Türkiye’s role in Somalia is no longer just about aid or state support; it has evolved into a strategic alignment that strengthens Mogadishu’s central authority while constraining Somaliland’s trajectory, reshaping the regional balance, and signaling a new phase of power competition in the Horn of Africa.
A story is often told about Türkiye in Somalia. It begins with compassion, the famine of 2011, a highly visible visit by a foreign leader, and a surge of humanitarian assistance that helped restore a sense of dignity in a country long abandoned by much of the international community. It is a powerful story that deserves recognition. Yet it is also incomplete, because what followed was not simply recovery. It was positioning.
For much of the past fifteen years, Türkiye maintained a careful balance. It built a strong foothold through aid, infrastructure, and security cooperation, while largely avoiding direct involvement in Somalia’s internal political contestations. That restraint gave Ankara credibility. It allowed Türkiye to present itself as a partner of the Somalia state, rather than a patron of a particular political agenda.
That balance is now eroding.
Recent developments suggest that Türkiye is no longer simply supporting the Somalia state in an institutional sense. It is increasingly aligned with the governing direction of President Hassan Sheik Mohamud, reinforcing a centralized political approach that lacks a broad popular base and has struggled to accommodate Somalia’s federal reality. In doing so, Türkiye is shifting from state support to agenda support, a distinction that carries profound consequences in a fragmented political system.
Somalia’s history offers a warning. Attempts to impose centralized authority over a diverse political landscape have repeatedly failed, most notably under Siad Barre, whose regime ultimately collapsed under the weight of that approach. Today, external reinforcement of central authorities without corresponding engagement with federal member states risks reproducing elements of that failure in a new form.
At the same time, Türkiye’s posture toward Somaliland has become more explicit and more assertive. What was once framed as facilitation—Somalia and Somaliland talks— has evolved into clear opposition. Statements emphasizing Somalia’s territorial integrity are now coupled with resistance to any development that may strengthen Somaliland’s state-building, institutional capacity, or economic trajectory. This is not only rhetorical. It is reflected in the geography of Türkiye’s engagement itself. Its investments, capacity-building programs, and political presence remain overwhelmingly concentrated in Mogadishu, reinforcing a visibly asymmetrical alignment.
This shift was further underscored during President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to Addis Ababa in February 2026, during which Türkiye’s position on Somaliland was articulated directly and opposed Israel’s recognition of Somaliland.
The message was clear. Türkiye now views the preservation of Somalia’s territorial claim not simply as a diplomatic principle, but as a strategic priority.
That priority is not detached from material realities. Over the past decade, Türkiye has embedded itself across Somalia’s most critical sectors. By 2013, Turkish firms were operating Mogadishu’s airport and port, key gateways through which revenue, trade, and international access flow. These were not marginal investments. They were structural footholds. Somalia’s own oversight bodies later acknowledged that these agreements were concluded in a weak institutional environment, with limited safeguards and unclear terms.
This detail is foundational. It suggests that Türkiye’s early gains were not simply commercial successes, but advantages shaped by timing, secured when Somalia’s capacity to negotiate on equal footing was at its lowest.
The pattern continued in security. The establishment of the TURKSOM military base in 2017 anchored Türkiye within Somalia’s security architecture. Officially framed as capacity-building, it also created long-term dependency in training, doctrine, and operational alignment. Military partnerships rarely remain technical. Over time, they shape how a state understands and organizes its own defense.
The timing of Türkiye’s next major expansion made this dynamic even clearer. In early 2024, the Ethiopia–Somaliland MoU triggered political tension and diplomatic anxiety in Mogadishu. Somalia felt exposed and in need of strong external backing. It was at that moment that Türkiye and Somalia signed their expanded defense and maritime agreement. Turkish officials emphasized support and capacity-building, yet the context reveals something more: this was a strategic insertion during a period of vulnerability.
Through that agreement, Türkiye positioned itself at the center of Somalia’s maritime security, a domain inseparable from economic sovereignty. Control over maritime space shapes access to fisheries, shipping routes, offshore jurisdiction, and the development of energy resources. For Somalia, the arrangement brought reassurance. For Türkiye, it created access to another strategic domain through which long-term influence could be exercised.
If earlier phases could still be framed as a partnership, the move into hydrocarbons made the underlying logic more explicit. Beginning in March 2024, Türkiye signed a hydrocarbon cooperation agreement with Somalia covering oil and gas exploration, with its energy minister noting the aim to “strengthen Turkey’s presence in the Horn of Africa.”
By 2026, this had translated into action, with the launch of Türkiye’s first deep-sea drilling mission off Somalia’s coast, widely reported as a milestone in both Somalia’s energy development and Türkiye’s external expansion.
What stands out is not only the scale of the engagement but also the clarity of intent. Turkish officials openly stated that the objective was to strengthen Türkiye’s presence in the Horn of Africa. That language reflects a dual purpose, development and positioning, situating Somalia within a broader energy and geopolitical landscape.
For Somalia, the promise is significant. Energy exploration offers potential revenue and economic transformation. Yet the structure of these agreements raises deeper concerns. In contexts of institutional fragility, legalization does not necessarily equal ownership. When agreements are approved through processes with limited scrutiny, and where even key actors lack full access to their terms, external advantage expands while domestic accountability lags.
This concern becomes sharper when the cumulative nature of these agreements is taken into account. Ports shape trade. Security partnerships shape reliance. Maritime agreements shape jurisdiction. Hydrocarbon contracts shape future resource control. Fisheries governance shapes access to everyday economic wealth. Together, they form an integrated system of influence.
Türkiye’s role in Somalia is no longer just about aid or state support; it has evolved into a strategic alignment that strengthens Mogadishu’s central authority while constraining Somaliland’s trajectory, reshaping the regional balance, and signaling a new phase of power competition in the Horn of Africa.
A story is often told about Türkiye in Somalia. It begins with compassion, the famine of 2011, a highly visible visit by a foreign leader, and a surge of humanitarian assistance that helped restore a sense of dignity in a country long abandoned by much of the international community. It is a powerful story that deserves recognition. Yet it is also incomplete, because what followed was not simply recovery. It was positioning.
From The Reporter Magazine
Wolqait: Where UNCERTAINTY is Too Grave to Overlook
Published on 2026-04-04 By Bewket Abebe
Ethiopia Can Open Markets—But Needs Media to Sustain Investment Flows
Published on 2026-04-04 By Samson Berhane
For much of the past fifteen years, Türkiye maintained a careful balance. It built a strong foothold through aid, infrastructure, and security cooperation, while largely avoiding direct involvement in Somalia’s internal political contestations. That restraint gave Ankara credibility. It allowed Türkiye to present itself as a partner of the Somalia state, rather than a patron of a particular political agenda.
– Advertisement –
That balance is now eroding.
Recent developments suggest that Türkiye is no longer simply supporting the Somalia state in an institutional sense. It is increasingly aligned with the governing direction of President Hassan Sheik Mohamud, reinforcing a centralized political approach that lacks a broad popular base and has struggled to accommodate Somalia’s federal reality. In doing so, Türkiye is shifting from state support to agenda support, a distinction that carries profound consequences in a fragmented political system.
From The Reporter Magazine
Taxing the Digital Frontier: Ethiopia’s Creators Face a New Fiscal Reality
Published on 2026-04-04 By Mahlet Mehdi
Growing the Pot: Private Pension Fund Looks to Add Color to Monotone Portfolio
Published on 2026-04-04 By Yibel Kassa
Somalia’s history offers a warning. Attempts to impose centralized authority over a diverse political landscape have repeatedly failed, most notably under Siad Barre, whose regime ultimately collapsed under the weight of that approach. Today, external reinforcement of central authorities without corresponding engagement with federal member states risks reproducing elements of that failure in a new form.
At the same time, Türkiye’s posture toward Somaliland has become more explicit and more assertive. What was once framed as facilitation—Somalia and Somaliland talks— has evolved into clear opposition. Statements emphasizing Somalia’s territorial integrity are now coupled with resistance to any development that may strengthen Somaliland’s state-building, institutional capacity, or economic trajectory. This is not only rhetorical. It is reflected in the geography of Türkiye’s engagement itself. Its investments, capacity-building programs, and political presence remain overwhelmingly concentrated in Mogadishu, reinforcing a visibly asymmetrical alignment.
This shift was further underscored during President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to Addis Ababa in February 2026, during which Türkiye’s position on Somaliland was articulated directly and opposed Israel’s recognition of Somaliland.
That priority is not detached from material realities. Over the past decade, Türkiye has embedded itself across Somalia’s most critical sectors. By 2013, Turkish firms were operating Mogadishu’s airport and port, key gateways through which revenue, trade, and international access flow. These were not marginal investments. They were structural footholds. Somalia’s own oversight bodies later acknowledged that these agreements were concluded in a weak institutional environment, with limited safeguards and unclear terms.
This detail is foundational. It suggests that Türkiye’s early gains were not simply commercial successes, but advantages shaped by timing, secured when Somalia’s capacity to negotiate on equal footing was at its lowest.
The pattern continued in security. The establishment of the TURKSOM military base in 2017 anchored Türkiye within Somalia’s security architecture. Officially framed as capacity-building, it also created long-term dependency in training, doctrine, and operational alignment. Military partnerships rarely remain technical. Over time, they shape how a state understands and organizes its own defense.
The timing of Türkiye’s next major expansion made this dynamic even clearer. In early 2024, the Ethiopia–Somaliland MoU triggered political tension and diplomatic anxiety in Mogadishu. Somalia felt exposed and in need of strong external backing. It was at that moment that Türkiye and Somalia signed their expanded defense and maritime agreement. Turkish officials emphasized support and capacity-building, yet the context reveals something more: this was a strategic insertion during a period of vulnerability.
Through that agreement, Türkiye positioned itself at the center of Somalia’s maritime security, a domain inseparable from economic sovereignty. Control over maritime space shapes access to fisheries, shipping routes, offshore jurisdiction, and the development of energy resources. For Somalia, the arrangement brought reassurance. For Türkiye, it created access to another strategic domain through which long-term influence could be exercised.
If earlier phases could still be framed as a partnership, the move into hydrocarbons made the underlying logic more explicit. Beginning in March 2024, Türkiye signed a hydrocarbon cooperation agreement with Somalia covering oil and gas exploration, with its energy minister noting the aim to “strengthen Turkey’s presence in the Horn of Africa.”
By 2026, this had translated into action, with the launch of Türkiye’s first deep-sea drilling mission off Somalia’s coast, widely reported as a milestone in both Somalia’s energy development and Türkiye’s external expansion.
What stands out is not only the scale of the engagement but also the clarity of intent. Turkish officials openly stated that the objective was to strengthen Türkiye’s presence in the Horn of Africa. That language reflects a dual purpose, development and positioning, situating Somalia within a broader energy and geopolitical landscape.
For Somalia, the promise is significant. Energy exploration offers potential revenue and economic transformation. Yet the structure of these agreements raises deeper concerns. In contexts of institutional fragility, legalization does not necessarily equal ownership. When agreements are approved through processes with limited scrutiny, and where even key actors lack full access to their terms, external advantage expands while domestic accountability lags.
This concern becomes sharper when the cumulative nature of these agreements is taken into account. Ports shape trade. Security partnerships shape reliance. Maritime agreements shape jurisdiction. Hydrocarbon contracts shape future resource control. Fisheries governance shapes access to everyday economic wealth. Together, they form an integrated system of influence.
At this point, the relationship cannot be understood sector by sector. It must be understood structurally. What has emerged is not simply cooperation, but strategic entrenchment.
For Somaliland, this carries immediate implications. A powerful external actor is strengthening its rival, opposing its political aspirations, and shaping the regional environment in ways that narrow its room for maneuvering. Under such conditions, passivity is not neutral. It is costly.
The response is not an escalation. It is an adaptation. Somaliland has already begun to explore alternative partnerships with actors such as the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, and Israel. These relationships reflect a broader process of counter-alignment, a standard response when one side faces concentrated external pressure.
But counter-alignment requires more than agreements. It demands institutional strength, legal preparedness, and the ability to negotiate from a position of confidence rather than necessity. Without this, Somaliland risks reproducing the very asymmetry it seeks to counter.
The emerging pattern in Somalia demonstrates how external actors consolidate influence where capacity is limited, and negotiations are shaped by urgency. Somaliland must therefore move decisively to strengthen its negotiating architecture and pursue alternative alignments with strategic clarity, ensuring that partnerships are structured on balanced terms and in line with long-term national interests.
The broader lesson extends beyond Somalia and Somaliland. It reflects a recurring logic of external engagement in fragile contexts: crisis creates entry, weakness enables consolidation, and opportunity drives expansion. Türkiye’s trajectory in Somalia, from humanitarian entry to security integration and resource positioning, illustrates this sequence with clarity.
The lesson for Somaliland is not to replicate this model, but to anticipate it, act earlier, and negotiate better. By building resilient institutions, diversifying alliances, and securing carefully structured agreements, Somaliland can position itself not as a reactive actor but as a prepared and strategic partner capable of shaping outcomes rather than absorbing them.
For Somaliland, the question is no longer whether this dynamic will continue. It will.
The real question is whether it will be prepared to respond on its own terms, with the institutional strength, strategic clarity, and alliances necessary to restore balance.
In the Horn of Africa, influence does not wait for legitimacy. It follows preparation, timing, and the ability to act decisively. Those who anticipate and shape external engagement define outcomes; those who delay risk being defined by them.
Abdirahman Osman Gaas (PhD) is a visiting lecturer at the University of Hargeisa, School of Graduate Studies, and a regional researcher specializing in the political economy and geopolitics of the Horn of Africa.
Contributed by Abdirahman Osman Gaas
