks come at a time when both nations are working to deepen their partnership, focusing on regional stability and mutual prosperity. The Somaliland government continues to prioritize diplomatic efforts to strengthen ties with its neighbors, with Djibouti remaining a key ally in the Horn of Africa.
Legal and Political Conclusion:
