The eruption of fierce clashes on Wednesday in the village of Da’awaley, located along the Ethiopia-Somaliland border, marks a troubling escalation in a region already teetering on the edge of instability. The violent confrontations between local residents and the Ethiopian Somali region’s paramilitary Liyuu Police underscore the deepening fault lines of territorial disputes, ethnic tensions, and unchecked military aggression.

The Roots of the Conflict

At the heart of the clashes is a long-standing territorial and ethnic grievance. The Ethiopian Somali region, governed from Jigjiga, has frequently been accused of targeting communities along its border with Somaliland, particularly in areas inhabited by clans with historical ties to Somaliland. Da’awaley’s strategic location and cultural significance have made it a flashpoint for these tensions.

The Liyuu Police, a heavily armed and controversial paramilitary force, have faced accusations of committing atrocities in the name of enforcing regional control. Their recent assault on Da’awaley appears to have been a calculated attempt to suppress local resistance and assert dominance, further fueling grievances among the affected communities.

Targeting Somaliland Elders: A New Low

The reported targeting of Somaliland elders, who had traveled to mediate and restore peace, represents a dangerous escalation. These elders play a crucial role in conflict resolution and maintaining social harmony in the region. The Liyuu Police’s alleged attempt to eliminate them not only exacerbates the crisis but also undermines traditional mechanisms for resolving disputes. This act sends a chilling message that even neutral mediators are not safe from violence, further eroding trust between the parties involved.

The clashes have left Da’awaley in turmoil, with significant casualties among the Liyuu Police and local residents. The destruction wrought by the fighting, coupled with the displacement of civilians, raises urgent humanitarian concerns. Reports of civilians being targeted by the Liyuu Police add a disturbing dimension to the violence, with implications for broader regional stability.

The conflict also poses significant security risks. The capture of weapons and military vehicles by local residents highlights the potential for prolonged and intensified violence. Armed communities, emboldened by their resistance, may continue to resist Ethiopian Somali region authorities, setting the stage for a cycle of retributive violence.

Regional Dynamics and the Somaliland-Ethiopia Relationship

The violence along the border has broader geopolitical implications. Somaliland, an unrecognized state that has maintained stability and democratic governance, finds itself increasingly drawn into Ethiopia’s internal conflicts. While Somaliland has historically sought peaceful relations with Ethiopia, the recent clashes strain these ties, particularly as communities with strong Somaliland affiliations come under attack.

The Ethiopian Somali region’s aggressive tactics risk undermining Addis Ababa’s relations with Hargeisa, potentially complicating bilateral cooperation on trade, security, and border management. Moreover, the perception of Ethiopia’s complicity or indifference to the actions of the Liyuu Police could drive Somaliland to reassess its diplomatic posture.

Resolving the crisis requires immediate de-escalation and accountability. The Ethiopian federal government must rein in the Liyuu Police and investigate allegations of atrocities and targeted attacks on civilians and elders. International actors, including regional bodies such as the African Union, should press for dialogue and mediation to address the root causes of the conflict.

For Somaliland, the incident highlights the need to strengthen its diplomatic efforts to advocate for the protection of its affiliated communities along the border. Hargeisa must also work with Ethiopia’s central government to establish mechanisms that prevent such clashes in the future.

Conclusion

The renewed violence in Da’awaley is a stark reminder of the fragility of peace along the Ethiopia-Somaliland border. The targeting of civilians and elders not only deepens divisions but also threatens to destabilize the region further. Without decisive action to address the grievances and contain the violence, the conflict risks spiraling into a protracted and more destructive crisis, with dire consequences for all involved.

Somalilanders Call for International Action Against Hostile Provocations

The deportation of Yusuf Abdi Ali, known as “Tukeh” or “The Crow,” to Somalia on December 20 marks a watershed moment in the pursuit of justice for atrocities committed during Somalia’s Barre regime. This case underscores the resilience of survivors and the global mechanisms aimed at holding perpetrators accountable, even decades after their crimes. However, it also reveals lingering wounds and unresolved questions about Somalia’s violent past and its path toward reconciliation.

A Long Road to Justice

Ali’s case exemplifies the painstakingly slow march of justice for human rights violations. Accused of leading brutal campaigns against the Isaaq community in the 1980s, Ali’s actions as commander of the Somali National Army’s Fifth Brigade have been etched into the collective memory of Somaliland. Survivors describe torture, extrajudicial killings, and the destruction of villages as part of a counterinsurgency campaign targeting the Somali National Movement (SNM).

The testimony of Farhan Mohamoud Tani Warfaa, a survivor who was tortured and left for dead under Ali’s command, played a pivotal role in exposing these atrocities. Warfaa’s ability to confront Ali in a U.S. courtroom and secure a civil judgment in 2019 sent a powerful message: war crimes and crimes against humanity cannot be erased by time or distance.

Despite the victory, the delay in Ali’s deportation—spanning decades since his initial exposure in a 1992 CBC documentary—raises questions about the effectiveness and prioritization of justice mechanisms. Ali’s ability to live quietly in Virginia for years, even working as a rideshare driver, highlights systemic gaps in identifying and prosecuting human rights violators.

The U.S. and Global Accountability

Ali’s deportation showcases the role of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center in uncovering and addressing historic injustices. Since its creation in 2008, the center has deported over 1,150 individuals involved in crimes such as genocide and torture, asserting the U.S.’s commitment to denying sanctuary to perpetrators.

However, the case also underscores broader challenges. Ali’s removal was only possible after prolonged legal battles, investigative reporting, and public outcry. His ability to re-enter the U.S. on a spousal visa and live for decades in apparent anonymity highlights the need for stronger vetting processes to prevent similar oversights.

Somalia’s Enduring Trauma

Ali’s deportation is not just about justice; it is a stark reminder of the enduring trauma from Somalia’s Barre era. The atrocities committed against the Isaaq community are emblematic of the larger campaign waged against the SNM, a movement that sought to protect its people from systemic violence. While Somaliland has emerged as a region of peace and democratic governance, the scars of the past remain unhealed.

The lack of international recognition for Somaliland complicates its efforts to address historical grievances and achieve justice. The absence of global acknowledgment leaves the region in a precarious position, forced to navigate its pursuit of accountability and reconciliation without full access to international support and resources.

Justice and Reconciliation

Ali’s case raises critical questions about the broader pursuit of justice for atrocities committed during Somalia’s civil war. His deportation is a significant milestone, but it is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. The victims of the Barre regime, particularly the Isaaq community, continue to demand recognition and reparations for their suffering.

For Somaliland, the case is both a vindication of its people’s resilience and a call to action for the international community to support its efforts toward accountability and healing. It also reinforces the importance of global justice mechanisms in addressing war crimes, even decades after they occur.

Yusuf Abdi Ali’s deportation to Somalia is a victory for justice, but it also serves as a reminder of the complex legacy of the Barre regime. It highlights the need for stronger global efforts to prevent perpetrators from finding safe haven and underscores the importance of supporting regions like Somaliland in their pursuit of recognition, reconciliation, and justice. As survivors like Warfaa demonstrate, the fight against impunity is long but necessary to ensure that history does not repeat itself.

The U.S. refugee resettlement program, once a bipartisan pillar reflecting America’s commitment to human rights, stands at a critical juncture as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office. With Trump’s historical stance of drastically curtailing refugee admissions, communities and agencies are scrambling to adapt, fearing a return to restrictive policies that could leave thousands stranded and families separated.

Under President Biden, the refugee program rebounded significantly, admitting approximately 100,000 refugees in the past fiscal year—the highest number in decades. This revival came after the Trump administration slashed admissions to record lows, citing national security concerns, particularly for individuals from predominantly Muslim nations.

Biden’s efforts not only restored but improved the program’s efficiency, with expanded vetting processes and increased resettlement infrastructure. Refugees have proven to be an economic asset in industries facing labor shortages, from food processing in North Dakota to logistics in Ohio. However, these advancements are now under threat as Trump signals a renewed focus on limiting all forms of immigration, including the refugee program.

Trump’s proposed policies, outlined in the Project 2025 blueprint, suggest a complete suspension of the refugee program. This strategy frames the move as a response to the “border crisis,” although the refugee program operates under entirely different parameters from irregular border crossings. Refugees undergo years of rigorous vetting, including interviews, medical checks, and security screenings, arriving in the U.S. with lawful status.

Former Trump officials argue for reallocating resources from the refugee program to border security, despite evidence that refugees bolster local economies and fill critical workforce gaps. Critics of these policies contend they are driven more by ideological and political motives than by genuine security concerns.

For refugees and their families, the consequences of these policy shifts are deeply personal. Families like the Alsharifs, who fled Syria’s civil war, have experienced the emotional toll of separation and uncertainty. While some have managed to reunite, others remain in limbo, their futures hinging on political decisions in Washington.

The potential suspension of the program would not only halt new arrivals but also disrupt the fragile reunification process for countless families. Refugee resettlement agencies, which have painstakingly rebuilt their operations since the Trump era cuts, face the possibility of closure, leaving current refugees without essential support services.

Historically, the U.S. refugee program symbolized American leadership in global human rights. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, refugee resettlement was seen as a moral imperative and a strategic tool for fostering stability abroad. Trump’s initial term disrupted this legacy, with policies that disproportionately targeted refugees from Muslim-majority countries, raising allegations of racial and religious bias.

Now, as the nation prepares for a potential second Trump administration, the refugee program faces an existential threat. Advocates argue that dismantling the program would not only harm vulnerable populations but also erode America’s moral standing and soft power on the global stage.

There are also broader implications for foreign policy and U.S. relations with conflict-affected regions. Refugee admissions have often served as a diplomatic tool, signaling U.S. commitment to resolving global crises. A suspension of the program could undermine these efforts, giving adversaries like China and Russia an opening to expand their influence in humanitarian spheres.

Domestically, restricting refugee resettlement could exacerbate labor shortages in industries that have increasingly relied on refugee workers. Employers in sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and retail may struggle to fill positions, impacting economic recovery and growth.

As refugee communities brace for a turbulent future, advocacy groups are urging the incoming administration to recognize the distinction between refugees and other forms of immigration. They argue for maintaining the program as a vital component of U.S. foreign and domestic policy.

Ultimately, the fate of the U.S. refugee resettlement program will serve as a barometer for America’s values and priorities. Will the nation continue to uphold its tradition of offering refuge to the world’s most vulnerable, or will it retreat into isolationism, sacrificing its moral authority for short-term political gains? The decisions made in the coming months will shape not only the lives of countless refugees but also America’s role on the global stage.

The recent deadly clash between Somali and Ethiopian forces in Doolow, Jubaland, raises significant questions about external influences and the fragile balance of power in the Horn of Africa. With Somalia accusing Ethiopian forces of violating its sovereignty and the incident coming days after a landmark agreement brokered by Turkey, speculation is rife that regional and international powers may be stoking the flames of discord.

Turkey’s Role: Unintended Catalyst or Strategic Play?

Turkey, which has steadily expanded its influence in Somalia through military training, infrastructure investment, and diplomatic engagement, played a key role in facilitating the recent Ankara Declaration. This agreement aimed to resolve the nearly year-long dispute between Somalia and Ethiopia, particularly Ethiopia’s agreement with Somaliland. The Turkish mediation underscored Ankara’s growing stake in regional stability and its ambition to be a key player in the Horn of Africa.

However, the timing of the clash, so soon after Turkey’s diplomatic efforts, raises questions about whether Ankara’s involvement has inadvertently aggravated tensions. Turkey’s robust partnership with Somalia, especially with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s administration, might have emboldened Mogadishu to assert itself more aggressively against Ethiopian incursions, potentially disrupting the delicate balance of power.

Furthermore, Jubaland’s semi-autonomous leadership, which has often resisted Mogadishu’s central authority, may view Turkey’s growing influence in Somalia as a threat to its own autonomy. By escalating tensions, pro-Jubaland factions—possibly with covert encouragement from external actors—could be seeking to undermine Turkey’s regional ambitions.

Egypt’s Geostrategic Calculations

Egypt, a long-time rival of Ethiopia, also stands to benefit from increased instability in Somalia, particularly if it weakens Addis Ababa. The two nations are already at odds over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), and any conflict in Ethiopia’s periphery could distract and destabilize the country further, reducing its capacity to counter Egyptian pressure on the Nile issue.

Egypt’s historic ties to Somaliland and Puntland, coupled with its opposition to Ethiopian expansion in the Red Sea region, suggest that Cairo could exploit tensions between Somalia and Ethiopia to curb Addis Ababa’s influence. By indirectly supporting Somali factions opposed to Ethiopian interventions, Egypt might aim to sow division that undermines the Ankara-brokered deal, which offers Ethiopia strategic sea access in Somalia.

A Complex Web of Rivalries

The clash in Doolow reflects deeper fissures within Somalia’s federal structure. Jubaland, long a contentious player, has often aligned itself with external actors like Kenya and Ethiopia to resist Mogadishu’s centralization efforts. Ethiopia’s involvement in supporting Jubaland forces during the recent firefight further complicates its relationship with Somalia’s federal government.

At the same time, Ethiopia’s controversial agreements with Somaliland and its recent rapprochement with Somalia under the Ankara Declaration indicate a strategic pivot. This pivot, however, is fragile, as evidenced by Ethiopia’s alleged backing of Jubaland forces, which Mogadishu views as undermining its sovereignty.

The situation is further exacerbated by the broader regional rivalry between Turkey and Egypt, whose competing interests in the Horn of Africa extend beyond Somalia. Both nations are vying for influence in strategic maritime routes and resource-rich regions, and their proxy maneuvers could be fueling the instability.

Speculation and Consequences

If Turkey’s involvement inadvertently emboldened Mogadishu or if Egypt has covertly encouraged opposition to Ethiopian expansion, the Horn of Africa could be on the brink of a new phase of conflict. This tension threatens to derail the Ankara Declaration and further destabilize the region, where competing powers are using Somali federal states as proxies to advance their own agendas.

The fallout from this incident could extend far beyond Somalia and Ethiopia, with broader implications for Red Sea security, counter-terrorism efforts, and regional trade. A breakdown of the Ankara Declaration would embolden factions like Jubaland while leaving Mogadishu isolated in its quest to consolidate power. This instability could also provide fertile ground for extremist groups like Al-Shabaab, which thrive in the absence of unified governance.

A Fragile Peace at Stake

The deadly clash in Doolow underscores the precariousness of Somalia-Ethiopia relations and highlights how external actors like Turkey and Egypt may be indirectly shaping the conflict. While Turkey’s mediation aimed to promote stability, the rapid unraveling of the Ankara Declaration suggests deeper regional rivalries are at play.

Unless these tensions are addressed through renewed diplomacy and mutual restraint, the Horn of Africa risks descending into further instability, with devastating consequences for the region and the broader international community.

Turkey’s dissemination of claims that Russia is supporting Sudanese rebels reveals the intricate web of geopolitics playing out in Africa. While the accusations lack substantiation, they offer insights into the regional power dynamics and the motives behind such narratives. The focus here lies on Sudan, a country of significant strategic importance, and the competition among external powers to shape its future.

Sudan’s position along the Red Sea and its untapped resources have long made it a target for international interest. Both Turkey and Russia see Sudan as a critical partner in their broader geopolitical ambitions. For Moscow, Sudan is a gateway to Africa and a key to maintaining influence over critical maritime routes. Russia’s pursuit of a naval base in Port Sudan has been central to its strategy to project power and secure a foothold in the region. Its alignment with Sudan’s official government underscores this ambition, reflected in arms supplies, oil exports, and diplomatic engagement.

Turkey, on the other hand, has its own aspirations. Ankara’s interest in establishing a presence on Suakin Island stems from its broader vision of regional influence. This aligns with Turkey’s efforts to expand its reach into Africa and the Middle East, reviving historical connections and asserting itself as a dominant regional power. By targeting Russia with accusations of supporting anti-government forces, Turkey seeks to discredit Moscow’s role in Sudan and position itself as a more reliable partner for the Sudanese government.

Disinformation becomes a strategic tool in this rivalry. By framing Russia as a destabilizing force, Turkey not only undermines Russian credibility but also strengthens its own narrative as a defender of Sudan’s sovereignty. This narrative is further amplified by Turkey’s media and intelligence apparatus, which aim to align international perceptions with Ankara’s interests.

However, these tactics carry risks. Such claims can complicate Sudan’s internal dynamics, deepening divisions and making conflict resolution more challenging. They also heighten competition among foreign powers, with Sudan potentially becoming a battleground for proxy rivalries. This could exacerbate the already fragile situation in the region, with ripple effects felt across neighboring countries.

The broader implications are significant. Misrepresentations and external meddling can delay critical negotiations, such as those involving Russia’s Port Sudan base, and create barriers to post-conflict recovery. Sudan’s leadership must tread carefully, balancing national interests while navigating these external pressures.

For the international community, the priority should be to promote dialogue and mediate disputes, ensuring that Sudan’s sovereignty is respected. Avoiding escalation and fostering cooperative solutions are essential to prevent Sudan from becoming a theater for broader geopolitical conflicts. Both Turkey and Russia must recognize that their actions in Sudan will not only shape the country’s future but also define their own roles in the region.

Taiwan’s Strategic Role in Countering China’s Military Ambitions

The intensifying military maneuvers by China around Taiwan have spotlighted the self-ruled island’s critical role in the Indo-Pacific power struggle. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has conducted a relentless campaign of air and naval exercises, including over 1,500 PLA aircraft entering Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone in both 2022 and 2023. The Pentagon’s recent report on China’s military developments underscores Beijing’s ambition to assert dominance over Taiwan and deter international intervention.

In response, military analysts argue for a more assertive U.S. strategy that highlights Taiwan’s importance as a linchpin in countering China’s regional hegemony. The U.S.-Taiwan Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA), a logistics pact allowing the exchange of supplies and support, could become a cornerstone of this strategy. By enabling U.S. military jets to refuel in Taiwan or allowing visits by U.S. vessels, Washington would send a clear signal of its resolve to support Taiwan against Beijing’s aggression.

Beijing’s warnings against U.S. military aid to Taiwan reflect its discomfort with Washington’s evolving defense engagement. Despite China’s rhetoric, the U.S. remains firm in its strategic ambiguity, refraining from endorsing Taiwan’s independence while ensuring its ability to defend itself. Analysts argue that leveraging the ACSA for symbolic and operational gestures—such as U.S. Coast Guard presence or fighter jet refueling—could shift the strategic calculus, demonstrating that Taiwan is not isolated.

Military experts like Trey Meeks advocate for Taiwan to bolster its defense spending to match the escalating threat. They also suggest that Taipei adopt proactive measures, including radar missile locks on PLA incursions, to deter aggressive Chinese maneuvers. These actions could dramatically increase the operational risks for Chinese pilots, complicating their coercive tactics.

With President-elect Donald Trump signaling a potentially more aggressive stance on China, the U.S.-Taiwan relationship is poised for further transformation. Trump’s team could prioritize deeper defense cooperation, contingent on Taiwan’s increased military investment. This aligns with the broader aim of fortifying alliances in the Indo-Pacific to counterbalance China’s expanding influence.

Taiwan’s strategic significance extends beyond security. Its location on the First Island Chain and its democratic governance model represent a direct challenge to China’s authoritarian narrative. As Beijing doubles down on its military presence and seeks to delay international intervention, the U.S. and Taiwan must adopt innovative, cost-effective strategies to bolster Taiwan’s defense and morale.

To counter China’s “new normal” of military coercion, the U.S. must act decisively. Strengthening logistical and symbolic ties with Taiwan, coupled with proactive defense measures, is essential for maintaining stability in the region. Taiwan is not merely a frontline in the Sino-American rivalry but a crucial partner in preserving the rules-based international order. Recognizing and leveraging Taiwan’s strategic role is key to securing peace and deterring aggression in the Indo-Pacific.

Ahmed Al-Sharaa, better known as Abu Muhammad Al-Julani, is sending clear signals that he desires an American embrace—a development that aligns with the shifting dynamics of Russian and American influence in the Middle East and Africa. This geopolitical realignment underscores how Syria’s changing internal politics is reshaping global strategies.

Since the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on December 8, Russia has begun withdrawing significant military assets from its bases in Syria, particularly from the strategically important Hmeimim air base and Tartus naval facility. Satellite images and flight data confirm that Moscow has reallocated much of this equipment to African nations, including Libya, Mali, and the Central African Republic. While these moves aim to preserve Russian influence, experts argue that such African bases cannot replicate the strategic value of Russia’s Syrian foothold, which had allowed Moscow to project power across the Middle East and Africa.

Russia’s Costly Gamble in Africa

Russia’s pivot to Africa highlights a broader geopolitical challenge. Transferring military assets from Syria to Africa is logistically and financially taxing, requiring significant resources for air and sea transport. Air routes to Africa are complicated by the necessity of securing refueling stops and navigating rival-controlled airspace, such as Turkey’s. The increasing dependence on these logistical pathways also amplifies Turkey’s leverage over Russia in regional diplomacy.

Despite the logistical hurdles, Russia has managed to station approximately 1,200 troops in Mali and Libya. Concurrently, Moscow and Iran have been accused of supplying Sudan’s army with weaponry, drones, and fuel, potentially shifting the balance of power in the conflict-ridden region. These actions suggest that Russia is leveraging its African strategy to maintain global relevance, though the financial and strategic sustainability of such an approach remains questionable.

Al-Julani’s American Overtures

Amid this geopolitical reshuffling, Al-Julani’s apparent overtures toward the U.S. signal a desire to rebrand himself and his group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), as potential partners in the post-Assad landscape. His calculated pivot aligns with the U.S. interest in stabilizing Syria and countering Russian and Iranian influence. Al-Julani’s ambitions, however, are a double-edged sword. While he positions HTS as a pragmatic force in the region, his past as a militant leader could complicate his path to U.S. acceptance.

The timing of Al-Julani’s move is noteworthy. As Russia recalibrates its focus away from Syria, he seeks to fill the void with U.S. backing, potentially altering the balance of power in the region. Whether the U.S. embraces this partnership remains uncertain, but Al-Julani’s intentions are clear: to emerge as a pivotal figure in Syria’s reconstruction and governance.

Implications for Global Power Dynamics

Russia’s retreat from Syria and pivot to Africa may offer short-term gains but comes at a steep cost. African bases, while symbolically important, lack the strategic depth and accessibility of those in Syria. Moreover, the logistical challenges and heightened Turkish influence further constrain Russia’s ability to project power effectively.

For the U.S., the shifting dynamics in Syria present both opportunities and challenges. Partnering with Al-Julani could provide a foothold in the region to counter both Russia and Iran, but it risks backlash from allies wary of legitimizing a figure with a militant past. The evolving scenario underscores the importance of strategic decisions in shaping the future of the Middle East and Africa.

As Russia seeks to maintain relevance through costly African ventures and Al-Julani courts American favor, the Horn of Africa and the Middle East remain theaters of intense geopolitical competition. The outcomes of these moves will not only redefine regional alliances but also influence global power balances for years to come.

 Sweden’s Diplomatic Position on Somaliland and Regional Stability in the Horn of Africa –

The debate over Somaliland’s recognition has sparked a heated exchange between Markus Wiechel of the Sweden Democrats (SD) and Foreign Affairs Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard. Wiechel has pressed the Minister to clarify Sweden’s position on Somaliland and its potential recognition, arguing that such a step is vital for Sweden’s geopolitical strategy, particularly in countering China’s growing influence in the Horn of Africa. In her response, Malmer Stenergard reaffirmed Sweden’s commitment to supporting democracy in Somaliland but dismissed the possibility of recognizing its independence, maintaining the current “One Somalia” policy.

Wiechel’s challenge stems from Somaliland’s stark contrast to the broader failures of Somalia. While Somalia remains plagued by political instability, extremism, and corruption, Somaliland has achieved remarkable stability and built a functioning democratic system. Somaliland’s governance stands as a rare success in a region rife with chaos, making it an invaluable partner for Western democracies seeking stability and influence in the Horn of Africa. Wiechel emphasized that ignoring Somaliland’s achievements risks undermining Sweden’s commitment to democracy and leaves a vacuum for external actors like China to exploit.

China’s increasing foothold in the region presents a significant challenge. Reports of Somali forces mobilizing with Chinese material support underline the geopolitical stakes. Beijing’s expanding influence in Africa, through infrastructure projects and military partnerships, threatens to erode Western influence in a strategically critical region. Recognizing Somaliland could provide Sweden and its allies with a reliable partner to counterbalance China’s ambitions and strengthen democratic governance in the Horn of Africa.

Malmer Stenergard’s refusal to reconsider Somaliland’s recognition reflects a conservative approach that Wiechel argues is outdated and shortsighted. By adhering to the “One Somalia” policy, Sweden fails to adapt to the realities on the ground. Somaliland’s progress demonstrates that it is not only ready for recognition but deserving of it. Its success offers a beacon of hope for democratic ideals in a region where such achievements are rare. Failure to act decisively risks alienating Somaliland and its people, many of whom have strong ties to Sweden.

The Somali diaspora in Sweden, particularly those of Somaliland origin, represents an untapped resource for fostering closer ties between the two countries. This community can serve as cultural and economic bridges, helping to strengthen bilateral relations and advance mutual interests. Yet, the government’s reluctance to acknowledge Somaliland’s autonomy undermines these opportunities. Wiechel’s argument highlights the disconnect between Sweden’s commitment to democracy and its failure to support a democratic state seeking international recognition.

Wiechel’s push for recognition also underscores the moral imperative of supporting Somaliland’s sovereignty. Somaliland has achieved what many in the region have not—functioning democratic institutions, peaceful transitions of power, and a commitment to stability. Its achievements deserve not just applause but tangible support. Recognition would affirm Sweden’s role as a global advocate for democracy and human rights while securing a critical ally in the Horn of Africa.

Malmer Stenergard’s response reflects a cautious diplomacy that prioritizes maintaining relationships with Somalia’s federal government. However, this approach overlooks the reality that Somalia’s failures do not represent Somaliland’s future. Continued adherence to the “One Somalia” policy risks leaving Sweden on the sidelines as other nations, such as the United States and Ethiopia, move toward recognizing Somaliland’s potential as a strategic partner.

Wiechel’s stance challenges Sweden’s foreign policy to align its democratic values with actionable support for Somaliland. Recognition is not just a symbolic gesture but a strategic necessity in countering China’s influence, securing stability in the Horn of Africa, and affirming Sweden’s commitment to democracy. The time for Sweden to act decisively is now.