Kenya’s quiet diplomacy in Kismayo underscores fragile balance between Mogadishu and Jubaland
KISMAYO — When a federal delegation led by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud traveled to Kismayo this month for talks with Jubaland’s leaders, the public language that followed was notably measured. Jubaland’s presidency thanked Kenya for its “constructive efforts” in facilitating the discussions, and Jubaland president Ahmed Mohamed Islam — better known as Ahmed Madobe — spoke of dialogue, compromise and unity. But the absence of an explicit mention of President Mohamud in Jubaland’s communications and the lack of any clear breakthrough point to a relationship still riddled with mistrust.
- Advertisement -
The talks in Kismayo, the strategic port city where Jubaland’s authority is strongest, concluded without a concrete agreement. Yet they were significant for what they revealed about regional diplomacy in the Horn of Africa: Kenya has once again stepped into the role of mediator, smoothing a fraught interface between Somalia’s federal government and one of its most powerful regional administrations.
Why Kenya?
Kenya’s relevancy in Somali politics is rooted in geography and security. The two countries share a porous, often contentious border; Nairobi has long hosted large Somali refugee communities and maintains commercial and security ties extending into southern Somalia. Kenya’s role in brokering talks reflects both a practical desire to stabilise its immediate neighbourhood and a recognition that unresolved federal-regional disputes in Somalia can quickly spill across borders.
“Regional neighbours have little choice but to be involved,” said a Horn of Africa analyst following the Kismayo meetings. “Their security, trade and refugee policies are intertwined with developments in Somalia. For Kenya, facilitating dialogue is a form of self‑defence.”
What the careful wording reveals
Diplomatic phrasing matters. Jubaland’s public statement praised Kenya’s facilitation and thanked “regional and international partners” but stopped short of naming the Somali president. That omission is more than stylistic: it signals a delicate, transactional relationship in which public distance coexists with private negotiation.
Madobe, a former militia leader turned politician who commands considerable influence in southern Somalia, has long pushed for greater regional autonomy and control over local security forces and revenue streams. Mogadishu, for its part, is trying to consolidate authority, advance constitutional clarifications and navigate a fragile transition in which the distribution of power between the centre and the regions remains unsettled.
“Their mutual recognition of the need to keep talking — and to do so under the auspices of a neutral neighbour — shows both pragmatism and mistrust,” the analyst added.
What’s at stake
At face value, this was a negotiation over power-sharing, constitutional reform and how much autonomy Jubaland will exercise within the federal system. But the implications run deeper.
- Security and counterterrorism: Jubaland’s forces and local policing arrangements are a key component of southern Somalia’s security architecture. Any unresolved dispute with Mogadishu risks weakening coordinated counterterrorism efforts against Al-Shabaab.
- Economic control: Kismayo’s port is a vital revenue source. Control of customs and port revenues has been a recurring flashpoint between the federal government and regional administrations.
- Regional influence: Kenya’s mediation underscores how neighbouring states can shape Somali politics — sometimes productively, sometimes in ways that raise questions about sovereignty and local agency.
These dynamics are playing out as the wider international footprint in Somalia is shifting. The drawdown of multinational missions and evolving bilateral relationships have created space for regional players like Kenya to shape outcomes directly. For ordinary Somalis, the stakes are simple and immediate: stability affects trade, access to humanitarian aid and everyday security.
Diplomacy or containment?
Observers say Nairobi’s involvement can be read two ways. On one hand, Kenya offers a neutral meeting ground and the diplomatic muscle to cajole both sides into a room — an indispensable service in a country where domestic trust is thin. On the other hand, Kenya’s sustained engagement risks being seen as self-interested, pursuing solutions that prioritise its border security and commercial ties over a durable Somali-led settlement.
Somali politics has long been shaped by such tensions between internal legitimacy and external influence. The question for Mogadishu and the regions is how to turn externally mediated ceasefires and tabled agendas into internally owned reforms that can survive political cycles.
What comes next?
Both sides agreed to continue talks in the coming weeks. That is small comfort to those who hoped a single negotiating session might resolve long-standing differences. The process will test whether diplomacy can gradually build the trust necessary for real concessions — or whether incremental bargaining simply postpones another crisis.
For Kenya, the task is also to balance its role as honest broker with the optics of influence. For Jubaland and Mogadishu, the imperative is to translate dialogue into institutional fixes: clearer constitutional arrangements, workable revenue-sharing formulas and agreed security responsibilities.
These are technical questions with political heartbeats. They require patience — and at times, courage — from leaders whose incentives can pull them toward short-term advantage rather than long-term compromise.
As the Horn watches, one enduring question remains: can outside facilitation help entrench internal mechanisms of trust, or will it merely paper over cracks until the next round of tensions? The answer will shape whether Somalia’s federal experiment matures into a durable system or remains an episodic contest of competing authorities.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
