Dressed in the language of norms but anchored in strategic interest, the diplomatic contest over Somaliland reveals how recognition politics is less about principle than about power
The unfolding diplomatic contest over Somaliland is often presented as a moral issue — a choice between sovereignty and self-determination, territorial integrity and democratic legitimacy. Yet beneath this normative vocabulary lies a far more familiar pattern. The positions adopted by countries with regard to the diplomatic recognition of Somaliland reflect an enduring logic of realism more than any moral commitments. It is also an example of how national interest, power, and strategic advantage define the foreign policy of any nation. In other words, the Somaliland case offers a compelling illustration of how recognition politics operates less as a legal or ethical exercise and more as an instrument of interest maximisation.
In December 2025, Israel formally recognised Somaliland as a sovereign state, becoming the first country to break with the international consensus that treats the territory as part of Somalia. This decision was framed in terms of historical ties and Somaliland’s demonstrated governance capacity. Indeed, since its unilateral declaration of independence in 1991, Somaliland has maintained relative stability, built functioning political institutions, and conducted competitive elections — in contrast to Somalia's prolonged instability. However, the timing and implications of Israel's move suggest motivations that extend far beyond normative endorsement.
Israeli recognition can therefore be interpreted as a strategic investment towards access to the Red Sea, along with intelligence and influence in that volatile but vital maritime corridor.
The strategic geography of the Red Sea region is central to understanding this decision. Connecting the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal to the Indian Ocean through the Bab al-Mandeb, this corridor handles a substantial share of global trade. In recent years, escalating insecurity from Houthi attacks on Israeli ships has forced Israel to seek maritime surveillance capabilities and forward positioning in the region. Somaliland’s Berbera port, located along the Gulf of Aden, offers a valuable vantage point. Israeli recognition can therefore be interpreted as a strategic investment towards access to the Red Sea, along with intelligence and influence in that volatile but vital maritime corridor.
This logic of interest is not unique to Israel. Ethiopia, long landlocked since Eritrea’s independence, has actively sought alternative sea access. In January 2024, Addis Ababa signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Somaliland, offering recognition in exchange for port access. While Ethiopia has since exercised caution — likely under pressure from regional institutions such as the African Union — its underlying objective remains clear: reducing its dependence on Djibouti, through which it currently channels the overwhelming majority of its maritime trade. The Berbera corridor represents not a normative commitment to Somaliland's sovereignty but a pragmatic solution to a structural economic vulnerability.
Djibouti, in turn, has responded by framing such moves as destabilising violations of the regional order. Yet this position is equally rooted in material considerations. Ethiopia's reliance on Djibouti generates billions of dollars in annual revenue, making any shift towards Berbera a direct economic loss. By leveraging its diplomatic influence within the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), Djibouti has sought to preserve the status quo under the language of stability and territorial integrity.
Somalia's stance reflects a fundamental interest in preserving territorial integrity as the basis for state authority and regime survival. Recognition of Somaliland would not only fragment the Somali state but also weaken its diplomatic standing and internal legitimacy.
The reaction from Somalia has been predictably sharp. Mogadishu has condemned Israel’s recognition as a violation of its sovereignty and appealed to international bodies such as the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for support. These appeals are framed in the language of international law, emphasising the sanctity of borders and the dangers of secessionist precedent. From a realist perspective, however, Somalia's stance reflects a fundamental interest in preserving territorial integrity as the basis for state authority and regime survival. Recognition of Somaliland would not only fragment the Somali state but also weaken its diplomatic standing and internal legitimacy.
Other regional and external actors have shown similarly strategic calculations dressed in normative rhetoric. Egypt, for instance, has opposed Ethiopia's outreach to Somaliland, linking the issue to its broader rivalry with Addis Ababa over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). By supporting Somalia’s position and deepening security cooperation in the region, Egypt seeks to constrain Ethiopia’s strategic autonomy. Türkiye, which has developed a comprehensive presence in Somalia encompassing military, infrastructural, and humanitarian dimensions, also backs Mogadishu's claims. Ankara's engagement is often described in terms of solidarity and development, but it simultaneously entrenches Türkiye's position as a central actor within Somalia's state apparatus, thereby securing long-term influence.
Even multilateral responses reveal the same pattern. The African Union has declared Israel’s recognition “null and void,” reaffirming its longstanding principle of respecting colonial-era borders. While this position is presented as a defence of continental order, it also reflects the organisation's institutional interest in preventing secessionist movements that could destabilise member states. The principle of territorial integrity, in this sense, functions less as a universal norm and more as a stabilising mechanism aligned with the interests of incumbent governments.
What the Somaliland case exposes, above all, is the fluidity of recognition itself. Rather than an all-or-nothing declaration, it is an incremental process — advanced through diplomatic exchanges, economic agreements, and security cooperation.
What the Somaliland case exposes, above all, is the fluidity of recognition itself. Rather than an all-or-nothing declaration, it is an incremental process — advanced through diplomatic exchanges, economic agreements, and security cooperation. Israel’s appointment of an ambassador and Somaliland’s reciprocal move signal a shift from symbolic endorsement to functional engagement. This gradualism underscores how recognition can be operationalised to serve specific interests without necessarily achieving universal acceptance.
Ultimately, the Somaliland episode reinforces a central insight of realism: states do not act solely based on values, however much they may claim to. Instead, values are often instrumentalised to legitimise decisions driven by other considerations — particularly economic security and power projection. Whether invoking self-determination or territorial integrity, states select the principle that best aligns with their national interests in a given context.
Recognition politics, far from being a purely ethical exercise, becomes a tool to advance power and entrench influence. The language of norms merely serves to conceal these deeper geopolitical ambitions.
In this light, Somaliland is less an isolated dispute and more a microcosm of contemporary international politics. It reveals how sovereignty is not a fixed principle but a flexible construct, shaped and reshaped by the strategic calculations of other states. Recognition politics, far from being a purely ethical exercise, becomes a tool to advance power and entrench influence. The language of norms merely serves to conceal these deeper geopolitical ambitions.
Samir Bhattacharya is an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Samir Bhattacharya is an Associate Fellow at Observer Research Foundation (ORF), where he works on geopolitics with particular reference to Africa in the changing ...
Read More +
PREV
