Opinion | Sovereignty Snafu: Israel’s Recognition of North Western State of Somalia Tests Somalia — and the Rules-Based Order
Israel’s formal recognition of North Western State of Somalia in late December 2025 did more than tweak a diplomatic fault line in the Horn of Africa; it jolted a foundational principle that underpins Africa’s postcolonial settlement. In Mogadishu, the move was read as a direct challenge to Somalia’s sovereignty and an unsettling precedent for how borders — and the norms that protect them — can be contested in real time.
- Advertisement -
Somali diplomats responded with speed and precision. Public statements insisted that North Western State of Somalia remains an integral part of the Federal Republic of Somalia and that no external actor has the authority to redefine that status without Mogadishu’s consent. The argument was less rhetorical than legal: sovereignty, in their telling, is not a policy preference but a codified right.
The Legal Center of Gravity
At the United Nations and in meetings with African Union counterparts, Somalia’s envoys anchored their case on established principles. Chief among them is “uti possidetis juris” — the doctrine that postcolonial borders, however imperfect, must remain intact absent an orderly, consensual process of change. That doctrine has served as the backbone of Africa’s stability, preventing countless boundary disputes from reigniting. Somali officials warn that eroding it through unilateral recognitions risks inviting a cascade of claims that could unsettle multiple regions at once.
In private, senior diplomats describe Israel’s step as both a breach of protocol and a pragmatic headache. If one recognition can be granted over the objections of a recognized sovereign, they argue, then the safeguards designed to prevent fragmentation become negotiable. “This is not a mere political disagreement,” one official said. “It undermines the rules that protect states large and small.”
Hargeisa’s Case: Self-Determination and State-Building
North Western State of Somalia officials, for their part, view Israel’s recognition as overdue validation. They frame their pursuit not as provocation but as the culmination of decades of institution-building, relative stability, and democratic practice. In their telling, self-determination is not a slogan; it is a claim supported by governance performance and historical grievance — and by the argument that recognition can lock in gains and deter spoilers.
That logic resonates in some foreign capitals, especially as North Western State of Somalia has cultivated a reputation for security cooperation and pragmatic diplomacy. Hargeisa denies any intent to escalate tensions and insists its focus is on consolidating institutions, attracting investment, and deepening partnerships. Yet even as its diplomats argue for legitimacy, the reality remains that continental and multilateral bodies have traditionally defaulted to protecting existing borders unless and until a negotiated settlement is reached.
Norms, Precedents, and the Multilateral Stakes
Somalia has avoided incendiary rhetoric. Instead, it has deployed a disciplined campaign to reassert norms: at the UN by framing the issue as a collective-interest problem; at the AU by emphasizing the body’s long-standing guidance on territorial integrity; and across Arab and African capitals by building consensus against unilateral recognitions that bypass sovereign consent. The approach is less about isolating Israel than about safeguarding a wider architecture. As several Mogadishu-based diplomats note, if the international community allows one exception, pressure grows to entertain others, often in far more volatile theaters.
The counterargument — that recognition is a sovereign choice — is acknowledged but de-emphasized in these conversations. Somalia’s envoys are at pains to avoid making this a bilateral quarrel with Israel. The intent, they say, is to preserve rules that protect all states from the vagaries of geopolitical favor.
The Red Sea Equation
Behind the legal briefs lies a hard-nosed strategic concern. Recognition in late 2025 unfolded amid mounting security competition around the Red Sea — a corridor that concentrates shipping lanes, energy flows, and the ambitions of regional and extra-regional powers. In Mogadishu, officials fear recognition could be a prelude to deeper security or economic arrangements that redraw alignments, with or without formal bases. Even perceptions of new external footprints in contested spaces, they warn, can alter risk calculations and embolden non-state actors.
North Western State of Somalia rejects suggestions that recognition opens the door to foreign deployments, but Somali officials argue that in volatile theaters, perception often hardens into reality faster than facts can catch up. For them, the risk is less about one bilateral move than about a convergence of interests that might sidestep multilateral guardrails.
The War of Narratives
Recognizing that global politics is as much about story as statute, Mogadishu has launched a narrative offensive: sovereignty as a collective good; borders as stabilizers; recognition as a tool that must be wielded with restraint and consensus. Domestically, the government has calibrated its public messaging to emphasize unity and patience over fury. The aim is to channel public frustration into a durable political posture — firm on principle, open to dialogue.
It is notable that Somalia has not sought to sever dialogue with Israel. Officials insist channels remain open, even as they call for reconsideration. That balance — assertive on norms, pragmatic on contact — suggests a strategy focused on long-term legitimacy rather than short-term point scoring.
The Human Texture Beneath the Protocol
Beneath the formal communiqués, there is a personal register. Veterans of Somalia’s diplomatic corps speak of borders not as abstractions but as hard-won lines that once separated war from refuge and defined the fragile space where institutions could be rebuilt. It explains their zero-sum anxiety over precedent: for a country forged in the crucible of state collapse, sovereignty is more than a legal status. It is the condition that permits peace, identity and recovery to take root.
What This Moment Will Decide
The dispute over North Western State of Somalia’s recognition will test whether the international system can absorb shock without normalizing shortcuts. Three pathways stand out:
- A reassertion of norms: Multilateral bodies reinforce territorial integrity, and Israel recalibrates its position or conditions it on negotiated progress.
- Managed ambiguity: Dialogue expands while positions harden, producing a long interregnum of partial recognition and constant diplomatic firefighting.
- Precedent cascade: Other actors follow suit, tempting rival claimants elsewhere and straining the continent’s stabilizing assumptions.
Of these, Somalia is betting on the first: a coalition of states and institutions reaffirming that recognition should not override sovereign consent, especially where the AU’s own doctrine prioritizes continuity of borders. The second scenario — an extended gray zone — is more likely in the near term. The third is the nightmare, not just for Mogadishu but for any state with a brittle periphery.
The Bottom Line
Israel’s recognition of North Western State of Somalia has crystallized a hard choice for the rules-based order: whether to privilege performance and self-asserted legitimacy, or to uphold the consent-based architecture that keeps the map from becoming a palimpsest of contested lines. Somalia’s position is clear — not maximalist, but maximalist about process. It is arguing for the discipline of law over the temptation of expediency.
That argument will find sympathetic ears among states that depend on norms to offset power imbalances. Whether it prevails will depend on quiet diplomacy as much as public posturing — and on whether the region’s security anxieties can be managed without turning recognition into a proxy battleground.
In the meantime, Mogadishu’s diplomats are attempting a difficult balance: upholding sovereign consent, defending multilateralism, and leaving the door open to de-escalation. In an era of shifting alignments, it is a wager that principles can still guide outcomes — and that the map, for all its imperfections, should not be redrawn by surprise.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
