While Somalia publicly condemned Somaliland for “courting Israel” and warned of dire consequences, Mogadishu was secretly pitching the very same diplomatic play behind closed doors.
Newly revealed records show that Somalia tried to use the Abraham Accords as leverage to block international recognition of Somaliland.
The result?
Somalia failed.
Somaliland moved forward.
And the contradiction is now out in the open.
This is not just an embarrassing diplomatic episode. It is a moment that exposes the changing power dynamics in the Horn of Africa, and why Somaliland’s steady, patient strategy is beginning to outperform Somalia’s reactive diplomacy.
What just came out — and why it matters
According to lobbying records and diplomatic communications now in the public domain, Somalia’s ambassador in Washington quietly approached U.S. and Israeli officials, floating a proposal that Somalia could consider joining the Abraham Accords if key players refrained from recognising Somaliland.
In simple terms:
Somalia tried to trade normalization with Israel for continued international denial of Somaliland’s statehood.
This happened while Somalia was publicly accusing Somaliland of treason, destabilisation, and foreign conspiracy for exploring the same diplomatic space.
That contradiction is not a footnote. It is the story.
Somaliland played it openly. Somalia tried to play it quietly.
There is a fundamental difference between what Somaliland did and what Somalia attempted.
Somaliland has been transparent.
It has openly engaged with partners, openly argued its case, and openly presented itself as a stable, democratic actor in a volatile region.
Somalia, by contrast, attempted a backroom maneuver, offering something it does not yet have — normalized relations with Israel — in exchange for blocking something it does not control — Somaliland’s international recognition.
And that is precisely why the strategy collapsed.
Why the Abraham Accords became the battleground
The Abraham Accords are not just about Israel and Arab states. They have become a geopolitical currency, especially for regions seeking strategic relevance.
For Somaliland, engagement with the accords is part of a broader logic:
- Strategic location along Red Sea trade routes
- Relative stability compared to the wider region
- Long-standing security cooperation with Western partners
For Somalia, however, the accords were treated as a last-minute bargaining chip, deployed defensively to stop Somaliland rather than to advance a coherent regional vision.
That difference in intent matters. So does timing.
Israel and Washington were not convinced
Despite Somalia’s outreach, Israel ultimately moved ahead with recognising Somaliland, signaling that credibility and consistency mattered more than last-minute diplomatic offers.
From a strategic standpoint, Somaliland offers:
- A predictable partner
- A functioning political system
- Long-term reliability
Somalia’s proposal, by contrast, raised questions:
- Could Somalia deliver on normalization amid internal instability?
- Was the offer genuine, or purely transactional?
- Would it survive domestic backlash?
Those uncertainties made the pitch weak. Somaliland’s position, by comparison, looked solid.
Public outrage, private silence
After Israel’s recognition of Somaliland became public, Somalia’s leadership reacted angrily, condemning the move as a violation of sovereignty and even labeling Israel an adversary.
Yet notably, there has been no public denial of the lobbying records that show Somalia attempted to strike a deal in private.
No clarification.
No rebuttal.
No explanation.
That silence speaks volumes.
A turning point for Horn of Africa diplomacy
This episode highlights a deeper shift taking place in the Horn of Africa.
For decades, international policy treated Somalia as the sole legitimate actor, regardless of internal collapse, while Somaliland was ignored despite three decades of stability.
That approach is now under strain.
What this story reveals is that:
- Somaliland is increasingly setting the agenda
- Somalia is reacting rather than leading
- External partners are reassessing old assumptions
Recognition is no longer just about historical claims. It is about governance, reliability, and strategic value.
The hypocrisy problem
Perhaps the most damaging aspect for Somalia is not the failed bid itself, but the hypocrisy it exposes.
Somaliland was condemned for exploring diplomatic normalization.
Somalia did the same — only secretly.
Somaliland was accused of destabilizing the region.
Somalia attempted a geopolitical trade-off that could have reshaped the region overnight.
In politics, credibility is everything. And credibility is lost when actions contradict rhetoric.
Somaliland’s long game is paying off
Somaliland did not rush.
It did not threaten.
It did not bargain in panic.
Instead, it continued doing what it has done for years:
- Building institutions
- Maintaining security
- Engaging partners calmly and consistently
This episode reinforces a growing reality: Somaliland is behaving like a state long before being universally recognised as one.
And increasingly, the world is responding accordingly.
What happens next?
The fallout from this revelation is still unfolding.
For Somalia, difficult questions remain:
- Can it maintain a coherent foreign policy while fighting internal instability?
- Can it oppose Somaliland diplomatically while imitating its strategies privately?
- Can it regain credibility with partners who now see the full picture?
For Somaliland, the message is clear:
- Transparency works
- Stability matters
- Time is no longer working against recognition — it may be working in its favor
The Horn of Africa is changing. Old narratives are cracking. And diplomacy, once conducted in shadows, is now exposed to daylight.
The question now is no longer whether Somaliland will be recognised, but who will be next to admit publicly what many already accept privately.