Stalled talks in Kismayo expose a deeper crisis for Somalia’s unity and security
KISMAYO — A week of chest‑thumping and handshakes in this southern port city has done little to resolve the core question that has shadowed Somalia since the collapse of central authority three decades ago: who truly speaks for the places that sit on the line between clan, commerce and the state?
- Advertisement -
President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s visit to Kismayo and his face‑to‑face with Jubaland strongman Ahmed Islam Mohamed Madobe produced the ritual gestures of diplomacy — public pronouncements, mutual thanks and a pledge to continue talks. “Both sides agreed to continue consultations and reconvene to advance the dialogue process,” Villa Somalia said in a statement. Jubaland, for its part, thanked Kenya for mediation and urged sustained dialogue while emphasising unity around “major national priorities.”
Surface calm, strategic friction
Those sentences, measured and municipal in tone, mask a far more combustible reality. Madobe has insisted that any meaningful negotiations must begin with Mogadishu recognising his legitimacy. The federal government rejects that precondition. Behind the rhetoric lie competing claims over revenues, security authority and the right to determine how Somalis will choose their government — indirect parliamentary selection favored by some regional leaders versus a fuller, contested national electoral framework proposed by others.
On the streets of Kismayo, the diplomatic niceties were accompanied by another, less reassuring soundtrack: the soft rumble of armoured units moving and suspicions that the political deadlock could bleed back into violence. Local residents and diplomats said there had been a noticeable build‑up of troops along the Kenya‑Somalia border, and Jubaland forces have clashed with the Somali National Army in recent months. The risk is not only local skirmishes but a wider unravelling that could hand Al‑Shabaab the initiative.
Why Kismayo matters
Kismayo is not just a picturesque port on the Indian Ocean; it is a prize. Its harbour, the fertile hinterland, and the revenues that flow through it give Jubaland leverage that few other Somali regions enjoy. For Nairobi, Kismayo is a strategic neighbour: Kenyan troops and intelligence have partnered with Jubaland forces in the long war against Al‑Shabaab, and Kenyan officials fear that Rift Valley instability could spill across the frontier.
Those economic and security stakes make the dispute more than a political quarrel over titles and recognition. They are about who controls money, who controls guns, and who writes the rules for a fragile country seeking to stitch itself back together while fighting an adaptive insurgency.
Regional repercussions and international fatigue
The Kismayo impasse also highlights a broader trend across parts of Africa and the wider world: the fragile centre confronted by emboldened regions and external partners whose priorities sometimes diverge. International troop presences are diminishing after years of counter‑insurgency campaigns; donor patience is limited; and neighbours increasingly see local strongmen as pragmatic partners rather than as obstacles to state‑building.
Kenya’s mediation role is a clear example. Nairobi’s involvement is motivated by security — a desire to prevent a breakdown that would threaten border stability — and by past investments in the security apparatus of southern Somalia. But such external brokering can be double‑edged: it can stabilise short‑term security arrangements while entrenching divisions that complicate long‑term national reconciliation.
What’s at stake for Somalia’s governance and the fight against Al‑Shabaab
Beyond personalities, the talks touch on two systemic questions. First, how will Somalia structure its elections and political representation in the near term? Madobe’s push for indirect polls is supported by several opposition figures who argue that clan‑based bargaining preserves fragile peace. President Hassan Sheikh’s camp has resisted that formulation, fearing it would consolidate regional power brokers at the expense of national reform.
Second, what happens to counter‑insurgency gains if political disputes escalate? Analysts warn that a prolonged standoff between Mogadishu and Kismayo risks creating security vacuums that Al‑Shabaab could exploit. The group has shown time and again that political fragmentation is fertile ground for recruitment and territorial inroads.
Paths forward and the hard choices
The conversations in Kismayo will need to move beyond symbolism into concrete agreements about timelines, revenue sharing from ports and customs, integration of regional forces into a broader national security architecture, and guarantees for an electoral process that most Somalis view as legitimate. That will require uncomfortable compromises.
One realistic scenario is continued incremental bargaining: more rounds of talks, mediated by Kenya and perhaps other partners, producing temporary pacts that buy time but not solutions. Another, darker scenario is a resumption of low‑level confrontations that bleed into larger clashes and erode public confidence in both regional and federal leaders.
There is also an opportunity. A carefully brokered deal that combines technical reforms on revenue and security with a timeline for inclusive political processes could break the impasse and deny Al‑Shabaab the political oxygen it seeks. But that would demand political courage from leaders who have mostly gained leverage from ambiguity.
Questions for Somalis and the international community
- Can Mogadishu and regional administrations find a model of federalism that balances local autonomy with national cohesion?
- Are external mediators like Kenya prepared to press for substantive, enforceable arrangements rather than short‑term stabilisation?
- How can the fight against Al‑Shabaab be insulated from political bargaining so that security gains are protected while governance disputes are resolved?
The Kismayo talks were never going to produce an overnight fix. But the stubbornness of the deadlock is a test of Somalia’s political maturity at a moment when the costs of failure are starkly visible. Will leaders choose the slow, often thankless path of compromise, or will they revert to zero‑sum calculations that risk unraveling hard‑won, fragile gains?
For residents in southern Somalia, the answer will determine whether the future brings more stability and economic recovery — or more conflict and opportunity for extremists. The world will be watching, and the clock is ticking.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
