MOGADISHU (WDN) — Somalia’s political crisis is entering a dangerous new phase, with nearly a year of international mediation failing to produce a concrete political roadmap while President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s government continues to advance its electoral agenda amid deep opposition.

The latest warning has come from the Future Council opposition coalition, which brings together prominent Mogadishu-based politicians and the administrations of Puntland and Jubaland. The opposition has renewed its appeal to the international community, including the United Nations, African Union, IGAD and foreign diplomatic missions in Somalia, urging greater pressure for a negotiated political settlement.

The appeals come as world leaders and diplomats gather in New York for the UN General Assembly, placing Somalia’s unresolved political dispute once again before international policymakers.

A Year of Mediation — But No Roadmap

For almost a year, international actors have attempted to bridge the widening divide between President Hassan Sheikh and his political opponents.

Several rounds of dialogue and mediation have failed to produce an agreement acceptable to the principal sides. Earlier international efforts were followed by Turkish-led initiatives, while opposition figures have continued to call for broader international involvement in the process.

The central disputes include the framework for the next elections, the role of federal and regional authorities, and the political arrangements that should govern the transition toward the next national vote. Despite the impasse, the government has continued to promote its preferred electoral model.

That has created a widening contradiction: international partners are calling for political dialogue while Somalia’s political actors continue to operate without an agreed national roadmap.

Baidoa Has Turned the Political Dispute into a Security Crisis

The consequences have become particularly visible in Baidoa, where political confrontation has escalated into armed clashes. Somali federal forces and fighters aligned with former South West State President Abdiaziz Hassan Mohamed Laftagareen clashed in Baidoa in August. The fighting involved heavy weapons and caused civilian casualties, according to reports from the area.

The confrontation followed the federal government’s takeover of Baidoa earlier in the year and the subsequent political rupture between Mogadishu and Laftagareen.

For Somalia’s international partners, Baidoa presents a difficult question: when political disputes between the federal government and regional actors become militarised, where should the line be drawn between counterterrorism assistance and internal political confrontation?

Opposition leaders have alleged that military capabilities provided to the federal government for the fight against Al-Shabaab — including drones and other heavy weaponry — are being used against political opponents.

Those allegations require independent verification. What is documented, however, is that heavy weapons have been used during clashes between federal forces and forces aligned with rival political authorities in Baidoa.

Claims that F-16 aircraft have also been used in operations against opposition forces should likewise be independently verified before being presented as established fact.

The Arms Embargo Question

The opposition has called for the restoration of international restrictions on arms transfers to Somalia, arguing that the country’s political divisions make the unrestricted accumulation and deployment of heavy weaponry increasingly dangerous. But the legal position is more complicated than the opposition’s characterization suggests.

The UN Security Council unanimously lifted the general arms embargo on Somalia’s federal government in December 2023. At the same time, the Council maintained an arms embargo against Al-Shabaab, with exemptions covering Somalia’s federal security institutions. The Council also required the Somali government to strengthen weapons and ammunition management and prevent military equipment from being transferred to unauthorized individuals or entities.

The current debate is therefore not simply whether Somalia should be under a general arms embargo. It also concerns how weapons supplied to Somali security institutions are controlled, where they are deployed and whether their use remains consistent with their stated counterterrorism purpose. That distinction is increasingly important as political and military disputes overlap.

International Indifference Under Scrutiny

The growing frustration among opposition leaders reflects a broader concern: international engagement has produced repeated calls for dialogue but has yet to deliver a political settlement accepted by Somalia’s major stakeholders.

The international community has invested heavily in Somalia’s security architecture, including support for African Union forces and Somali security institutions fighting Al-Shabaab. Yet the political foundation required to sustain that security architecture remains deeply contested.

The latest decision by Washington to allow another year for the UN to wind down logistical support for AUSSOM illustrates the wider uncertainty surrounding Somalia’s security transition. The United States had initially planned to end its support for the UN logistics mechanism from January 2027 but has now agreed to a 12-month phase-down period.

The extension provides additional time for a new financing and logistical arrangement. It does not resolve Somalia’s political crisis.

Somalia’s international partners face a difficult choice. They can continue treating the political dispute primarily as an electoral disagreement and leave Somali leaders to negotiate at their own pace. Or they can recognize that the dispute has increasingly acquired a security dimension, particularly where federal and regional forces confront one another. The danger is not merely another failed round of negotiations.

If political disagreements continue to spill into armed confrontation, international military assistance intended to strengthen Somalia’s fight against Al-Shabaab could become entangled in domestic political conflict. That would raise serious questions about civilian protection, weapons accountability and the credibility of Somalia’s broader security transition.

The opposition’s appeal to the UN, AU, IGAD and diplomatic missions is therefore a demand for more than another round of statements urging dialogue. It is a call for the international community to help establish a political framework accepted by the principal Somali stakeholders before the electoral dispute becomes even more deeply militarised.

Somalia Cannot Have a Security Transition Without a Political Settlement

The central lesson from the past year is increasingly difficult to ignore: Somalia’s security challenges cannot be separated from its political crisis.

Al-Shabaab remains a major security threat, while AUSSOM faces serious questions about its long-term financing and logistical support. At the same time, Mogadishu and key opposition and federal member-state actors remain divided over the country’s political future. More weapons alone cannot resolve those divisions. Nor can another year of mediation without a concrete political roadmap.

The international community has spent years helping Somalia build security institutions. The immediate challenge is to ensure that those institutions remain focused on the national security threats they were established to confront — while Somalia’s political leaders negotiate an electoral and constitutional framework broad enough to command national acceptance.

Until that happens, the widening gap between political dialogue and events on the ground risks becoming one of the most serious tests of Somalia’s fragile political and security transition.

WardheerNews