The End of Liberal Gravity: Trump, Britain, and the Unraveling of Democratic Order

 Geostrategic Implications of Post-Liberal Realignment for the G7

Abstract

This essay argues that Donald Trump's return to the White House in 2025 represents not a cyclical anomaly but the consolidation of a post-liberal governing paradigm within the hegemon of the post-1945 international order. Trump's second presidency has catalyzed a systemic transition from institution-mediated constraint to executive-centered, plebiscitary autocracy—a model that is structurally exportable to democracies with weak constitutional safeguards. The United Kingdom emerges as exceptionally vulnerable: as a high-trust democracy lacking a written constitution, constitutional court, or codified limits on executive power, Britain's political system depends entirely on elite self-restraint—precisely the norm Trumpism systematically destroys.

The essay examines three interconnected crises. First, the Anglo-American feedback loop whereby British elites imitate American illiberal tactics while American strategists cite British democratic erosion as validation. Second, the European Union's transformation from liberal regulatory power to post-liberal defensive bloc, struggling to reconcile massive defense spending commitments with fiscal sustainability while abandoning its universalist pretensions. Third, the emergence of competitive neo-imperialism through functional spheres of influence—American, Chinese, and Russian—where the decisive rupture is that the U.S. sphere no longer enforces democratic alignment.

Drawing on recent polling data, economic analysis, and expert commentary from economists and journalists, the essay documents Britain's rapid democratic deconsolidation. Reform UK's surge to 27 percent in polls by December 2025, combined with the Starmer government's policy incoherence and Labour's collapse below 250,000 members, suggests a political system in crisis. Brexit's tenth anniversary in June 2026 will mark not celebration but reckoning: a decade of institutional erosion, economic underperformance, and the removal of external constitutional discipline that EU membership once provided.

The analysis rejects the framing of "democratic backsliding" in favor of understanding contemporary developments through the concept of geoeconomics—the bundling of politics, economics, trade, military power, and cultural policy into transactional hegemonic competition. This represents a return to pre-1945 power politics, where norms are local, power is regional, and institutions are optional. The essay concludes that whether Britain and Europe emerge as autonomous democratic actors or drift into managed democracy under stronger powers depends on decisions made now—decisions requiring institutional hardening, strategic autonomy, and abandonment of the assumption that democracy in advanced economies is self-sustaining.

I. Framing the Crisis: This Is Not a "Democratic Backsliding" Moment — It Is a Systemic Transition

The return of Donald J. Trump to the White House in January 2025 should not be understood as a cyclical political anomaly or a temporary populist deviation. Rather, it marks the consolidation of a post-liberal governing paradigm inside the hegemon of the post-1945 order itself. This distinction matters profoundly, for as constitutional scholar Kim Lane Scheppele observed in February 2025, Trump's second administration differs markedly from his first: where Trump 1.0 "flailed around" with ideas but never entrenched himself or systematically attacked institutions, Trump 2.0 returned with lawyers, executive orders, and a comprehensive plan to fundamentally alter how government operates.

The post-war international system rested on three mutually reinforcing pillars:

1. Liberal democratic legitimacy within leading powers
2. Institution-mediated constraint on raw power (UN, WTO, NATO, Bretton Woods)
3. U.S. strategic self-restraint in exchange for alliance leadership

Trumpism explicitly rejects all three.

What has emerged in the United States is not classical dictatorship, nor even Cold War authoritarianism, but executive-centered, plebiscitary autocracy embedded inside formally democratic institutions. Trump has sought to do the extreme things that were dismissed as mere rhetoric when first promised, from enacting a Muslim ban to refusing to accept the results of an election. This model prioritizes loyalty over legality, sovereignty over norms, and transactionalism over alliance solidarity. It is structurally exportable, particularly to states with weak constitutional guardrails — such as the United Kingdom.

By the first 100 days of his second term, Trump was aggressively implementing a far-right, multipronged plan to create an imperial presidency, casting aside the U.S. Constitution and federal laws while shattering long-established guardrails. The administration fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and top military lawyers in February 2025, threatened to withhold wildfire aid to California unless it changed environmental policies, and issued over 130 executive orders asserting sweeping authority to override Congressional laws.

II. Trump's Autocracy as a Global System-Shaping Force

A. The Internal Logic of Trumpism

Trump's second presidency has clarified that "America First" is not merely nationalist rhetoric, but a theory of global order:

• Alliances are protection rackets
• Institutions are instruments, not constraints
• Law is subordinate to executive interpretation
• Democracy is validated by plebiscite, not by process

This worldview aligns structurally — though not ideologically — with Putin's sovereign democracy, Xi's civilizational statism, and Erdogan's majoritarian authoritarianism. The convergence is functional, not conspiratorial.

Crucially, Trumpism does not seek to dismantle institutions outright; it hollows them out while preserving their symbolic shell. Project 2025 calls for the replacement of federal civil service workers by people loyal to the next conservative president and for taking partisan control of the Department of Justice, FBI, Department of Commerce, and Federal Trade Commission. This is precisely why it is dangerous to advanced democracies that rely on norms rather than codified constraints.

The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, while publicly disavowed by Trump, has served as a blueprint for his administration. By mid-2025, Trump had nominated several Project 2025 contributors to key positions, and critics warned that his administration was actively implementing its agenda across multiple sectors. Paul Dans, a key Project 2025 figure, expressed satisfaction that Trump's early executive orders aligned with the project's Mandate for Leadership.

B. The Manosphere and Authoritarian Masculinity

As economist Yanis Varoufakis observed in a December 2025 interview with BBC Newsnight, there is a disturbing parallelism between contemporary strongmen and those of the interwar period. "I can feel this cold grip tightening with each passing day," Varoufakis stated. "We can see the weaponization of fear and loathing, the decimation of international law. We are returning to a pre-1945 world."

The role of what Varoufakis terms "rabid misogynist manosphere" cannot be understated. Trumpism's alliance with aggressive masculinity mirrors the body-politic ideology of 1920s and 1930s fascism — the notion that society must be cleansed of impurities, including women's liberation, feminism, and gender diversity. As journalist Gillian Tett noted in the same interview, this emphasis on masculinity as a meme to project power deserves serious examination: "There's a real focus on competition and aggression rather than empathy. There's a real focus on winner take all. There's a real focus on strength and purity and all of these memes which again hark back to the 1930s."

This is not incidental rhetoric but central to Trump's appeal and governance model. The projection of masculine power internationally pairs with domestic policies targeting trans people, feminism, and what Trump characterizes as threats to traditional American greatness.

III. Britain's Structural Exposure: Why the UK Is Exceptionally Vulnerable

A. The British Constitutional Trap

The UK is uniquely exposed to Trump-style autocratization for one reason: it is a high-trust democracy with low formal constraint.

Unlike the U.S. or EU states, Britain lacks:

• A written constitution
• A constitutional court with supremacy
• Codified limits on executive prerogative
• Entrenched protections against emergency powers

The British system functions only if elites voluntarily restrain themselves.

Trumpism's core lesson — never self-restrain if the base rewards transgression — directly undermines this equilibrium.

B. Post-Brexit Political Decomposition

Brexit did not merely remove the UK from the EU; it removed an external constitutional discipline. EU law functioned as a de facto rights anchor and regulatory constraint. Its removal has produced:

• Executive overreach via statutory instruments
• Parliament subordinated to government messaging cycles
• Politicization of the civil service
• De facto erosion of judicial independence

As the tenth anniversary of the Brexit referendum approaches in June 2026, the full scale of the damage becomes clearer. Research estimates that by 2025, the Brexit process had reduced UK GDP by 6 to 8 percent, investment by 12 to 18 percent, employment by 3 to 4 percent, and productivity by 3 to 4 percent. The UK remained the only G7 nation that had not recovered to its pre-pandemic GDP level by 2023.

Even more concerning is the political vacuum Brexit created. Chronic underinvestment, worsened by Brexit-related uncertainty, caused foreign direct investment to drop 37 percent between 2016 and 2022. Labour shortages in agriculture, healthcare, and hospitality have strained the economy. The promised £350 million weekly savings have materialized as losses — public finances fell by £26 billion a year, amounting to £500 million a week.

C. The Ascendancy of Reform UK

The rise of Reform UK, Trump-aligned think tanks, and imported culture-war narratives should be seen as secondary effects, not root causes. The deeper driver is institutional vacuum. Yet the speed of Reform's rise is breathtaking.

By December 2025, Reform UK had surpassed Labour to become Britain's largest party by membership, with almost 270,000 members compared to Labour's plunge below 250,000. More dramatically, Reform UK polled at 27 percent in early December 2025, eight points ahead of Labour at 19 percent and the Conservatives at 18 percent. An October 2025 MRP poll projected that if an election were held then, Reform would secure 367 seats with an outright majority of 84, leaving Labour on 117 seats.

In the May 2025 local elections, Reform won 677 seats and 31 percent of the vote, taking control of ten councils and two mayoral seats. The party explicitly echoes Trump's rhetoric, using "Make Britain Great Again" and establishing its own Department of Government Efficiency mirroring Trump's initiative led by Elon Musk.

Reform's policies mirror Trumpist nationalism: leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, repealing the Human Rights Act, disapplying the 1951 Refugee Convention, creating unlimited detention powers, and abolishing the EU Settlement Scheme. The party's climate skepticism, fossil fuel industry backing, and demographics (overwhelmingly older voters: 36 percent among over-65s versus only 7 percent among 18-24-year-olds) suggest a movement resistant to progressive change.

Most concerning, while 44 percent of Britons feel Reform is doing the most to set the agenda, only 32 percent believe the running of the country would improve under a Reform government, and 48 percent expect it would get worse. This gap between agenda-setting power and governing competence perception suggests Reform's influence may exceed its electoral viability — for now.

IV. The Anglo-American Feedback Loop

Trump's autocracy does not merely influence Britain ideologically; it reshapes Britain strategically.

Security Dependence Without Influence

The UK remains militarily dependent on the U.S. while losing normative leverage over Washington. At the catastrophic February 2025 Oval Office meeting, Trump berated and humiliated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, accusing him of being unthankful and "not ready for peace." This public humiliation of a democratic wartime leader by the U.S. president sent shockwaves through European capitals, revealing the extent to which American support for democratic allies had evaporated.

Intelligence Asymmetry

Five Eyes remains operational, but informational trust is increasingly asymmetric — Britain shares more than it shapes. The relationship has become transactional rather than based on shared values.

Normative Drift

When the hegemon no longer defends democratic procedure, secondary powers rationalize deviation.

This creates a feedback loop: British elites imitate American illiberal tactics to remain electorally competitive, while American strategists point to Britain as evidence that "even liberal Europe has moved on."

The December 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy document shocked European allies by warning the region faced "civilizational erasure" and questioning whether it could remain a geopolitical partner for America. The document criticized European leaders as weak and slammed the region's stance on immigration, democracy, and freedom of speech, stating: "It is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies."

V. The European Union: Survival or Strategic Marginalization?

A. The EU's Core Dilemma

The EU was designed for a world where:

• The U.S. guaranteed security
• Global trade was rules-based
• Norms constrained power

That world no longer exists.

The EU now faces three existential questions:

1. Can it defend itself without the U.S.?
2. Can it remain economically open in a mercantilist world?
3. Can it preserve liberal democracy amid internal divergence?

Failure on any one axis threatens systemic collapse.

B. The Defense Spending Crisis

At the June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, under sustained pressure from Trump, NATO allies (excluding Spain) committed to investing 5 percent of GDP annually on defense and security-related spending by 2035, with at least 3.5 percent on core defense requirements. This more than doubles NATO's long-standing 2 percent guideline.

Yet the economic reality is sobering. Debt levels among many NATO member states are high and fiscal sustainability is questionable, with France's debt at 112 percent of GDP and Italy's at 135 percent. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius noted that for Germany to allocate 5 percent of GDP to defense would mean spending over 40 percent of its national budget, calling it unrealistic.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen responded in March 2025 with her "ReArm Europe" proposal — an $840 billion plan to rapidly build up European defense budgets, including a new fund worth over $150 billion and relaxing debt rules to free up more than $680 billion over four years.

Yet as Varoufakis observed in his December interview, European leaders have pursued a contradictory strategy: "For almost four years now, the European Union and NATO have been engaged in a perilous double game. They committed rhetorically to a Ukrainian victory which they were materially unwilling to bankroll." This has resulted in what he terms "Russia's victory in Ukraine — not so much against the Ukrainians but against Europe's leaders."

C. Likely Trajectory: Survival Without Liberal Universalism

The EU is unlikely to collapse outright. Instead, it is evolving into a post-liberal regulatory empire:

• Stronger industrial policy
• Selective trade protection
• Tolerance of internal democratic heterogeneity
• Strategic ambiguity toward U.S.–China rivalry

As Tett explained, we are witnessing the rise of "geoeconomics" — the bundling together of politics, economics, trade, military, cultural, and tech issues into one gigantic transactional game. "Big dominant countries using economic tools like trade policy, not so much just to promote their economies, but actually as a tool of political power games," she noted. This was "absolutely what we saw in the 1930s and which the post-World War II era tried to move away from."

This evolution weakens Britain further: the UK is now outside both the EU's regulatory shield and the U.S.'s normative umbrella. As Varoufakis bluntly assessed in December 2025, "the single market is kaput. It's finished. We have destroyed it in the European Union since the pandemic. The French and German governments have done everything they could in order to dismantle it."

VI. Spheres of Influence: Not a Future Risk — a Present Reality

The world is already dividing into functional spheres, even if not formally declared:

• U.S. Sphere: Transactional, security-for-compliance
• China Sphere: Infrastructure, technology, surveillance governance
• Russia Sphere: Coercive instability and frozen conflicts

What is new is that the U.S. sphere no longer enforces democratic alignment. This is the true rupture with the post-1945 order.

As Varoufakis argued, 2025 represents a year when three decisive "victories" reshaped the global order. First, Russia's victory over European leadership on Ukraine — not militarily against Ukraine, but diplomatically against an EU and NATO unwilling to bankroll their rhetorical commitments. Second, China's victory in the trade war against the United States, "first by weaponizing its dominance over rare earths and then defeating the chip embargo through the mobilization of its technological machinery." Third, Trump's victory against the Europeans in the tariff war, exemplified by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen being humiliated at Trump's Scottish golf course, committing to $700 billion in investments that cannot be delivered.

The result is not Cold War bipolarity but competitive neo-imperialism, where norms are local, power is regional, and institutions are optional.

VII. Strategic Implications for the G7

1. Democracy Cannot Be Assumed — It Must Be Engineered

The G7 must abandon the assumption that democracy is self-sustaining in advanced economies. Institutional hardening is now a security priority. As author Anne Applebaum has argued, we thought after the collapse of the Berlin Wall that democracy would crowd out autocracy — that Western democratic countries would gradually convert the rest of the world. "The great horrible shock of this decade," Tett observed, "has been that actually autocracy has been crowding out democracy in all types of ways that we haven't really fully digested."

2. Britain Is a Frontline State — Not a Stable Ally

The UK should be treated as a democratic vulnerability node, not merely a reliable partner. With Reform UK polling ahead of both major parties, the single market and customs union effectively dismantled, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government struggling with unprecedented unpopularity, Britain represents a test case for whether advanced democracies can resist authoritarian drift.

Varoufakis's assessment of Starmer is scathing but reveals the depth of Britain's crisis. The Prime Minister, he argues, "has failed" in macroeconomic terms, with "no plan, no understanding, no analysis of what the fundamental issue of the United Kingdom economy is." Britain has "massive liquidity" but is "failing spectacularly to convert it into productive investments." On migration and borders, Starmer "has been a total moral failure," attempting to counter racism with "racism light" through "performative acts of punishing refugees."

3. The EU Must Be Anchored, Not Lectured

EU survival depends on strategic autonomy, not moral exhortation. The G7 must support Europe's defense and industrial consolidation — even when it diverges from Anglo-American orthodoxy.

Tett advocates what she terms a "drones plus Draghi" strategy — implementing former ECB head Mario Draghi's 2024 recommendations to make the EU more competitive and create a genuine single market, while simultaneously focusing on military defense and new technologies like drones. Without such transformation, the EU risks becoming economically irrelevant even as it spends vast sums on defense.

VIII. The Starmer Government's Failure and Britain's Political Crisis

The Labour government that swept to power in July 2024 with a historic majority has squandered its mandate through what critics describe as a combination of timidity, incoherence, and misplaced priorities.

As Tett observed, Chancellor Rachel Reeves made a critical error in her approach to fiscal policy. Rather than breaking the manifesto pledge on income tax upfront with a clear framework, she implemented "death by a thousand cuts and lots of little complicated measures all over the place which alienated lots of different interest groups, pitted them against each other and created a sense of confusion." The result: by late 2025, Reeves herself was at risk of losing her seat to Reform UK according to polling projections.

The broader problem, as Varoufakis argues, is that "somebody like Keir Starmer could give the Democrats the oomph that they need to get out of the mire in which they found themselves," but the Democratic Party establishment — like Labour before it — would rather see Trump win than support a genuinely progressive candidate. This reveals a deeper crisis: the existence of four political factions trying to fit themselves into a two-party system on both sides of the Atlantic.

On Brexit specifically, Varoufakis counsels against reopening the question. While he campaigned against Brexit in 2015-16 and once advocated staying in the single market after the referendum, he now argues "the single market is kaput" and attempting to rejoin would be "suicidal" for Starmer. The Prime Minister's "one claim to fame as an otherwise utterly unsuccessful prime minister is that he managed to secure a trade deal with Donald Trump, which is slightly better than that of the European Union." Reopening Brexit would force Starmer to choose between this deal and the customs union — he cannot have both.

IX. The Cost of Living, Populism, and the Path Not Taken

The December 2025 election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York — concentrating on rent controls, bus fares, and cost of living rather than culture war issues — demonstrates a path the British left has failed to pursue. As Varoufakis argues, "The importance of having a very clear campaigning manifesto for what we would do tomorrow morning, tomorrow morning if we had our hands on the levers of power and then link this with what we would do in 12 months, in 48 months, in 5 years, in 10 years. This is what the left lacks."

Tett emphasizes similar lessons for the British left: "Keep it simple, stupid." Politicians need to "recognize we are in a populist age" and think about populist communication. They must talk about "growth and opportunity and entrepreneurship and businesses being good, not just bad" to "raise animal spirits" — without which there is no pie to distribute.

The failure to do this has left Labour hemorrhaging support while Reform surges. Cost of living is "absolutely central" to the coming political realignment, potentially splitting Trump's coalition between nationalist populists (like Steve Bannon and Marjorie Taylor Greene) and what Tett terms the "broligarchs" — the tech oligarchs surrounding Trump who benefit from policies that hurt the MAGA base.

X. The Pivot to China and the April 2026 Meeting

Looking ahead to 2026, Varoufakis identifies "the event in April when President Xi and President Trump are going to meet again to extend their temporary agreement" as potentially the pivotal moment of the year. The U.S.-China relationship represents the central axis of the new hegemonic order, with both sides wielding different forms of dominance: China through its manufacturing systems and control of rare earth minerals, America through the dollar as reserve currency.

"Tech hegemony, i.e. digital hegemony, is still being contested between the two," Tett notes. This puts countries like the UK and EU "in a very weak position because it really is about hegemonic power and the UK and Europe doesn't really have that right now."

The Financial Times columnist Janan Ganesh has warned of risks for Farage in his embrace of Trump, noting that 70 percent of British voters dislike the U.S. president. Yet Farage appears unable to distance himself, mirroring the fate of Australia's Peter Dutton, who tied himself to Trump before the May 2025 election and lost not only the contest but his parliamentary seat.

Conclusion: The End of Liberal Gravity

Trump's autocracy is not the cause of the global democratic crisis — it is its accelerant and legitimizer. British democracy is not collapsing, but it is structurally unprotected in a world where restraint is no longer rewarded.

As the post-war order loses gravity, power flows toward executives, blocs, and spheres. The question Varoufakis poses is stark: should we continue debating percentages and statistics, or recognize that "if you try to take the politics out of the economics you end up with both very bad economics and toxic politics"? The geoeconomic merging of political, cultural, and economic realities is not an anomaly but the new normal.

Whether Britain and Europe emerge as autonomous democratic actors — or drift into managed democracy under stronger powers — will depend on decisions made now, not on electoral cycles. The stakes, as Tett warns, extend beyond traditional metrics: "In this new paradigm, companies are having to worry about different types of stakeholders like national security interests and right-wing cultural values and populism. And that's kind of scary."

Yet there may be a path forward. If the left can embrace what Tett calls "stakeholderism in a more positive way" — talking about cost of living and society while recognizing national security interests — and if it can articulate clear, immediate, achievable goals as Mamdani has done, democratic politics might yet resist authoritarian drift.

The alternative is what we are witnessing: a decade where, as Varoufakis puts it, "the old global order has been well and truly torn asunder," replaced by a system where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must — precisely the pre-1945 world from which the post-war order was meant to deliver us.

June 23, 2026 — the tenth anniversary of the Brexit referendum — will not be celebrated. It will mark a decade of decay, institutional erosion, and democratic backsliding. Whether it also marks the nadir from which recovery begins depends on choices that remain unmade, courage that remains undemonstrated, and a willingness to speak hard truths that political classes in both Britain and America have yet to find.

Geopolitics of the Horn: Somaliland's Recognition and the Red Sea Security Crisis

Executive Summary

As of January 1, 2026, the Horn of Africa has undergone a seismic shift following the December 26, 2025, announcement by Israel to formally recognize Somaliland as a sovereign state. This unprecedented move by a UN member state has dismantled the three-decade-old policy of "strategic patience" regarding Somaliland's status. The recognition has catalyzed a regional "Security Paradox," where Somaliland's quest for legitimacy has become the primary friction point for a broader Middle Eastern and African power struggle. For G7 policymakers, the immediate challenge is preventing the collapse of the Somali Federal Government (FGS) while managing the emergence of a new Israeli-Emirati-Ethiopian axis in the Gulf of Aden.

This analysis examines the multidimensional implications of this recognition, tracing the strategic calculations of regional powers, the economic transformations underway in the Berbera Corridor, and the potential scenarios that could reshape the Horn of Africa's security architecture in 2026 and beyond.

I. The Israeli Pivot: A New "Periphery Doctrine"

Israel's recognition of Somaliland represents far more than a bilateral gesture—it constitutes a strategic "breakout" maneuver designed to reshape Israel's regional posture in the aftermath of the Gaza war and amid continuing threats from Iranian-backed proxy forces.

The Red Sea Flank: Strategic Imperatives

Following a year of maritime disruptions that have cost the global economy an estimated $200 billion in additional shipping costs and delays, Israel views Somaliland's 850km coastline as a critical intelligence and naval hub. By recognizing Hargeisa, Israel operationalizes its "Red Sea Strategy," creating a platform for signals intelligence monitoring directed at Yemen and potential staging grounds for counter-Houthi operations.

The strategic value of Somaliland's geography cannot be overstated. The narrowest point of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait—just 29 kilometers wide—represents one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints, with approximately 6.2 million barrels of oil passing through daily. Israeli access to Somaliland's coast provides unprecedented capability to monitor and potentially interdict Houthi maritime operations, including the drone boat attacks that have plagued Red Sea shipping since late 2023.

The Abraham Accords Framework: Expanding the Circle

Prime Minister Netanyahu has framed this recognition within a "Greater Abraham Accords" context, seeking to link Israeli security needs with Emirati commercial interests and potentially drawing in additional African partners. The model appears drawn from Morocco's 2020 entry into the Accords, where Rabat gained U.S. and Israeli recognition of its sovereignty claims over Western Sahara in exchange for normalization with Israel.

Senior Israeli officials have privately indicated that the Somaliland recognition serves multiple objectives: it demonstrates Israel's value as a security partner to Persian Gulf states concerned about Houthi threats; it provides Israel with strategic depth in a region where it has historically lacked presence; and it offers a narrative counter to Turkish President Erdoğan's depiction of Israel as a destabilizing, unbound actor in the region.

The Controversy of "The Decree": Domestic Political Dimensions

While celebrated in Hargeisa, where crowds gathered in the streets waving Israeli and Somaliland flags, the recognition has sparked controversy regarding its legal foundation. Critics in Israel and international observers note that the announcement came via executive declaration rather than through Knesset legislation, leading opponents to label it an "administrative decree" by a politically weakened Netanyahu administration seeking to project strength amid ongoing coalition tensions.

Legal scholars in Tel Aviv have debated whether such recognition requires parliamentary approval under Israeli constitutional practice. However, supporters argue that recognition of foreign states falls within the executive's foreign policy prerogative, citing precedents from Israel's recognition of newly independent states in the 1990s.

The timing—coming just days before the New Year and amid ongoing negotiations over judicial reforms—has led some Israeli opposition figures to characterize the move as a "foreign policy distraction" from domestic challenges. Nevertheless, the recognition enjoys broad support across Israel's political spectrum, with even centrist opposition leader Yair Lapid calling it "a strategic necessity for Israel's Red Sea interests."

II. The Persian Gulf Schism: UAE vs. Saudi Arabia

The recognition has exposed a deep and potentially consequential rift between the two primary Persian Gulf powers regarding the Horn's future, revealing divergent strategic priorities that could reshape regional alignments for years to come.

The UAE: The Silent Architect

Abu Dhabi remains the "silent architect" of Somaliland's international emergence. The Port of Berbera, operated by DP World (Dubai Ports World) under a 30-year concession agreement signed in 2016, has become a de facto sovereign node in the UAE's expanding maritime empire, which now includes significant stakes in ports from Djibouti to Yemen to South Asia.

The UAE's strategic calculus regarding Somaliland operates on multiple levels. First, a sovereign Somaliland represents a permanent hedge against a potentially hostile, Turkish-aligned Mogadishu. Turkey's growing military presence in Somalia—including a 10,000-strong training mission and recent defense agreements granting Turkish companies exploration rights in Somali waters—has alarmed Emirati strategists who view Ankara's regional activism as a direct challenge to UAE interests.

Second, the UAE sees Somaliland as integral to its "String of Ports" strategy designed to secure maritime trade routes and project Emirati influence across the Western Indian Ocean. DP World's $442 million investment in Berbera has transformed it from a modest regional port into a potential container hub capable of servicing the entire East African hinterland.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the UAE views recognition as a means of permanently securing its commercial investments. Unlike arrangements with recognized governments that could be reversed by future administrations, Emirati officials calculate that a sovereign Somaliland government would remain permanently grateful to—and dependent upon—its early benefactors.

Notably, the UAE has maintained careful public silence on Israel's recognition, avoiding explicit endorsement while refraining from joining Arab League condemnations. This studied ambiguity reflects Abu Dhabi's delicate balancing act: supporting Israeli and Somaliland interests while avoiding a complete break with Saudi Arabia and other Arab League members.

Saudi Arabia: The Custodian of Unity

Riyadh's response has been swift and unequivocal. Within 48 hours of Israel's announcement, the Saudi Foreign Ministry issued a "categorical rejection," aligning with the Arab League's unanimous condemnation of the move. For the Saudis, any fragmentation of Somalia represents a dangerous precedent that could empower secessionist movements across the region, particularly in Southern Yemen.

Saudi Arabia's opposition operates at three distinct levels. First, there is the ideological dimension: as the self-proclaimed "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" and leader of the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia has traditionally championed the territorial integrity of Muslim-majority states. Supporting or even acquiescing to Somaliland's recognition would undermine this positioning.

Second, Yemen represents an existential concern for Saudi security policy. After years of costly intervention in Yemen's civil war, Riyadh fears that recognizing Somaliland could provide precedent and momentum for Southern Yemeni separatist movements. The Southern Transitional Council (STC), backed by the UAE, has long sought independence for South Yemen. Saudi recognition of secessionist precedents in the Horn could fatally undermine Riyadh's efforts to maintain a unified—and friendly—government in Sana'a.

Third, Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 economic transformation program depends critically on Red Sea development, including the $500 billion NEOM mega-city project on the Kingdom's northwestern coast. Saudi planners view regional stability as essential to attracting the foreign investment and tourism necessary for Vision 2030's success. The fragmentation of Somalia, with potential spillover into broader regional instability, threatens these carefully laid plans.

The Saudi-Emirati split over Somaliland represents the most significant divergence in the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) policy since the 2017-2021 Qatar crisis. However, unlike that dispute, both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are attempting to manage their differences privately, avoiding the public recriminations that characterized the Qatar blockade. This restraint reflects both powers' recognition that maintaining GCC unity is essential amid broader regional challenges, including Iranian influence and the uncertain trajectory of U.S. engagement in the Middle East.

III. The Egypt-Somalia-Turkey "Axis of Unity"

In response to the emerging Hargeisa-Tel Aviv-Addis Ababa alignment, a counter-axis has solidified in Mogadishu, bringing together Egypt, Somalia, and Turkey in a coalition united by opposition to Ethiopian maritime ambitions and Israeli regional expansion.

Egypt's Kinetic Encirclement Strategy

Egypt's response to the recognition has been perhaps the most consequential in military terms. Fearing Ethiopia's maritime expansion via the January 2024 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Somaliland—which would grant landlocked Ethiopia access to the Red Sea—Egypt has dramatically escalated its military presence in the Horn.

In late 2025, Cairo deployed what it characterizes as "advisory" forces to Mogadishu, including air defense systems, armored vehicles, and reportedly up to 5,000 military personnel. This represents Egypt's largest military deployment beyond its borders since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Additionally, Cairo has secured agreements to upgrade naval facilities in both Eritrea and Djibouti, effectively positioning Egyptian forces to monitor and potentially interdict any Ethiopian military moves toward the Somaliland coast.

Egypt's strategic calculus is driven by existential concerns about Nile water security. With 95% of Egypt's water supply originating from the Nile and Ethiopia's Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) now operational and reducing downstream flow, Cairo views any enhancement of Ethiopian strategic capabilities as an unacceptable threat. Ethiopian access to Red Sea ports—particularly if accompanied by naval capabilities—would give Addis Ababa increased leverage in Nile negotiations and reduce Egyptian strategic options for pressuring Ethiopia on water issues.

Moreover, Egypt views Israeli recognition of Somaliland as part of a broader strategic encirclement. Israeli-Ethiopian security cooperation has deepened significantly since 2020, including intelligence sharing and reportedly joint surveillance operations. The prospect of Israeli intelligence assets operating from Somaliland's coast, monitoring Egyptian Suez Canal traffic and Red Sea naval movements, represents a significant security concern for Cairo.

The Egyptian deployment to Somalia also reflects broader regional competition. Cairo has historically viewed the Horn of Africa as falling within its sphere of influence, a perception dating back to ancient times. The emergence of an Israeli-Emirati-Ethiopian axis threatens to permanently diminish Egyptian influence in a region that Cairo considers strategically vital for controlling approaches to the Suez Canal—the source of approximately $9.4 billion in annual revenue for Egypt's struggling economy.

Turkey's Security Guarantee: The Mogadishu Shield

Turkey has emerged as the most vocal international opponent of Somaliland recognition and the primary military guarantor of the Somali Federal Government. Ankara's October 2025 agreement granting Turkish companies exploration rights in Somali territorial waters—potentially worth billions in oil and gas reserves—has given Turkey significant economic stakes in maintaining Somali territorial integrity.

Beyond commercial interests, Turkey's engagement in Somalia reflects President Erdoğan's broader vision of Turkish leadership in the Muslim world. Since 2011, when Erdoğan became the first non-African leader to visit Mogadishu during a severe famine, Turkey has positioned itself as Somalia's most reliable international partner. Turkish companies have built roads, hospitals, and schools; the Turkish military operates the country's largest foreign base, training thousands of Somali soldiers; and Turkish Airlines is one of the few international carriers serving Mogadishu.

The "Turkish-Somali Defense Pact," signed in February 2024, commits Turkey to defending Somali territorial integrity against external aggression. Turkish officials have made clear that this commitment extends to opposing any Ethiopian military presence on Somaliland's coast. This creates a potentially explosive situation: Turkey is a NATO member, while Israel maintains close security ties with the United States and other NATO powers. Any military confrontation between Turkish and Israeli-backed forces in the Horn could create unprecedented tensions within the alliance.

Turkish opposition to Somaliland recognition also serves domestic political purposes for Erdoğan. By positioning Turkey as the defender of Somali unity and opponent of Israeli expansion, Erdoğan appeals to nationalist and Islamist constituencies at home while projecting Turkish power abroad. The Somaliland issue allows Erdoğan to cast Turkey as a principled defender of Muslim lands against what he characterizes as Western and Israeli neo-colonialism.

Strategically, Turkey's Horn of Africa engagement is part of Ankara's broader effort to secure influence in regions where Western powers and the Persian Gulf states compete for dominance. By backing Somalia against the Israeli-Emirati-Ethiopian axis, Turkey positions itself as an indispensable player in Red Sea security—a role that could give Ankara leverage in negotiations with both the United States and European powers on issues ranging from Syrian refugees to NATO expansion.

IV. Economic Analysis: The Berbera Corridor 2026

The expansion of the Port of Berbera has transitioned from a logistical project to what analysts now describe as a "geostructural anchor"—a infrastructure network so economically significant that it shapes the strategic calculations of regional powers.

Current Metrics and Projections

The expansion of the Port of Berbera has evolved from a conventional infrastructure upgrade into what regional analysts increasingly describe as a geostructural anchor—a strategic logistics and trade node whose economic gravity is reshaping political and commercial calculations across the Horn of Africa. By 2026, Berbera is no longer merely a coastal outlet for Somaliland but a central pillar in a broader corridor strategy linking the Gulf of Aden to the Ethiopian highlands and, by extension, to global maritime trade routes.

Quantitatively, the transformation has been substantial. Container throughput, which stood at approximately 500,000 TEUs in 2024, is projected to exceed one million TEUs following the completion of DP World’s Phase II expansion. This doubling of capacity places Berbera in direct competition with Djibouti, long the dominant maritime gateway for Ethiopia. Operational efficiency has improved in parallel: average vessel turnaround time has been reduced from roughly 25 hours to an estimated 18 hours, a critical metric for shipping lines operating under tight cost and scheduling constraints.

The economic spillover effects extend well beyond port operations. Ethiopia’s utilization of the Berbera corridor—previously marginal at around 14 percent of its external trade—is projected to rise toward 30 percent by 2026, reflecting both political diversification away from overreliance on Djibouti and the growing reliability of Berbera’s logistics ecosystem. This shift carries strategic significance, offering landlocked Ethiopia greater leverage in its trade negotiations and reducing systemic vulnerability to single-corridor disruptions.

At the domestic level, the macroeconomic impact on Somaliland is increasingly evident. Direct employment associated with port operations, logistics, and auxiliary services has expanded from approximately 3,200 jobs to an estimated 12,000, with multiplier effects across construction, transportation, and urban services. Correspondingly, the port and corridor are projected to contribute roughly 2.5 percent to Somaliland’s GDP by 2026, compared to a marginal 0.4 percent contribution prior to the expansion. These gains are reinforced by a sharp increase in foreign direct investment, which has risen from approximately $180 million to an estimated $650 million, driven primarily by logistics firms, warehousing developers, and regional transport operators seeking early-mover advantages.

The physical transformation of the port underpins these trends. The completion of a new 400-meter quay, combined with the installation of advanced ship-to-shore gantry cranes, has enabled Berbera to accommodate Post-Panamax vessels—an operational threshold that fundamentally alters its competitive positioning in the Red Sea–Gulf of Aden maritime system. In effect, Berbera has transitioned from a peripheral port to a functional alternative node within the regional trade architecture, anchoring Somaliland’s economic strategy and reshaping the balance of infrastructural power in the Horn of Africa.

The Ethiopian Lifeline: Multi-Sectoral Integration

Ethiopia's economic stake in Somaliland's success has grown exponentially since the January 2024 MoU. Despite international controversy surrounding that agreement—which Somalia characterized as an illegal annexation attempt—Ethiopia has proceeded with a series of "Multi-Sectoral Agreements" with Somaliland throughout 2025.

The centerpiece of this integration is the Berbera Corridor Standard Gauge Railway (SGR), a $3.8 billion project connecting the port to Ethiopia's eastern highlands and ultimately to the capital, Addis Ababa. Once completed in 2028, the 600-kilometer railway will dramatically reduce transportation costs for Ethiopian exports, which currently travel primarily through Djibouti at significant expense.

Ethiopia's motivation for this massive investment is straightforward: diversification away from near-total dependence on Djibouti, through which 95% of Ethiopian trade currently flows. This dependency has given Djibouti enormous leverage over landlocked Ethiopia, manifested in port fees that Ethiopian officials privately describe as "extortionate." The 2016 termination of DP World's Doraleh Container Terminal concession by Djibouti—a move that benefited Chinese state-owned enterprises—further alarmed Ethiopian planners about supply chain security.

Energy Dimension: The Gas Pipeline Project

Perhaps the most significant development in late 2025 was the announcement of a proposed natural gas pipeline from Ethiopia's Ogaden Basin to Berbera. Recent exploration has revealed that Ethiopia's Ogaden region contains an estimated 4 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas reserves—enough to potentially transform Ethiopia into an energy exporter.

The proposed pipeline, with an estimated cost of $2.1 billion and expected completion in 2029, would allow Ethiopia to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) through Berbera's planned LNG terminal. This project makes Somaliland's sovereignty a non-negotiable strategic interest for Addis Ababa, as it represents Ethiopia's best opportunity to generate foreign exchange revenue and reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels.

The energy dimension has attracted interest from international oil majors, including Shell and TotalEnergies, which have reportedly held preliminary discussions about participating in the LNG infrastructure. However, the uncertain legal status of Somaliland has prevented major commitments. Israeli recognition, and potential future recognitions by other states, could unlock significant international investment in what analysts describe as "East Africa's next energy frontier."

G7 Trade Impact: The Resilience Route

For G7 economies, the Berbera Corridor offers what strategists have termed a "resilience route"—an alternative to the increasingly contested Bab el-Mandeb passage for accessing East African markets. With Houthi attacks having forced many shipping companies to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope at enormous cost, the prospect of a secure, efficiently operated port network in the Gulf of Aden holds significant appeal.

However, this potential is contingent on the region remaining free of the emerging Egypt-Ethiopia proxy conflict. The deployment of Egyptian forces to Somalia has raised concerns among international shipping companies about potential blockades or military actions that could disrupt the Berbera Corridor. Insurance premiums for vessels calling at Berbera have increased by approximately 30% since the Israeli recognition announcement, reflecting these elevated risks.

European Union officials have privately expressed concern that the Horn could become "the next arena of great power competition," potentially drawing in not only regional actors but also China, which has significant interests in protecting Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments in the region, including in Djibouti where China operates its first overseas military base.

V. Scenario Analysis for 2026

The following scenarios represent the spectrum of possible outcomes in the Horn of Africa over the coming 12-18 months, ranging from quasi-stable diplomatic stasis to large-scale military confrontation.

Scenario A: The "Taiwanization" of Somaliland (Probability: 60%)

Dynamics: Somaliland achieves "Functional Sovereignty" status—remaining unrecognized by the UN, African Union, and most G7 states, but gaining incremental "Consular Recognition" and formal bilateral agreements from a growing number of countries, beginning with Ethiopia and potentially including several African states with secessionist challenges of their own.

Under this scenario, Somaliland operates as a de facto independent state in all practical respects while maintaining diplomatic ambiguity about its formal status. The model parallels Taiwan's position for much of the post-1971 period—lacking UN membership but maintaining substantial international relationships and economic integration.

Key developments under this scenario include:

• Ethiopia formally recognizing Somaliland by mid-2026, justified as necessary to secure the Berbera Corridor investments
• Kenya and Uganda establishing "trade representative offices" in Hargeisa that function as de facto embassies
• The UAE quietly upgrading its representation to consular status
• G7 countries maintaining official recognition of Somalia's territorial integrity while substantially increasing direct engagement with Hargeisa on trade, development, and security matters

G7 Risk Assessment: The primary risk under this scenario is that maintaining the "One Somalia" fiction becomes diplomatically untenable and potentially hypocritical as G7 companies increasingly sign direct deals with Hargeisa. Major mining companies have expressed interest in Somaliland's substantial but underdeveloped mineral resources, including rare earth elements critical for renewable energy technologies.

The "Taiwanization" scenario could also create a template for other secessionist movements globally, potentially destabilizing settled territorial arrangements in regions from the Balkans to the Caucasus to other parts of Africa. The African Union's foundational principle of respecting colonial-era borders—established to prevent endless territorial disputes—would be fundamentally challenged.

However, this scenario offers some stability advantages. It acknowledges the reality that Somaliland has functioned as an independent entity since 1991, has held multiple democratic elections, and maintains security and governance structures separate from Somalia. Formal recognition of this reality, even if limited to certain states, could enable more effective international cooperation on counterterrorism, piracy, and development.

Scenario B: The "Horn War" (Probability: 25%)

Dynamics: Emboldened by Israeli recognition and driven by its desperate need for maritime access, Ethiopia attempts to establish a permanent naval presence in Berbera or the coastal town of Saylac. This move is interpreted by Egypt and Somalia as casus belli, triggering a multi-front conflict that could draw in Turkey (as Somalia's treaty ally), Egypt (which has pre-positioned forces), and potentially Israel and the UAE (as tacit backers of the Ethiopian-Somaliland axis).

The conflict scenario could unfold through several potential flashpoints:

• Ethiopian military forces, disguised as "training advisors," begin constructing port facilities at Saylac, prompting Somali government protests and Egyptian military movements
• Al-Shabaab or other militant groups, potentially with covert Somali government support, attack Ethiopian commercial or military targets in Somaliland
• Turkish naval vessels in Somali waters confront Emirati or Israeli intelligence vessels operating near Somaliland
• Egypt attempts to blockade or restrict Ethiopian access to Berbera, prompting Israeli threats to ensure "freedom of navigation"

G7 Risk Assessment: A state-on-state conflict in the Red Sea corridor would be catastrophic for global commerce. The Bab el-Mandeb Strait, already compromised by Houthi attacks, could become entirely impassable if regional powers engage in naval warfare. The economic impact would dwarf the disruptions of 2024-2025, potentially triggering global recession as energy and consumer goods prices spike.

The conflict would also pose unprecedented challenges for NATO. Turkey's involvement on one side and likely U.S. support (even if unofficial) for Israel on the other would create the most serious alliance crisis since the 1974 Cyprus conflict. European NATO members would face agonizing choices about which ally to support, potentially fracturing alliance unity at a moment of heightened global tensions.

Additionally, a Horn war would create opportunities for terrorist groups, particularly al-Shabaab, to exploit the chaos and expand their territory and capabilities. International counterterrorism cooperation would collapse as regional states prioritize their proxy conflicts over shared security threats.

Scenario C: The Al-Shabaab "Nationalist" Surge (Probability: 15%)

Dynamics: Al-Shabaab, the Somalia-based terrorist group affiliated with al-Qaeda, leverages Israeli recognition of Somaliland as a powerful recruitment and propaganda tool. The group frames the recognition as proof that the FGS is weak and unable to defend Somali territorial integrity, while simultaneously portraying Somaliland as a "Zionist-Emirati colony" betraying Islamic solidarity.

This narrative potentially resonates beyond al-Shabaab's traditional base, appealing to Somali nationalists who oppose partition on secular grounds and to Muslims globally outraged by Israeli actions in Gaza. The group could experience a surge in recruitment, funding, and territorial control, particularly in areas where the FGS maintains only tenuous authority.

Under this scenario, al-Shabaab might:

• Launch spectacular terrorist attacks against Israeli, Emirati, or Ethiopian targets in the region
• Significantly expand territorial control in southern and central Somalia
• Establish a shadow government that challenges the FGS's legitimacy more effectively than at any point since 2012
• Conduct attacks beyond Somalia, potentially targeting Kenyan, Ethiopian, or even Somaliland civilian infrastructure

G7 Risk Assessment: A total collapse of security in central and southern Somalia would necessitate a new, significantly more costly international intervention. The African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), already struggling with limited resources and mandates, would likely prove inadequate to contain a resurgent al-Shabaab with enhanced legitimacy.

This scenario could require a return to large-scale international military deployment comparable to the pre-2012 AMISOM mission, but in a significantly more challenging environment. With regional states divided over the Somaliland question and Turkey, Egypt, and others pursuing competing agendas, assembling an effective coalition would be far more difficult than in previous intervention efforts.

The humanitarian consequences would be severe. Somalia's fragile recovery from decades of civil war and famine could be entirely reversed, potentially creating another massive refugee crisis affecting not only neighboring states but potentially Europe as well, given established migration routes through Yemen and North Africa.

VI. Strategic Recommendations for G7 Policymakers

The Somaliland recognition crisis demands sophisticated diplomatic approaches that balance competing interests while prioritizing regional stability and the rules-based international order. The following recommendations offer pragmatic pathways through this complex landscape.

1. Establish "Special Economic Status" Framework

Rather than forcing a binary choice between full diplomatic recognition and complete isolation, G7 members should collaboratively develop a "Special Economic Territory" designation for the Berbera Corridor. This framework would:

• Allow G7 companies and financial institutions to engage directly with Somaliland authorities on commercial matters without requiring formal recognition of sovereignty
• Provide legal protection for investments and contracts through an internationally-administered arbitration mechanism
• Defer the sovereignty question while acknowledging the reality of Somaliland's separate governance structures
• Create precedent for engaging with de facto governments without undermining the principle of territorial integrity

The model could draw on historical precedents such as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's "reference formula" used during its name dispute with Greece, or the various arrangements that have allowed international engagement with Taiwan without formal recognition. The key is creating sufficient legal clarity to enable economic development while maintaining diplomatic ambiguity on the sovereignty question.

This approach would require careful coordination among G7 members to ensure consistent policy implementation and prevent competitive dynamics where individual states rush to gain commercial advantages through premature recognition. The G7 should establish a working group on Horn of Africa policy to coordinate approaches and share intelligence on regional developments.

2. Multilateral Red Sea Forum

The urgent need is preventing zero-sum competition among regional powers from escalating into military confrontation. The G7 should take the lead in establishing a "Red Sea Security and Economic Forum" bringing together key stakeholders including:

• Core members: UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, Turkey
• Observer states: Israel, Eritrea, Djibouti, Yemen (multiple representatives)
• International organizations: UN, African Union, Arab League, EU
• G7 representatives as facilitators and guarantors

The forum's mandate would include:

• Establishing confidence-building measures to prevent military miscalculation
• Creating notification protocols for military movements and exercises in Red Sea waters
• Developing shared maritime security mechanisms to combat piracy and terrorism
• Coordinating on humanitarian assistance and development initiatives
• Providing a confidential channel for diplomatic communications during crises

The forum should meet at the foreign minister level quarterly, with permanent working groups on security, economic development, and humanitarian issues meeting monthly. The G7 should offer financial support for forum operations and potentially provide neutral territory (Geneva or Oslo) for sensitive discussions.

Critical to the forum's success would be preventing it from becoming merely another venue for rhetorical confrontation. The agenda should focus initially on areas of common interest—counterterrorism, anti-piracy, search and rescue—before attempting to address the most contentious sovereignty questions. Track II diplomatic channels, involving academics and former officials, should complement the official forum to develop creative solutions outside the glare of public attention.

3. Regional Coordination Office for Counter-Terrorism

The G7 should upgrade its security presence in Hargeisa through establishment of a "Regional Counter-Terrorism and Maritime Security Coordination Office." This facility would:

• Serve as a hub for intelligence sharing on terrorist groups, particularly al-Shabaab. 
• Coordinate international efforts on counter-piracy, building on the successful models of previous anti-piracy operations
• Provide training and capacity building for Somaliland security forces in internationally-recognized best practices
• Maintain situational awareness of military movements and potential flashpoints
• Offer a discreet channel for communication with Hargeisa without implying formal recognition

The office would acknowledge the de facto security reality—that Somaliland maintains effective control over its territory and has been a relatively reliable security partner—without breaking the "One Somalia" protocol at the diplomatic level. Staff would include seconded military and intelligence officials from multiple G7 countries, operating under a mandate focused strictly on transnational security threats.

This approach parallels arrangements G7 states have made in other regions with contested sovereignty, such as the various international security presences in the Balkans or the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. The key is framing the office as serving international security interests rather than legitimizing any particular sovereignty claim.

4. Somalia Support Package

To prevent complete FGS collapse and address legitimate Somali grievances, the G7 should simultaneously announce a substantial support package for Mogadishu including:

• $500 million in direct budget support contingent on governance reforms
• Enhanced security assistance, including equipment and training for Somali National Army
• Debt relief negotiations to address Somalia's $5.2 billion external debt burden
• Support for inclusive political dialogue bringing together FGS, federal member states, and civil society
• Investment in job creation programs targeting youth in areas vulnerable to al-Shabaab recruitment

This package would demonstrate that engagement with Somaliland does not come at Somalia's expense and that the international community remains committed to a stable, unified Somalia. However, the support should be genuinely conditional on progress toward inclusive governance, not simply provided unconditionally in hopes of buying FGS acquiescence to the changing regional reality.

5. Energy Security Initiative

Given the centrality of energy resources to the regional competition, the G7 should sponsor an "East African Energy Security Initiative" that:

• Provides financing and technical assistance for energy infrastructure development in multiple Horn states
• Establishes transparent, internationally-recognized frameworks for exploration and development rights
• Encourages regional energy market integration to reduce zero-sum competition
• Links energy development to binding arbitration mechanisms for territorial and maritime disputes
• Offers alternative pathways for Ethiopia to gain energy export capabilities beyond the contested Berbera route

This initiative would address one of the core drivers of regional tensions—competition for scarce energy resources and export routes—by expanding the pie rather than simply accepting current lines of competition.

VII. The China Factor: An Emerging Variable

While this analysis has focused primarily on regional powers and traditional Western interests, the People's Republic of China represents a potentially decisive variable that warrants closer examination.

China maintains significant interests in Red Sea stability through its Belt and Road Initiative investments, particularly:

• The Djibouti Free Trade Zone, a $3.5 billion project serving as China's commercial hub for Africa
• China's first overseas military base in Djibouti, hosting approximately 2,000 PLA personnel
• Significant port investments throughout the region, including in Sudan
• Growing trade relationships with Ethiopia, Kenya, and other East African states

Beijing has remained conspicuously silent on the Somaliland recognition question, a studied neutrality that reflects complex calculations. On one hand, China officially upholds principles of territorial integrity and has its own sensitivities about secessionist movements given Taiwan and Xinjiang. Supporting or even acquiescing to Somaliland's recognition could set uncomfortable precedents.

On the other hand, China's pragmatic approach to sovereignty questions—engaging with Taiwan commercially while denying its diplomatic legitimacy—suggests Beijing could accommodate a "Taiwanization" scenario for Somaliland if it serves Chinese interests. If the Berbera Corridor proves economically successful, Chinese companies could seek involvement regardless of Somaliland's diplomatic status.

The G7 should anticipate potential Chinese mediation efforts or attempts to shape outcomes favorable to Beijing's interests. China's diplomatic and economic leverage, particularly with Ethiopia and several Persian Gulf states, positions it to potentially broker arrangements the West cannot. The G7 response should be to engage constructively with Chinese initiatives that genuinely promote stability, while clearly articulating Western interests and values in the region.

Conclusion: Navigating the New Normal

Israel's recognition of Somaliland on December 26, 2025, has irrevocably altered the strategic landscape of the Horn of Africa. The thirty-year period during which Somaliland existed as a functioning state without international recognition has ended, replaced by a new era of contested legitimacy that forces both regional and global powers to make difficult choices.

The challenge for G7 policymakers is navigating between three imperatives that are in tension but not entirely contradictory:

1. Upholding the principle of territorial integrity that has undergirded the post-1945 international order and prevented countless territorial disputes from becoming violent conflicts

2. Acknowledging the reality that Somaliland has governed itself effectively for over three decades, held democratic elections, and maintained stability in a chaotic region

3. Preventing escalation of regional competition into military confrontation that would be catastrophic for Red Sea commerce and global stability

The recommendations outlined above offer pathways through this dilemma by creating diplomatic space for pragmatic engagement without forcing premature resolution of fundamental sovereignty questions. The "Special Economic Status" framework, the Multilateral Red Sea Forum, and the enhanced security coordination represent ways to work with reality while maintaining principled commitments.

The coming months will test whether the international community can develop innovative approaches to sovereignty questions in the 21st century, or whether it will retreat into rigid positions that divorce diplomatic doctrine from political reality. The stakes—measured in potential military conflict, economic disruption, and humanitarian catastrophe—could not be higher.

For the Horn of Africa, January 1, 2026, marks not an ending but a beginning of a new chapter in its complex relationship with both regional powers and the broader international system. How that chapter develops will depend on the wisdom, restraint, and creativity of policymakers in capitals from Washington to Beijing, from Cairo to Tel Aviv, and from Riyadh to Ankara. The decisions made in 2026 will shape not only the Horn's future but potentially establish precedents for how the international community manages sovereignty disputes in an increasingly multipolar world.