The Ankara Declaration, a communique issued by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Federal Republic of Somalia yesterday, facilitated by the Republic of Türkiye, has been hailed by Mogadishu as a significant diplomatic breakthrough in the long-standing tensions between the two countries. However, a closer examination of the declaration’s wording and the broader geopolitical context suggests that the agreement may be more of a pyrrhic victory for Somalia, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the country’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity.
According to the Middle East Eye, a Turkish official reported that negotiations between the two leaders and their teams lasted nearly seven hours, with active participation from Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. A key issue was Ethiopia’s recognition of Somalia’s territorial unity, which would require canceling its Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Somaliland. While Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed agreed to acknowledge Somalia’s independence and sovereignty, he opposed references to “territorial integrity” or “unity.” The Somali delegation countered by citing the 1933 Montevideo Convention, emphasizing that recognition requires acknowledging defined territories, a point Turkish officials found compelling. After lengthy discussions, the parties reached the Ankara Declaration, with Somalia securing recognition of its territorial unity and Ethiopia gaining commercial access to the Somali coastline.
At the heart of the matter lies the controversial MoU signed between Ethiopia and the self-declared Republic of Somaliland earlier this year. The MoU, which granted Ethiopia sea access to a port in the Somaliland region in exchange for recognition of the breakaway state’s independence, sparked outrage in Mogadishu and led to a series of diplomatic and military maneuvers by the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) aimed at countering the perceived threat to its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
A Closer Look at the Ankara Declaration
On the surface, the Ankara Declaration appears to represent a significant concession by Ethiopia, which has agreed to “respect and commit to one another’s sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity.” The declaration also acknowledges Somalia’s recognition of the sacrifices made by Ethiopian soldiers within the African Union Missions, a nod to the two countries’ shared history of cooperation in the fight against extremism and instability in the region.
However, a closer examination of the declaration’s wording reveals a number of potentially troubling implications for Somalia’s long-term interests. Perhaps most significantly, the declaration acknowledges the “potentially diverse benefits that could be derived from Ethiopia’s assured access to and from the sea, whilst respecting the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Somalia.”
This language, which bears a striking resemblance to the wording of the original MoU between Ethiopia and Somaliland, suggests that Ethiopia may have succeeded in securing many of the same concessions it sought in that agreement, but now with the added legitimacy of the FGS’s blessing. The declaration’s call for the two countries to “closely work together to finalize mutually advantageous commercial arrangements through bilateral agreements, including contract, lease, and similar modalities” further reinforces this impression, hinting at the possibility of a long-term Ethiopian presence on Somali soil.
Furthermore, the declaration’s wording, coupled with Ethiopia’s official news agency’s tweet (later deleted) mere hours after its release, suggests that the agreement may be more of a diplomatic coup for Ethiopia, with potentially serious consequences for Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The deleted tweet from Ethiopia’s official news agency stated: “With #Ankara mediated deal with Somalia, Ethiopia walked its talks in resolving any disputes peacefully. The declaration secures #Ethiopia’s right to sea outlets while upholding MoU with Somaliland & debunking baseless claims of invasion against #Somalia.” This revelation casts the Ankara Declaration in a new light, suggesting that Ethiopia may have successfully leveraged the agreement to secure its interests while maintaining its controversial Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the self-declared Republic of Somaliland.
The Implications for Somalia’s Sovereignty and Security
The potential implications of the Ankara Declaration for Somalia’s sovereignty and security are significant and far-reaching. If, as the language of the declaration suggests, Ethiopia is granted “reliable, secure and sustainable access to and from the sea” under the “sovereign authority of the Federal Republic of Somalia,” this could effectively amount to the establishment of an Ethiopian naval base and permanent military presence on Somali territory.
Such a presence, likely to be located in a strategic location close to the Ethiopian border such as the port city of Zeyla, would represent a significant concession by the FGS and a major victory for Ethiopia in its long-standing quest for access to the sea. It would also raise serious questions about Somalia’s ability to maintain control over its own territory and protect its national interests in the face of a powerful and assertive neighbor.
Moreover, the establishment of an Ethiopian military presence on Somali soil could have significant implications for the broader geopolitical balance of power in the region. With Ethiopia’s growing economic and military clout, and its increasingly adversarial relationship with other regional powers such as Eritrea and Egypt, the country’s ability to project power and influence from a base on the Somali coast could have far-reaching consequences for the stability and security of the Horn of Africa.
The FGS’s Diplomatic Maneuvers
In the face of the perceived threat posed by the Ethiopia-Somaliland MoU, the FGS has engaged in a series of diplomatic maneuvers aimed at shoring up its position and countering the growing influence of its western neighbor. These have included the granting of rights to the Blue Economy to Turkey, including a 3D seismic survey, and the signing of defense pacts with both Turkey and Egypt.
While these moves may have been seen as necessary steps to counterbalance Ethiopia’s growing assertiveness in the region, they also raise questions about the long-term costs and benefits of such alliances for Somalia’s sovereignty and independence. By granting extensive economic and military concessions to external powers, the FGS risks becoming increasingly dependent on the goodwill and support of its partners, potentially limiting its ability to pursue an independent foreign policy and protect its national interests.
Moreover, the signing of defense pacts with multiple regional powers, each with their own complex web of alliances and interests, risks drawing Somalia into the broader geopolitical rivalries and conflicts that have long plagued the Horn of Africa. With tensions between Ethiopia and Egypt over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, and between Turkey and other regional powers over influence and resources, Somalia’s attempts to balance these competing interests may prove increasingly difficult and costly in the long run.
The Ankara Declaration should serve as a wake-up call for Somalia to reassess its foreign policy strategy. Rather than relying on a patchwork of agreements that risk entangling the country in external rivalries, the FGS must focus on building a cohesive, independent approach that prioritizes Somalia’s sovereignty and national interests. Without such a recalibration, the Ankara Declaration may come to symbolize not a diplomatic breakthrough but a moment when external agreements and reactive strategies failed to shield Somalia from the ambitions of a powerful neighbor.
