Israel has been aiming to expand its international relations and cooperation in recent years. This goal has gained even higher priority since October 7. African countries are also among the actors with whom Israel wishes to develop relations and gain support. However, Tel Aviv has taken a step that contradicts international law and will alienate the African countries it attaches so much importance to by recognizing Somaliland, which claims to be a separate and independent state from Somalia, as an independent state. This recognition step once again demonstrates that the administration of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no regard for international law, while also calling into question its desire and intention to develop relations and cooperation with African countries.
Additionally, it has once again demonstrated that opposing Palestine’s right to self-determination, one of the most appropriate and notable examples of the exercise of the right to self-determination, which is generally accepted in international law, is not legally justified. It has been seen that what has been happening in Palestine since before 1948 is based on Israel’s expansionist colonialist understanding, and that today this understanding has evolved into international crimes such as ethnic cleansing, genocide, and apartheid. In other words, Tel Aviv’s acceptance of Somaliland’s controversial self-determination, as stated by Netanyahu himself, points to Israel’s ambivalent stance. The status of a state that is not recognized for the Palestinians has been granted to Somaliland. Thus, Israel’s controversial decision is based on political motives rather than legal justifications. For example, Israel, which aims to add Somaliland as a party to the Abraham Accords in Africa, is also “getting closer” geographically to Saudi Arabia and will thus increase pressure on Riyadh to become a party to the Abraham Accords and normalize relations with Israel. This decision is also seen as an intervention by Tel Aviv in the existing balances in the Horn of Africa.
Traditionally, the Palestinian issue and the balance of power in the Middle East have influenced Israel’s policies toward African countries. However, the Somaliland move signals an approach that goes beyond these two factors. Netanyahu has chosen to intervene directly in Africa’s internal affairs. He has also implicitly stated that Israel is involved in the policy of establishing a strategic balance in the Horn of Africa. By approaching Yemen, he aims to shift the balance in the conflict. According to Netanyahu’s mindset, approaching Saudi Arabia through Yemen is also one of the goals. Furthermore, in terms of maritime security or security initiatives in maritime areas, Israel’s recent expansion of cooperation with Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus regarding the Eastern Mediterranean can also be interpreted in this context. It would be possible to say that the aim is to redefine the strategic balance in the aforementioned regions.
Israel has been the first country to recognize Somaliland, which has claimed independence since 1991, seizing upon the instability in Somalia. Tel Aviv has therefore taken a similar step in Africa to the controversial steps it has taken in the Middle East, contrary to international law and political conventions in the eyes of Palestine. It has acted contrary to Africa’s political and legal conventions and the principle of “African solutions to African problems”. Consequently, it drew the reaction of Somalia, regional countries, the African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and even Turkey. The AU has pointed out that the recognition in question could be perceived as a precedent and could lead to dangerous developments, thereby threatening peace and stability on the continent. The AU rejects the recognition and reiterates that Somaliland is part of Somalia. The Intergovernmental Agency on Development (IGAD) has also rejected the unilateral recognition. It has emphasized the principles of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders and warned that a stance contrary to these principles could cause instability in the Horn of Africa.
The Somaliland move has drawn the reaction of African countries and organizations that are quite “sensitive” to secessionist movements. This could therefore undermine Tel Aviv’s goal of developing relations with African countries, the AU, and ECOWAS. While the AU is distant from Israel, sub-organizations such as ECOWAS may be closer to Israel. Israel has not yet achieved its goal of obtaining observer status in the AU. Within the AU, pro-Palestinian states opposed to Israel are resisting Israel’s observer status. Netanyahu, aware that this controversial step will draw Africa’s reaction, may receive some support from certain countries on the continent. At this point, it should be emphasized that there is no single, common stance among African countries regarding relations with Israel. While countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia wish to develop their relations and cooperation with Israel, some countries, notably the Republic of South Africa, take an anti-Israel stance. In other words, the lack of a common stance or approach among African countries on the issue of Israel suggests that Somalia’s reaction and the violation of its territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders do not pose a problem for some countries. In fact, Ethiopia’s attempt to recognize Somaliland, which was left unfinished in 2024 with Turkey’s intervention, may continue from where it left off. On the other hand, there still are African states that have not yet recognized Israel.
Tel Aviv’s decision to recognize Somaliland should not be considered separately from its Middle East and African policies. The fundamental aim is to maintain the momentum of integrating Israel into the region, excluding Iran and declaring it the main enemy, while ignoring the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the failure to establish a Palestinian state. It is therefore likely that Somaliland will sign the Abraham Accords. It is turning a blind eye to Israel’s ethnic cleansing and genocidal policies in Palestine, joining the anti-Iran front. It is predicted that bilateral relations will develop, particularly in the military sphere. The goal of establishing a military base is significant in this context. For states, having a military base in the Horn of Africa has become a must-have. While Israel’s and Russia’s requests remain unfulfilled, the US and China have bases in Djibouti. In this context, the Turkish factor also enters the picture. It should be remembered that Turkey’s largest overseas military base is in Somalia, that it has trained the Somali army, particularly in the fight against the terrorist organization al-Shabaab, and that it is an active actor in the Somali peace process. Considering Ankara’s overall policy towards the African continent, Somalia-Turkey relations are the most important example of Ankara’s soft power. In addition, Somalia is one of the prominent examples of Turkey expanding the content and scope of its relations in the current third phase of the “African Policy Partnership” process. Alongside military relations and cooperation in the fight against terrorism, cooperation in the field of defense has also been added. Turkey has also made various initiatives in Somalia’s national reconciliation process. Consequently, Israel’s interference in Somalia’s internal affairs has brought Turkey and Israel face to face in Somalia, this time in East Africa.
When examining the historical process, it becomes clear that the Israel-Somaliland relationship is not a new development. Negotiations have been taking place behind closed doors for many years, primarily in the areas of security and trade. While Israel decided to recognize Somaliland within the context of its security strategy, Somaliland also reaped the first fruits of the campaign it has been conducting since 1991 and the narrative it has been using.
Beyond that, the recognition doesn’t just have consequences and impacts on African politics. Somalia, Djibouti, Turkey, and Egypt reacted immediately to the news, showing how important recognizing Somaliland is for the region in terms of politics, diplomacy, and security. Alongside Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu’s move on Somaliland can also be understood in terms of maritime security in the Red Sea context. Israel’s request for a military base in Djibouti not being accepted is among the reasons for Tel Aviv’s focus on Somaliland. Ankara has stated that the recognition of Somaliland constitutes a violation of international law. Israel’s move has been seen as destabilizing the region and as an anti-Turkey step. In this context, it should be remembered that Somalia is a prominent country in Turkey’s Africa policy. It can be seen that Ankara’s aid and investments in Somalia have increased since the 2010s.
Immediately after the Netanyahu administration announced its decision on Somaliland, Somali President Sheikh Mahmud visited Ankara to meet with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, demonstrating the importance of relations between Turkey and Somalia and Ankara’s role in policies that will bring lasting stability and wealth to Somalia. Both leaders pointed out that Israel was violating international law and targeting instability in the region. The Somali President also noted that the Tel Aviv administration’s strategic goals were behind Israel’s move on Somaliland. For example, he mentioned the aim of forcibly displacing Palestinians in Gaza and sending them to Somalia. Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud stated that al-Shabaab and ISIS have caused great damage to Somalia’s security and that these two terrorist organizations have led to Israel’s recognition of Somaliland. Meanwhile, the terrorist organization al-Shabaab has also stated that it does not recognize Israel’s decision and will take action to unite Somaliland and Somalia.
Israeli recognition of Somaliland, which had been expected for more than 30 years, did not come unconditionally. Israel imposed three conditions on Somaliland and recognized it once these conditions were met. According to Sheikh Mahmud, Tel Aviv put forward the following conditions: the settlement of Palestinians in the region, Somaliland’s signing of the Abraham Accords, and Israel’s possession of a military base on the coast of the Gulf of Aden. It is important to remember that Israel has attempted to gain access to various ports in the context of Somaliland. This is intended to make Israel influential in the context of international maritime transport. It is thought that Israel will also intervene in Yemen, particularly by attempting to prevent attacks carried out by the Houthis in various areas, including the Red Sea, and by presenting itself as a counterbalancing actor to Iran’s influence in the region.
After Netanyahu’s unconventional move, another point of focus has been the US. Reports in the press that the US would recognize Somaliland after Israel suggested that US President Donald Trump’s Africa policy would also take a controversial, unprecedented path. On the other hand, US recognition of Somaliland would mean that Trump would adopt the same fait accompli stance in East Africa that he has shown in Palestine. Trump, who has targeted Somalia, its leader, its society, and even Somalis in the US, particularly in the context of immigration policy, has indicated that he is working on recognizing Somaliland, showing that he could support Israel’s move and follow the same policy rather than opposing it. The Palestinian Authority interprets the steps taken by Trump and Israel, who plans to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East”, in the context of resettling Palestinians in Somaliland. However, a subsequent statement from Washington sought to dispel the confusion created by Trump, emphasizing that the US would continue its policy on Somalia.
Ultimately, Tel Aviv’s move to recognize Somaliland is yet another step in Africa that adds to Israel’s expansionist policies, which violate law and norms and could easily trigger or cause instability. At the same time, this step has served as a reminder that, within the scope of African policy, demands for self-determination, secession, and the immunity of borders still remain sensitive issues on the continent and that there are still unresolved problems.
