The decision to annul UAE agreements was not abrupt or reckless, but a necessary assertion of sovereignty, constitutional order and national unity.
By any objective measure, the decision taken by Somalia’s Cabinet on January 12 to annul all agreements with the United Arab Emirates was neither abrupt nor reckless. It came after prolonged restraint, repeated diplomatic engagement, and a sober assessment of what any responsible government is ultimately obliged to defend: its sovereignty, constitutional order, and national unity.
For years, Somalia pursued cooperation with external partners in good faith, guided by the expectation that engagement would be based on mutual respect, positive collaboration and the pursuit of a win-win prosperous future. The Somali government’s patience was not infinite nor unconditional. When international cooperation begins to bypass constitutional institutions, fragment national authority, and distort internal political balances, it ceases to be partnership and becomes illegal interference.
At its core, sovereignty is not an empty slogan; it is a system. It means that political, security, and economic relations with foreign states must flow through a country’s recognised national institutions. When parallel arrangements emerge, direct dealings with sub-national entities, security cooperation outside federal oversight, or agreements concluded without national consent, the integrity of the state is gradually eroded. Somalia experienced precisely this pattern over an extended period with the UAE engagement in the country. Therefore, our national decision on the UAE agreements was not a rejection of positive bilateral engagement, nor an abandonment of diplomacy: It was an affirmation of boundaries in line with international law.
Some critics of the Somali government’s decision to annul all UAE agreements have framed the decision as “drastic,” arguing that Somalia should have absorbed these practices for the sake of short-term stability or economic convenience. That argument misunderstands both Somalia’s recent history and the foundations of durable statehood. Fragile states do not become stable by tolerating fragmented authority driven by external interests. They become stable by consolidating institutions, clarifying chains of command, and ensuring that foreign engagement strengthens rather than substitutes the state. The nullification of UAE agreements concluded with sub-national administrations, and the suspension of bilateral security arrangements, must be understood in this context.
Under international law, and through all established diplomatic rules, sovereign nations must engage through their relevant national institutions. National institutions are solely responsible for the engagement with sub-national level institutions and actors. Accordingly, absolutely no independent country can accept security structures that operate outside its constitutional framework or port arrangements that dilute national control over strategic assets and undermine intergovernmental fiscal federalism.
What Somalia has done is draw a clear, lawful line. It has said that engagement is welcome but only on transparent, state-to-state terms, consistent with constitutional authority and international law. It has affirmed that dialogue remains possible but that principles are not negotiable.
Given Somalia’s strategic location, concerns about economic disruption resulting from the annulment of the UAE agreements are understandable. However, our government has put in place mechanisms to ensure continuity in port operations and security responsibilities, including the use of neutral international operators to continue facilitating global trade where necessary. Fundamentally, Somalia recognises that sustainable economic development and growth depend on the right enabling environment, political coherence and legal clarity, which investors are seeking across the world. Only a strong and unified state can provide this, not a fragmented one, divided within by destructive external interests.
Somalia’s decision to annul the UAE agreements reflects a broader regional reality. Somalia sits at a strategic crossroads linking the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the wider Horn of Africa. Any use of Somali territory, ports, or political space to advance external conflicts or agendas carries risks not only for Somalia, but for regional trade and stability as a whole. Therefore, a strong and united Somalia, reinforcing its national sovereignty, is a regional and global asset.
For too long, Somalia has been spoken about as an object of regional politics rather than as a subject of international law. The Cabinet’s decision on the UAE agreements signals a shift away from that narrative. It asserts that Somalia will engage the world as a sovereign equal, not as a fragmented space open to parallel influence and abuse.
History is often unkind to states that delay difficult decisions in the name of convenience. Somalia chose clarity instead. That choice deserves to be understood not as confrontation, 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 Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
