Often overshadowed by Reagan’s legacy, Carter’s covert support for Afghan insurgents set the stage for the Soviet Union’s eventual withdrawal and a hardline U.S. foreign policy.

President Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy legacy often takes a backseat to that of his successor, Ronald Reagan. However, Carter’s decision to provide covert aid to Afghan insurgents before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan marked a pivotal moment in Cold War history. This move demonstrated Carter’s willingness to confront Soviet aggression while navigating a delicate balance between détente and escalating tensions.

In July 1979, six months before the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Carter signed a secret directive authorizing the CIA to provide nonlethal aid to Afghan rebels opposing the Soviet-backed communist regime. This aid included cash, medical supplies, and communication equipment delivered through Pakistan’s intelligence services.

Although modest, the program established critical links between the U.S., Afghan mujahideen, and regional allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It reassured these nations of America’s resolve in countering Soviet influence in the region and set the foundation for the larger-scale covert operations that would follow under the Reagan administration.

A controversial aspect of Carter’s policy is the so-called “Afghan trap” thesis, based on comments by National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. He later suggested that the U.S. knowingly baited the Soviets into a costly and protracted conflict in Afghanistan, likening it to America’s quagmire in Vietnam.

However, scholars like Conor Tobin challenge this interpretation, arguing that Carter’s administration acted defensively rather than provocatively. Declassified documents suggest the aid program aimed to counter Soviet influence rather than trigger a full-scale invasion.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 marked a turning point in Carter’s foreign policy. In response, Carter announced the “Carter Doctrine” during his 1980 State of the Union address, declaring that the U.S. would use “any means necessary” to protect its interests in the Persian Gulf.

Carter quickly escalated support for the mujahideen, authorizing lethal aid and military training. This shift not only intensified the Afghan resistance but also demonstrated a harder stance against Soviet aggression, laying the groundwork for the Reagan administration’s expanded support.

Carter’s Afghan policy has often been overshadowed by critiques of his broader foreign policy approach, which was seen as overly idealistic. However, historians like Scott Kaufman argue that Carter’s willingness to confront the Soviet Union through covert operations and the Carter Doctrine reflected a pragmatic and evolving strategy.

While Reagan’s administration dramatically increased funding for the Afghan resistance, Carter’s policies set the stage for the eventual Soviet withdrawal and contributed to the broader Cold War strategy that hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union.

President Jimmy Carter’s covert aid to Afghan insurgents redefined his foreign policy legacy, showcasing a nuanced balance of pragmatism and idealism. Though often overlooked, his decisions in Afghanistan marked a decisive moment in U.S.-Soviet relations, influencing the trajectory of the Cold War and reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

How a Somali strongman became the shadowy linchpin of IS operations, fueling its global network and advancing its strategic shift toward Africa.

Abdul Qadir Mumin, the Somalian-born leader of the Islamic State (IS) faction in Puntland, Somalia, has quietly risen to prominence as a critical figure in the group’s operations. Despite lacking the official title of “caliph,” Mumin’s influence extends beyond his immediate territory, positioning him as a potential strongman for IS’s global operations.

Who Is Abdul Qadir Mumin?

Born in Puntland, Mumin spent years in Sweden and the United Kingdom, where he gained notoriety as a radical preacher in London and Leicester. After returning to Somalia in the 2010s, he initially aligned with al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliate, before defecting to IS in 2015. His decision marked a significant ideological shift and laid the foundation for IS’s foothold in the Horn of Africa.

Mumin’s leadership is characterized by his ability to attract fighters, fund operations, and coordinate activities across Africa. Despite controlling a relatively small territory, his network extends to Mozambique, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), making him a key financier and strategist for IS-affiliated groups.

Financier of Jihad

Mumin’s role as a financier cannot be overstated. Analysts believe he channels funds to IS affiliates in Congo, Mozambique, and Yemen, sustaining their operations through clandestine networks. His financial influence extends to the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) in the DRC, bolstering their capabilities with weapons, training, and ideological support.

The exact routes and volumes of these transactions remain shrouded in secrecy, but their impact is evident. Mumin’s ability to fund operations has turned the ADF and other groups into formidable regional threats, capable of carrying out sophisticated attacks and disrupting stability across multiple countries.

Strategic Shift Toward Africa

Mumin’s ascension reflects IS’s broader strategic pivot toward Africa. With the collapse of the caliphate in Iraq and Syria, Africa has emerged as a critical theater for IS operations. Groups like ISWAP (West Africa Province) and IS-K (Khorasan Province) are expanding their reach, but Mumin’s leadership highlights the increasing centrality of Africa in IS’s global strategy.

This shift is mirrored in the propaganda consumed by IS sympathizers. Analysts estimate that 90% of jihadist content consumed in Europe now originates from Africa, underscoring the continent’s growing significance in the global jihadist narrative.

Challenges to Traditional Leadership Structures

Mumin’s rise challenges traditional IS leadership norms, which prioritize Arab lineage and ties to the Prophet Muhammad. While Mumin’s Somali heritage may disqualify him from official leadership in some ideological circles, his operational success and longevity have solidified his position within the organization.

Despite lacking the title of “caliph,” Mumin wields significant influence, particularly as IS shifts its focus to regions where his expertise and connections offer strategic advantages.

Conclusion

Abdul Qadir Mumin’s emergence as a pivotal figure in IS operations underscores the group’s adaptability and its strategic shift toward Africa. His financial acumen, operational reach, and ability to navigate the complex landscape of African jihadism make him a formidable player in the global terrorism landscape. As IS continues to evolve, Mumin’s role will likely remain central, posing significant challenges for counterterrorism efforts worldwide.

As Trudeau reportedly prepares to step down, the Liberal Party faces critical decisions on leadership and strategy amid Conservative dominance in polls.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is expected to announce his resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, marking a significant political turning point as the country prepares for a crucial election year. Trudeau, who has led the Liberals since 2013, faces dwindling party support and dismal public approval, according to multiple reports, including from The Globe and Mail.

Why Now?

Trudeau’s resignation would come amidst growing unrest within his party, with sources indicating that nearly two-thirds of Liberal MPs have sought his departure. A December 31, 2024, Nanos Research poll underscores the urgency: the opposition Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre, hold a commanding 26-point lead with 46.6% support, potentially paving the way for a landslide victory in October’s elections.

Trudeau reportedly aims to announce his decision before a Wednesday Liberal caucus meeting to avoid the perception of being forced out by his MPs. While it remains unclear if he will immediately vacate the prime minister’s office, speculation suggests he may stay on until a new leader is selected.

What’s Next for the Liberal Party?

If Trudeau resigns, the Liberal Party will need to act quickly. The party has two primary options:

Appoint an Interim Leader: A temporary leader would be chosen by the national caucus to guide the party through the immediate transition.

Hold a Leadership Contest: This would involve proroguing Parliament, allowing time for a leadership election.

Trudeau has reportedly discussed the possibility of Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc stepping in as interim leader. However, LeBlanc’s rumored interest in running for the permanent position complicates his eligibility for the temporary role.

Potential Successors

Chrystia Freeland, the former Deputy Prime Minister, has emerged as a strong contender. Recent polling by the Angus Reid Institute suggests Freeland would pose the greatest challenge to the Conservatives. Other MPs, including Alberta’s George Chahal, have advocated for appointing an interim leader to stabilize the party and prepare for elections.

Trudeau’s resignation comes at a critical juncture. The Liberals face mounting pressure to recover from their significant polling deficit as the October elections loom. At the same time, Trudeau’s departure could invigorate the party with fresh leadership, potentially reshaping its trajectory.

However, with Poilievre’s Conservatives enjoying historic levels of support, the path forward is fraught with challenges. Trudeau’s decision, while aimed at avoiding a caucus revolt, underscores the Liberal Party’s internal struggles and the growing demand for strategic change.

The resignation of Justin Trudeau, a leader who revitalized the Liberal Party a decade ago, marks the end of an era in Canadian politics. As the party navigates this transition, its next steps will determine whether it can mount a credible challenge to the Conservatives in what could be one of the most pivotal elections in recent Canadian history.

Hajj costs for Somali pilgrims rise to $4,604, significantly higher than regional neighbors, sparking debates over transparency and affordability.

The Somali Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs has announced a 2025 Hajj pilgrimage cost of $4,604 per pilgrim, marking a modest increase from last year. While the Ministry attributes the hike to inflation and rising demand for travel and accommodation in Saudi Arabia, the decision has reignited longstanding concerns over affordability and regional disparities.

For many Somali pilgrims, the cost remains prohibitively high compared to neighboring countries. Hajj packages in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti range from $1,600 to $2,500—less than half of what Somalis pay. This disparity has fueled frustration among citizens and prompted criticism from Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre, who has accused agencies of inflating prices unnecessarily.

Historical Context and Current Challenges

Somali pilgrims have consistently faced some of the highest Hajj costs in the region. In 2022, prices peaked between $5,500 and $6,000, before a slight reduction in 2024 to $4,434. While the Somali Ministry of Endowments has introduced measures to address service quality and transparency, allegations of mismanagement and favoritism persist.

In 2023, the religious group Ahlu Sunna Waljama’a (ASWJ) severed ties with the Ministry, accusing it of bias in awarding contracts for Hajj service providers. Similar controversies have led to public distrust, even as a Somali-Saudi expert committee was established to ensure compliance with health, safety, and logistical standards.

Economic Factors Behind Rising Costs

The Ministry attributes the increased fees to global inflation and higher demand for lodging and transportation during Hajj season. Officials also highlight the inclusion of all essential expenses in the fee, including transportation, accommodations, and logistical arrangements. Yet, these explanations offer little solace to Somali families struggling to save for this religious obligation.

Regional Disparities and Calls for Reform

The stark price gap with neighboring countries has become a focal point of public discontent. While regional governments and private agencies negotiate competitive rates for their citizens, Somalia’s prices remain disproportionately high. Critics argue that inefficiencies, mismanagement, and limited competition among service providers are to blame.

To address these issues, the Hajj committee has promised increased oversight and penalties for companies overcharging pilgrims or failing to meet service standards. Daallo Airlines, which secured the 2024 contract for transporting Somali pilgrims, is among the entities under scrutiny as the Ministry seeks to improve transparency.

The Broader Significance

Hajj, one of the five pillars of Islam, is a sacred obligation for all financially and physically capable Muslims. For Somali pilgrims, fulfilling this duty often requires years of financial sacrifice. The persistent disparities in costs and allegations of mismanagement underscore the need for systemic reforms to ensure affordability and equity.

As the first group of pilgrims prepares to depart for Saudi Arabia in mid-May, the Somali government faces mounting pressure to address these challenges. The experience of Somali pilgrims in 2025 will serve as a litmus test for the Ministry’s ability to implement meaningful change and rebuild public trust.

The newly brokered Ankara Declaration by Turkey marks a significant turning point in the Horn of Africa, resolving a year-long dispute between Ethiopia and Somalia over Red Sea access. This agreement, which cancels a prior deal between Ethiopia and Somaliland, signals a strategic recalibration with profound implications for Ethiopia, Somalia, and Somaliland.

Ethiopia Gains Red Sea Access

For Ethiopia, the deal is a diplomatic victory, granting it coveted access to the Red Sea without directly challenging Somalia’s territorial integrity. Landlocked since Eritrea’s secession in 1993, Ethiopia’s reliance on Djibouti’s ports has been both costly and strategically limiting. The Ankara Declaration diversifies its access points, enhancing its regional influence while reducing logistical dependencies.

However, the implementation will demand significant investments in infrastructure, such as transport corridors and port facilities, to fully utilize this access. Ethiopia’s ability to capitalize on this opportunity will shape its economic trajectory and regional standing.

Somalia Preserves Sovereignty

Somalia emerges from the negotiation with its sovereignty intact, a critical outcome in a region fraught with separatist aspirations. By blocking Ethiopia’s earlier deal with Somaliland, Somalia reasserts its claim over the breakaway region while maintaining territorial integrity—a cornerstone of its post-civil war national identity.

Yet, this victory is not without challenges. The lingering question of Somaliland’s status remains a potential flashpoint. The Somali government must balance this diplomatic success with domestic efforts to address grievances in Somaliland and maintain stability within its borders.

Somaliland Marginalized

The most immediate casualty of the Ankara Declaration is Somaliland. The unrecognized state had pinned its hopes on the January 2024 MOU with Ethiopia, which offered Red Sea access in exchange for recognition of Somaliland’s independence. Turkey’s mediation has now nullified that agreement, sidelining Somaliland in regional geopolitics.

This development underscores the persistent hurdles faced by Somaliland in its quest for international recognition. Despite its functional government and stability compared to Somalia, Somaliland’s lack of diplomatic leverage and support from major powers continues to stymie its aspirations. Leaders in Hargeisa may now seek alternative strategies, such as forging bilateral ties with non-regional actors or intensifying efforts to court support from influential nations like the United States or the United Kingdom.

Turkey’s Ascendant Role

The Ankara Declaration solidifies Turkey’s growing role as a key mediator and influencer in the Horn of Africa. By brokering a deal that satisfies both Ethiopia and Somalia, Ankara has bolstered its geopolitical credentials in a region critical to global trade and security. This success not only strengthens Turkey’s ties with Addis Ababa and Mogadishu but also positions it as a counterbalance to other external actors, such as China and the Gulf states.

Moreover, Turkey’s active engagement in resolving the dispute highlights its strategic interests in securing Red Sea shipping routes and expanding its influence across Africa. The Ankara Declaration serves as both a diplomatic win and a foundation for deeper economic and military partnerships.

Regional Implications and Future Challenges

The Ankara Declaration reshapes the geopolitics of the Horn of Africa, but it also introduces new challenges and uncertainties.

Regional Security: The Red Sea remains a volatile zone, with Houthi rebel activity and broader instability in Yemen threatening safe navigation. Regional stakeholders, including Turkey, Ethiopia, and Somalia, must collaborate to mitigate these risks.

Somaliland’s Response: While Somaliland has indicated that its offer to Ethiopia remains valid, its exclusion from this deal risks further marginalization. If diplomatic isolation persists, Somaliland could explore new alliances or adopt more assertive measures to advance its case for independence.

Economic Development: Ethiopia must act swiftly to develop the infrastructure needed to realize the benefits of its newfound Red Sea access. The success of this agreement hinges on logistical readiness and sustainable investment.

Conclusion

The Ankara Declaration marks a pivotal moment in the Horn of Africa, offering Ethiopia strategic advantages, preserving Somalia’s sovereignty, and amplifying Turkey’s influence. However, the deal leaves Somaliland in a precarious position, its quest for recognition further complicated by shifting regional dynamics. As the agreement takes shape, the region’s actors must navigate a delicate balance of cooperation and competition to ensure long-term stability and prosperity.

South Korea’s ongoing political instability, marked by the impeachment of two leaders in December 2024, is creating an environment ripe for external influence. Analysts warn that China could exploit this turmoil to deepen its influence in Seoul, reshaping regional dynamics in favor of Beijing’s strategic interests.

A Shifting Political Landscape

The impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol over a failed attempt to impose martial law, followed by the suspension of acting President Han Duk-soo, has left South Korea in a precarious political state. As the Constitutional Court deliberates on Yoon’s fate, the potential rise of Lee Jae-myung and the opposition Democratic Party (DP) could signal a major policy shift. Known for its conciliatory stance toward Beijing and Pyongyang, the DP could recalibrate South Korea’s position between China and the United States.

Observers like Bruce Klingner of the Heritage Foundation suggest that China may view a DP-led government as an opportunity to drive a wedge between Seoul and Washington. Beijing could adopt a friendlier posture toward South Korea, reducing tensions while subtly encouraging policies that align with Chinese interests.

China’s Strategic Leverage

China has long sought to expand its influence over South Korea, leveraging diplomatic channels and United Front tactics to shape public opinion and political debates. Analysts argue that Beijing could use the current political crisis to amplify divisions within South Korea, particularly over contentious issues like economic policy, trade secrets, and relations with the U.S.

The DP’s proposed amendments to laws governing testimony and trade secrets, criticized for potentially forcing South Korean companies to reveal sensitive information, highlight these vulnerabilities. Such policies, critics contend, could undermine South Korea’s competitive edge, particularly in high-tech industries, while benefiting China.

Geopolitical Repercussions

South Korea’s political turmoil also raises concerns about the country’s role in the broader U.S.-China rivalry. Under Yoon’s leadership, Seoul had taken a more assertive stance against China, supporting U.S. efforts to counter Beijing’s influence in the Indo-Pacific and openly criticizing China’s actions. A DP-led government might adopt a more cautious approach, reducing support for initiatives like Taiwan’s defense and prioritizing economic ties with China over strategic alignment with Washington.

However, experts like Andrew Yeo of the Brookings Institution caution against assuming a complete pivot. While the DP may recalibrate its approach, the U.S.-South Korea alliance remains central to Seoul’s foreign policy. Even under a DP government, robust U.S.-ROK relations are likely to continue, albeit with nuanced adjustments.

China’s Calculated Moves

China’s restrained public response to South Korea’s political crisis reflects a strategic calculation. Beijing’s official adherence to a non-interference policy belies its potential to quietly influence outcomes that serve its interests. Increased cooperation between Seoul and Beijing could provide China with greater leverage over North Korea, aligning with its broader goals of maintaining regional stability on its terms while curbing U.S. influence.

The U.S. Perspective

From Washington’s viewpoint, the turmoil in Seoul presents challenges but also opportunities. A more China-friendly administration in South Korea could complicate joint efforts to address North Korea’s nuclear threat and counterbalance China’s regional ambitions. Yet, as former diplomat Robert Rapson points out, the U.S.-ROK alliance is likely to remain a cornerstone of South Korea’s foreign policy, ensuring continuity even amid political change.

The potential for Donald Trump’s administration to re-engage North Korea adds another layer of complexity. Closer ties between South Korea and China could paradoxically aid U.S. diplomacy by encouraging Beijing to take a more active role in managing Pyongyang.

Conclusion

South Korea’s political instability underscores the delicate balance between domestic governance and external pressures in shaping the region’s future. While China stands to gain from a more conciliatory government in Seoul, the enduring strength of U.S.-ROK ties and the multifaceted dynamics of South Korea’s political landscape suggest that Beijing’s influence will face significant limits.

As the Constitutional Court’s decision looms and the prospect of new elections arises, South Korea’s trajectory will have profound implications for the balance of power in Northeast Asia. Whether it leads to greater alignment with Beijing, Washington, or a nuanced middle path remains to be seen.

British MP Gavin Williamson’s recent push for the United Kingdom to recognize Somaliland as an independent nation marks a significant moment in the long-running debate over Somaliland’s status. His appeal underscores growing momentum within international circles for acknowledging Somaliland’s political and democratic achievements, contrasting starkly with the instability of its southern neighbor, Somalia.

Somaliland’s Unique Position

Somaliland declared back its independence in 1991 after the collapse of Somalia’s central government, citing historical, cultural, and legal grounds. The region had previously united with Somalia in 1960 following the end of British and Italian colonial rule, but the union dissolved under the strain of civil war and misgovernance. Since then, Somaliland has established a functioning government, conducted multiple peaceful elections, and demonstrated a commitment to democracy and stability.

While unrecognized internationally, Somaliland operates as a independent state, with its own currency, military, and administrative institutions. These achievements are particularly notable given the broader regional challenges, including terrorism, piracy, and political instability.

Growing Support for Somaliland’s Recognition

Williamson’s remarks reflect a growing recognition of Somaliland’s accomplishments, particularly within Western political institutions. His statement highlights Somaliland’s comparative success in governance, emphasizing its peaceful transitions of power and free elections—qualities absent in much of the Horn of Africa.

In the UK, over 20 members of Parliament have expressed support for Somaliland’s recognition, joined by growing voices in the U.S. Congress. Somaliland’s burgeoning relationship with Taiwan has also garnered international attention, signaling its willingness to forge independent partnerships despite geopolitical pressures from Somalia and its allies.

Challenges to Recognition

Despite these advancements, Somaliland faces significant obstacles in its quest for recognition. The Somali federal government continues to vehemently oppose any move toward Somaliland’s recognition, viewing it as a threat to its territorial integrity. Reports of Somalia spending $600,000 annually on lobbying efforts to dissuade the U.S. government from recognizing Somaliland underscore the intensity of this opposition.

Additionally, the African Union (AU) has been reluctant to endorse Somaliland’s case, fearing it could set a precedent for other separatist movements across the continent. Without AU support, international recognition remains an uphill battle, as many nations defer to regional bodies in matters of sovereignty.

Geopolitical Implications of Recognition

Recognition of Somaliland would have significant geopolitical ramifications. For Western nations like the UK and the U.S., acknowledging Somaliland could bolster their influence in the Horn of Africa, a region of growing strategic importance due to its proximity to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Somaliland’s Berbera Port, managed by Dubai Ports World, is a valuable asset that could strengthen international trade routes and security.

Recognition could also disrupt regional power dynamics. Somalia, backed by allies such as Turkey and Qatar, views Somaliland’s aspirations as a direct challenge. Meanwhile, Ethiopia, a landlocked neighbor, has historically maintained cordial relations with Somaliland, valuing its potential as an alternative trade route. Recognition could solidify Ethiopia-Somaliland ties, creating a new axis of cooperation in the region.

The Role of Western Governments

Williamson’s call for UK action highlights the role Western governments could play in advancing Somaliland’s recognition. The UK, with its historical ties to Somaliland, is uniquely positioned to lead such efforts. Similarly, bipartisan interest in the U.S. Congress signals an opportunity to elevate Somaliland’s status on the global stage.

Conclusion

Williamson’s plea for Somaliland’s recognition represents more than a moral appeal—it is a pragmatic acknowledgment of Somaliland’s resilience and achievements in a tumultuous region. While obstacles remain, the growing international interest in Somaliland’s cause underscores its legitimacy as a viable state. Recognition would not only validate Somaliland’s democratic experiment but also reshape the strategic landscape of the Horn of Africa, presenting opportunities and challenges for regional and global actors alike.

The rise in attacks targeting aid workers in Somalia, as reported by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), underscores the increasingly precarious environment for humanitarian efforts in one of the world’s most challenging crisis zones. The increase in incidents during the fourth quarter of 2024, reflecting both violence against personnel and operational disruptions, signals a troubling trajectory in a country already grappling with complex and multifaceted crises.

Somalia’s humanitarian crisis is exacerbated by a volatile security environment where protracted conflict, climate shocks, and economic instability converge. The uptick in attacks against aid workers—from 15 incidents in Q3 to 17 in Q4 of 2024—illustrates the persistent dangers these workers face. These incidents include physical assaults, harassment, and the targeting of humanitarian assets, reflecting both deliberate violence and collateral risks in conflict zones.

The data also reveals a rise in conflict-related disruptions to humanitarian operations, with military operations and hostilities impeding access increasing to eight incidents in Q4. This trend highlights the broader challenges of delivering aid in regions where armed groups and military campaigns dominate.

Despite the grim statistics, there have been signs of progress in mitigating external disruptions to aid activities. A notable reduction in interference with humanitarian operations—from 22 incidents in Q3 to 14 in Q4—suggests that improved coordination and operational understanding may be yielding results. Such progress is vital in ensuring aid reaches the millions of Somalis in desperate need.

However, the overarching trend remains one of high risk. The continuation of violence against aid workers, coupled with systemic access constraints, reflects the entrenched instability and fragmented governance in Somalia. Armed groups, including al-Shabaab, continue to exploit the country’s vulnerabilities, targeting aid operations as part of broader strategies to assert control and undermine government and international efforts.

The ongoing attacks against aid workers highlight the broader human cost of Somalia’s crises. In 2024, 124 incidents affecting humanitarian access were recorded, including injuries to 12 aid workers and numerous cases of physical assault and intimidation. These statistics reveal not only the direct threats to humanitarian personnel but also the cascading effects on aid delivery to vulnerable populations.

Somalia’s humanitarian challenges remain among the world’s most severe, with millions facing food insecurity, displacement, and exposure to disease outbreaks. Climate shocks, such as prolonged droughts and floods, have further strained resources, pushing communities deeper into crisis. The escalating risks to aid workers jeopardize the lifeline for these populations, amplifying the urgency for sustainable solutions.

The rise in attacks on aid workers in Somalia highlights the intersection of conflict and humanitarian need in one of the world’s most fragile states. While progress in reducing certain disruptions is encouraging, the overall security environment remains perilous, threatening both lives and the effective delivery of aid. The international community must act decisively to protect aid workers and ensure that Somalia’s most vulnerable populations receive the support they desperately need. Failure to do so risks deepening an already dire humanitarian crisis and undermining efforts to stabilize the region.