Editorial | The recall of the U.S. ambassador to Somalia must trigger tougher, accountable engagement
Washington’s recall of its ambassador to Somalia comes at a fraught juncture in Mogadishu—a familiar endgame in which the federal mandate under President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud nears expiration while no shared political or electoral framework is in place. That convergence is not coincidence; it is the pattern that has defined Somalia’s transition for years. The moment demands U.S. political leadership that matches the scale of the crisis.
- Advertisement -
Somalia’s deepest crisis is political. The country repeatedly arrives at the same impasse: leaders argue over election models, timelines and constitutional interpretation, then stall. Security operations push back militants, but governance stalls push the state back to the brink. The United States—through financial, military and diplomatic backing—has helped prevent outright collapse, including against Al-Shabaab, whose threat would be sharper without American support. Yet the core failure is unchanged: political leadership that treats power as the prize rather than institution-building as the project.
The recall of the U.S. ambassador to Somalia should not be read as routine rotation. It should be a pivot point for the U.S. State Department to assert firmer political stewardship of the Somalia file. Focusing on security alone will not break the cycle. Somalia needs clearer expectations, explicit accountability and a U.S. envoy empowered to shape outcomes, not simply observe them.
That starts with the appointment. Washington should select an ambassador with real political authority—backed by explicit support from the State Department and the interagency—to confront manufactured disputes, broker workable compromises and call out brinkmanship that serves narrow interests over national stability. The next envoy must be positioned to mediate, cajole and, when necessary, apply pressure. Statements are not a strategy; leverage is.
There is also a credibility gap to close. At times, U.S. political rhetoric has lapsed into dismissive language about Somalis even as America underwrites their survival. That contradiction erodes trust and weakens policy. Respect is not a courtesy; it is a precondition for effective engagement. Washington should pair its demands for accountability with a consistent message that treats Somalis as partners capable of self-government, not subjects of endless crisis management.
The immediate task is to avoid another drift into uncertainty as the federal term winds down. Somalia cannot afford a replay of past stalemates. The United States should set and defend a simple framework: timely, credible, mutually agreed rules for political transition that are transparent to the Somali public. The outcome matters, but so does the process; the aim is to normalize competition within institutions, not overrun them whenever power is at stake.
Equally important is financial accountability. U.S. taxpayers have funded training, stabilization and humanitarian relief for years. That support has saved lives and held the line against insurgency. But too often, the political leadership in Somalia opens economic opportunities to external actors who add little to stability while sidelining partners who shoulder the burdens of recovery. That imbalance is not sustainable. The United States has both the right and the responsibility to demand that resources produce measurable political and governance results—not just momentary calm.
What should “firmer engagement” look like in practice? It does not require reinventing Somalia’s politics, but it does require insisting on political responsibility. Priorities should be clear, public and enforceable.
- Set political benchmarks. Tie non-emergency support to time-bound benchmarks on an agreed election framework, institutional compliance and dispute-resolution mechanisms that Somali leaders cannot evade.
- Empower the envoy. Give the next ambassador the mandate to mediate between key actors and to escalate concerns rapidly to Washington when commitments are breached.
- Discourage brinkmanship. Make it costly for leaders to manufacture crises—whether by weaponizing timelines, destabilizing agreements or undermining institutional checks.
- Demand transparency. Require public disclosure on the use of international funds and the governance of revenue-producing sectors to ensure those who fund recovery can see outcomes.
- Keep security aligned to politics. Ensure that gains against Al-Shabaab are not squandered by political paralysis; security operations should reinforce—not substitute for—political settlement.
None of this asks the United States to shoulder Somalia’s choices. It asks Washington to stop subsidizing dysfunction. The goal is to help Somali leaders make decisions that render international support less necessary over time. That will not happen if continued U.S. investment allows elites to defer hard compromises, strip institutions for parts and drag the country from one crisis window to the next.
It is also time to invert the prevailing logic. The United States should not accept the premise that any forward motion—however fragile—is better than confrontation with entrenched habits. Fragility without accountability only reinforces the next crisis. Better to insist on clear rules, predictable transitions and leadership that answers to citizens and partners. That is the ground on which lasting stability is built.
The stakes remain stark. Without American support, Somalia’s security situation would be worse, perhaps catastrophically so. But maintaining a holding pattern is not a strategy. Absent political responsibility, the line will eventually fail—whether through donor fatigue, domestic disillusion or insurgent adaptation. The way to prevent that outcome is to make political performance—not just security posture—the central metric of success.
Somalia’s leaders carry the ultimate burden. They and they alone can choose to prioritize institutions over impulse, nation over faction. But the United States can choose not to enable the alternative. The recall of the U.S. ambassador is a chance to reset terms: to replace drift with direction, ambiguity with demands, polite statements with principled pressure.
Somalia does not need less engagement. It needs smarter, tougher engagement—respectful in tone, firm in expectation and relentless about results. If Washington seizes this moment, it can help convert years of stabilization into a credible political path. If it does not, the cycle will repeat, and the costs—to Somalis first, and to their partners—will only grow.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
