Let’s stop pretending geography is optional. Somaliland sits near the Bab el-Mandeb—one of the world’s most consequential maritime chokepoints. That is not a “regional detail.” It’s leverage. And in 2026, levers get pulled. Here’s the blunt reality: the Red Sea is becoming a coercion corridor. If you can’t keep it open, you don’t control your trade, your energy flows, or your strategic timeline.
This is not a local story. It’s a competition map.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, and Turkey all want influence in the Horn of Africa and along the Red Sea corridor—because influence there translates into access, basing options, leverage over shipping, and diplomatic gravity across Africa and the Middle East.
And they do not pursue influence the way democracies like to imagine influence works. They pursue it through:
-
Port/transport entanglements that become long-term political leverage
-
Security relationships that mature into dependence
-
Elite capture—contracts, networks, patronage
-
Narrative warfare that reframes coercion as “partnership” and criticism as “colonialism”
If you aren’t competing for the chokepoints, you’re volunteering to be coerced through them.
Somaliland is not a “footnote.” It’s terrain.
The West keeps treating Somaliland like an awkward diplomatic edge case. Meanwhile, serious actors treat it as what it is: strategic terrain with ports, air access, and position. Recognition is paperwork. Control is reality. And reality is already operating on the ground.
Somaliland’s internal governance is not perfect, but it is meaningfully different from the regional alternative: vacuums that get filled by militias, pirates, terror networks, and outside patrons.
And it’s worth stating plainly: terrorism is not Somaliland’s defining security problem the way it has been for neighboring Somalia. That distinction matters—not because the region is risk-free, but because it shapes what kinds of partnerships can actually take root and endure.
Ethiopia’s stake: Berbera as an economic pressure valve
There’s a major regional player that often gets left out of this conversation: Ethiopia. Ethiopia is landlocked, fast-growing, and structurally dependent on external port access. For years, Djibouti has carried an outsized share of Ethiopia’s trade throughput. That degree of reliance is not just an economic issue; it is strategic vulnerability.
A functional Berbera corridor gives Ethiopia an alternative outlet to the sea. It reduces single-point dependency, increases bargaining leverage, and adds redundancy to a national economy that cannot afford chokepoint politics.
This is also where Somaliland’s value becomes unavoidable. A stable, investable port-and-corridor ecosystem in Somaliland is not merely a Somaliland story. It is a regional de-risking mechanism that can lower friction for Ethiopia while strengthening the broader Red Sea trade architecture.
The U.S. should be the anchor—because the alternative anchors are hostile to the U.S. model.
Here’s the geo-strategic opening many analysts miss: Somaliland presents a rare opportunity to reinforce a pro-Western trajectory in a critical corridor without inventing a partner from scratch.
Somaliland has signaled—through behavior, not slogans—that it is:
-
Democracy-leaning in practice (relative to regional baselines)
-
Capitalism-compatible and investment-oriented
-
Open to change and institutional development
-
Interested in external partnership as a path to growth and security
A country that wants trade, markets, and institutional legitimacy is exactly where the U.S. should plant a flag—before competitors plant theirs. This is not charity. It’s strategic logic: if a partner is trying to build institutions and integrate economically, it is more likely to align with systems that reward transparency, rule-based trade, and predictable security cooperation.
The United States should recognize Somaliland.
At some point, policy has to match reality. The United States should recognize Somaliland—not as a favor, but as a strategic decision.
Recognition would align U.S. policy with the on-the-ground partner that is actually governing, actually securing territory, and actually signaling openness to markets and institutional development. It would also remove ambiguity that competitors exploit. The PRC, Russia, and Turkey don’t wait for perfect paperwork before building leverage; they move, entrench, and normalize their presence.
If Washington keeps treating recognition like radioactive material, it’s effectively outsourcing the corridor to whoever is willing to act.
Israel + UAE + Somaliland: strategic complementarity, not symbolism
Each party brings something the others need:
-
Somaliland brings location and access at a strategic chokepoint, a young and eager population, real resource upside (including oil potential), and a governance reality capable of hosting sustained economic and security cooperation.
-
The UAE brings capital, logistics capacity, and the demonstrated willingness to build durable trade footholds—including Berbera’s port development—turning geography into throughput.
-
Israel brings security innovation and intelligence capacity, incentive to widen partnerships along key transit corridors, and extraordinary technological prowess across water, desalination, precision agriculture, renewables, and cybersecurity—the kind that turns deserts green.
This is alignment driven by complementary interests with a clear geo-strategic implication: partnerships like this can create an ecosystem where hostile or revisionist competitors face higher costs to operate, manipulate, and intimidate.
Where Taiwan fits—and why it matters strategically
Taiwan’s role in Somaliland matters because it demonstrates that functional diplomacy doesn’t wait for permission. It’s a resilience model in real time: competence, reliability, and practical cooperation in a contested environment. Taiwan didn’t just open an office in Somaliland—it’s helping build the country’s digital backbone, health capacity, and security training pipeline, which is what functional partnership looks like.
In practice, that has meant moving beyond speeches into concrete capacity-building: Taiwan-backed cooperation has supported Somaliland’s National Data Center (including information security/cybersecurity components) and related e-governance initiatives designed to strengthen state capacity and reduce vulnerability to coercion. It has also extended into public-sector fundamentals—public health emergency response improvements and health-system modernization—and into people, through scholarships and professional development, including security-focused scholarships for Somaliland military and police officers.
Strategically, Taiwan’s engagement clarifies the underlying question that too many analysts dodge: in a competitive corridor, the issue isn’t who gets the most elegant talking points—it’s who helps build durable capability.
PRC / Russia / Turkey: what their influence actually looks like on the ground
If you want to understand the competitive landscape, don’t look for flag-raising ceremonies. Watch for operational markers:
-
PRC influence often hardens through infrastructure entanglement, dual-use logistics, tech stack dependency, and long-horizon leverage.
-
Russian influence tends to play through security relationships, political disruption, and opportunistic deals that thrive in weak governance.
-
Turkish influence often expands through regional networks, training/security ties, and political-religious soft power.
These aren’t identical approaches, but they share one feature: they aim to shape the environment in ways that constrain U.S. and partner freedom of action. If your adversaries can threaten the corridor, they don’t need to defeat you—they can outbid you, block you, and bleed you.
What Washington should do (without getting trapped in slogans)
The U.S. does not need to collapse every move into a binary “recognize / don’t recognize” argument. But it does need to stop acting like vocabulary is strategy.
Practical steps that fit a U.S.-anchor approach:
-
Deepen maritime domain awareness and corridor security cooperation
-
Support transparent investment frameworks that compete with opaque leverage-deals
-
Build institutional capacity where there is demonstrated will (ports, customs, regulatory capacity, aviation, cyber, counterterrorism coordination)
-
Treat the Horn as a competitive theater, not a periodic crisis
If the U.S. is absent, the corridor doesn’t become neutral—it becomes hostile-by-default.
What to watch next (operational indicators, not speeches)
-
Port and corridor integration
-
Security cooperation becoming routine (training cycles, intel sharing, maritime surveillance)
-
Diplomatic spillover effects (quiet engagement vs loud condemnation)
-
Information warfare escalation (semantic warfare, moral inversion, delegitimization campaigns)
The bigger lesson
The old diplomatic map is being revised by the logistics map. Ports, corridors, and chokepoints are the real language of power. Somaliland sits at an intersection where that language matters—and where the costs of denial are rising. You don’t have to like the reality to price it correctly.