The decision to abandon the UAE agreement was neither sudden nor reckless, but a necessary assertion of sovereignty, constitutional order, and national unity.
By any objective standard, the Somali cabinet’s decision on January 12 to cancel all agreements with the United Arab Emirates was neither sudden nor reckless. This decision was made after a long period of restraint, repeated diplomatic engagement, and a sober assessment of what responsible governments ultimately have a duty to protect: sovereignty, constitutional order, and national unity.
Somalia has long sincerely pursued cooperation with external partners based on the expectation that engagement will be based on mutual respect, positive cooperation and the pursuit of a win-win and prosperous future. The Somali government’s patience was neither limitless nor unconditional. When international cooperation begins to circumvent constitutional institutions, fragment state power, and distort domestic political balances, it ceases to be partnership and becomes illegal interference.
In essence, sovereignty is not an empty slogan. It’s a system. This means that political, security and economic relations with foreign countries must be conducted through the country’s recognized state institutions. The emergence of parallel agreements, direct dealings with subnational entities, security cooperation outside of federal oversight, or agreements entered into without national consent gradually erode national integrity. Somalia experienced exactly this pattern for a long time due to the UAE’s involvement in the country. Therefore, our national decision on the UAE agreement is neither a rejection of active bilateral engagement nor an abandonment of diplomacy. It was a confirmation of boundaries in accordance with international law.
Some critics of the Somali government’s decision to scrap all UAE agreements call the decision “drastic”, arguing that Somalia should have absorbed the practice for short-term stability or economic convenience. That argument misunderstands both Somalia’s recent history and the foundations of its enduring statehood. Fragile states will not be stabilized by tolerating fragmented authority driven by external interests. A nation can be stabilized by integrating its systems, clarifying its chain of command, and strengthening foreign involvement rather than replacing it. The annulment of UAE agreements and suspension of bilateral security agreements concluded with subnational administrations must be understood in this context.
Under international law and through all established diplomatic rules, sovereign states must engage through relevant domestic institutions. National institutions are solely responsible for engagement with sub-national institutions and stakeholders. Therefore, no independent country can ever accept a security structure that operates outside its constitutional framework, a port agreement that weakens state control over strategic assets and undermines intergovernmental fiscal federalism.
What Somalia has done is draw clear and legal lines. The government said engagement was welcome, but only on transparent, country-to-state terms, in accordance with constitutional mandates and international law. Dialogue remains possible, but the principles are non-negotiable.
Given Somalia’s strategic location, concerns about economic turmoil resulting from the abandonment of the UAE agreement are understandable. However, our Government has put in place mechanisms to ensure continuity of port operations and security responsibilities, including the use of neutral international operators to continue to facilitate global trade where necessary. Fundamentally, Somalia recognizes that sustainable economic development and growth depends on the right environment, political coherence and legal clarity that investors around the world are demanding. This can only be achieved by strong, unified states, rather than fragmented states divided by external destructive interests.
Somalia’s decision to abandon the UAE agreement reflects broader regional realities. Somalia is located at a strategic crossroads between the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the wider Horn of Africa. Using Somalia’s territory, ports, or political space to advance external conflicts or agendas carries risks not only for Somalia but also for regional trade and stability as a whole. A strong and unified Somalia that strengthens national sovereignty is therefore a regional and global asset.
For too long, Somalia has been talked about as a subject of regional politics rather than as a subject of international law. The cabinet decision on the UAE deal signals a shift from that narrative. The report argues for Somalia to engage with the world as a sovereign and equal nation, rather than as a fragmented space subject to parallel influences and abuses.
History has often been unkind to nations that delay difficult decisions in the name of expediency. Somalia chose clarity instead. That choice should be understood not as a conflict, but as an overdue act of constitutional self-respect.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
