On Jan. 1, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed in Addis Ababa by Ethiopia and Somaliland (a secessionist breakaway region in northern Somalia) ignited a diplomatic contretemps and a war of words between Somalia and Ethiopia. Somalia accused Ethiopia of undermining its territorial sovereignty, integrity and unity and consequently harboring plans to annex Somali territories.
Purportedly, this signed MoU agreement will grant landlocked Ethiopia a 20-kilometer (12-mile) piece of coastal land for establishing a military naval base and the right to construct a commercial port linked to Ethiopia. In return, Ethiopia would recognize Somaliland as an independent country – and would be the first to do so.
The signing of the MoU with breakaway Somaliland has reignited historical hostilities and anxieties between Somalia and Ethiopia. In a speech in parliament, Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud swore that the Somali people would defend their territory and sea with their lives and blood, cautioning Ethiopia to retract from and render the MoU null and void. On the other hand, Ethiopia insists that the signed deal is commercial, will neither threaten Somali sovereignty nor will it lead to territorial annexation but will stabilize and boost economically both Somalia and Ethiopia.
The MoU Ethiopia signed has raised political tensions in a region that is already stagnated and perennially engulfed by perpetual violence, instability, famines and terrorism; and would be a wellspring of instability in the Horn of Africa region. But why has Ethiopia decided to sign a military deal with a breakaway region while disregarding in the process the legitimacy and sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Somalia?
Ethiopia, a nation with a population of 120 million, lost its access to the Red Sea when Eritrea gained independence in 1993. Before Jan. 1, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed embraced dangerous rhetoric and discourses that Ethiopia has a “historical right” to have access to the sea, and that it would achieve this through violent military means if negotiations fail. His national security advisor Redwan Hussien elucidated that Ethiopia cannot prosper and develop into a great power without having access to the sea.
However, behind the façade of projecting regional hegemony and power, Ethiopia is mired in internecine ethnic and rebel violence rendering major parts of the country unstable. Ever since Abiy Ahmed, a recipient of Nobel Peace laureate, came to power in 2018, Ethiopia descended further into cataclysmic violence and economic difficulties. A civil war erupted in Tigray leading to the death of nearly 600,000 people, and was followed by rebel violence in Amhara and Oromia regions.
To consolidate his shrinking nationalistic support base, Abiy Ahmed has resorted to Ethiopia’s ancient imperialistic fantasies of conquering and accessing the Somali coast and sea and messianic political rhetoric of being the savior and reviver of “powerful” Ethiopia. The MoU is a mobilizing drumbeat for Ethiopia’s fragmented internal politics but also a recipe for destabilizing the Somali peninsula.
The other signatory of this MoU, Somaliland, has failed to gain any recognition for its claimed independence for the last three decades. As a breakaway region of Somalia, Somaliland was celebrated to be politically stable and democratic unlike the rest of Somalia and hence deserved to be recognized as an independent country. However, after three decades of “recognition fatigue,” perennially postponed elections and violence in Las Anod, Somaliland’s aspired recognition seems foundering and out of reach.
The MoU with Ethiopia is a lifeline for the political elites in Hargeisa but could also lead to a violent fragmentation of Somaliland as a political entity. Somaliland already lost control of its Eastern region to the newly founded SSC-Khatumo state of Somalia, and there is a looming political uprising in the Awdal region occasioned by the MoU with Ethiopia.
The MoU between Ethiopia and Somaliland is a recipe for violent destabilization of the Horn of Africa. First, the deal violates international laws that stipulate the inviolability and the sacrosanct nature of international borders and the national sovereignty of all countries. Hence the United Nations, the African Union, the Arab League, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States all swiftly rejected the deal and affirmed Somalia’s territorial integrity and unity.
Second, the deal undermines gains made in Somali state-building efforts and stabilization. Countries like Türkiye, the U.S. and the U.K. invested in and contributed to the security and military capacity building of Somalia and the war against al-Shabab. The deal will boast al-Shabab’s recruitment strategies and propaganda against the Somali government in Mogadishu.
Finally, with the signing of the deal, Ethiopia resurrected its imperialistic and hegemonic ambitions in the region and this would equally lead to violent and militaristic counter-nationalistic sentiments and mobilizations in Somalia, Djibouti and Eritrea. Abiy Ahmed has indirectly revived the Greater Somalia (Soomaaliweyn) cause, narratives and discourses in the political, social and media spheres among Somalis.
History has returned in Eastern Africa, to use Canadian professor Jennifer Welsh’s term. For a region that has the potential for peace, integration and economic prosperity, latent grand narratives of imperialism, conquering and pan-nationalism were resurrected on Jan. 1.
The Horn of Africa is geo-strategically significant for the global economy. Its proximity to the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Bab el-Mandeb strait render it significant to the global flow of goods. Instability in the region will affect the global economy. All countries in the region can tap into this geo-strategic resource and collectively proper.
Ethiopia can have similar commercial deals like its arrangements with Djibouti with Somalia to access and use its numerous ports. This will enhance Somali infrastructure and open Ethiopia’s vast market to Somali traders and entrepreneurs. This will be a win-win for both countries and societies.
However, if the voices of reason don’t prevail in the region, the rhetoric and discourses of “we have a right to the sea” and other hegemonistic ambitions will unfortunately destabilize and engulf the Horn of Africa with violence.
