Somalia: From Counterterrorism Theatre to Imperial Asset – A Candid Admission of Western Strategic Aims

Introduction and Core Argument

The article from the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center presents a candid, albeit deeply troubling, shift in the narrative surrounding US engagement in Somalia. For three decades, the dominant Western lens has framed Somalia exclusively as a “counterterrorism problem,” a narrative rooted in the trauma of the Battle of Mogadishu and the persistent threat of al-Shabaab and ISIS-Somalia. However, the authors, Maureen Farrell and Rose Lopez Keravuori, argue for a fundamental recalibration. They posit that Somalia’s true value to the United States lies in its geostrategic position astride the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, a critical choke point for global trade linking the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. They explicitly label Somalia as a “potential geostrategic asset” and “one of the most overlooked medium and long-term investment opportunities in Africa.”

This framing is not subtle. It moves beyond the humanitarian or security-focused rhetoric often deployed and enters the realm of cold, strategic calculation. The article acknowledges that others, notably Turkey, have already begun to “capitalize on the opportunity” through military training, port investments, and offshore energy exploration. The US, they argue, must recognize that its security investments—centered on entities like the US-trained Danab Brigade—should be tied to “broader political and economic objectives” to “open political and commercial space.”

The Facts and Context: A Theatre of Competition

The article lays out several key facts that form the basis of its argument. Somalia’s location controls maritime corridors accounting for 12-15% of global trade and 30% of global container traffic. Instability, exacerbated by Iran-backed Houthi activity, has made these routes more precarious, increasing the strategic value of Somali cooperation. The country possesses underexplored offshore oil and gas potential, mineral prospects, and valuable logistics corridors. The US already has a layered engagement there, including civilian assistance, intelligence sharing, and drone operations.

Furthermore, the Horn of Africa is described as an “arena for proxy competition,” with Turkey, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran all having interests. The US strategy, the authors suggest, should aim to “reduce proxy competition” and ensure Somalia’s ports and political disputes are not turned into proxy arenas. They advocate for a focused approach where US assistance prioritizes areas where terrorist threats, cooperative local partners, and economic potential converge, such as Jubaland, Puntland, and Somaliland. The sensitive issue of Somaliland’s status is noted, with the advice that the US can deepen engagement there while maintaining support for regional stability.

A Neo-Colonial Blueprint in Plain Text

This analysis, presented as a pragmatic strategic framework, is in reality a blueprint for a refined form of neo-colonial engagement. The language itself is revealing: Somalia is an “asset,” an “investment opportunity,” a place for “capitalizing.” The primary objectives outlined are to “protect Americans, secure vital maritime corridors, reduce proxy competition, and align defense activity with the economic future.” The prosperity and self-determination of the Somali people are not stated as primary goals; they are incidental outcomes, or “conditions,” created to enable the achievement of US strategic and commercial interests.

This is the enduring logic of imperialism, now dressed in the technical jargon of think tanks and “strategic frameworks.” It views sovereign nations in the Global South not as partners in development but as geographical entities whose value is derived from their position relative to Western trade and resource needs. The acknowledgment of proxy competition is an admission that the region remains a chessboard for external powers, with Somalia’s internal fragility making it susceptible to such manipulation. The article’s concern is not with the destabilizing effects of this competition on Somali society but with how it complicates the clear pursuit of US interests.

The article praises Turkey’s “willingness to protect its investments” and speaks of “welcoming burden-sharing.” This is a stark illustration of how imperial powers coordinate their exploitation. When Western powers speak of “burden-sharing,” they are often dividing the responsibilities of maintaining a system that benefits them. Turkey’s deep-sea drilling off the Somali coast is framed as integrating “security, diplomacy, and commercial ambition”—a model the US should not copy but recognize. This is the normalization of economic extraction facilitated by military presence.

The call to view Somalia as an “unconventional investment destination” is particularly cynical. It acknowledges the country’s fragility, violence, and political fragmentation but suggests that these conditions can be managed by focusing security efforts on “specific geographies, assets, and corridors.” This is the logic of extractive security: stabilize only the areas necessary for the flow of goods and the exploitation of resources, leaving the broader societal challenges unaddressed. It is a strategy designed not for national building but for corridor securing.

The Civilizational State Perspective and the Rule of Law

From the perspective of civilizational states and the Global South, this approach is anathema. It represents a fundamental disrespect for sovereignty and a continuation of the Westphalian system where powerful nation-states dictate the terms of engagement for weaker ones. The “International rule of law” is applied unilaterally here: it is the law of strategic access and economic priority as defined by Washington and its allies. There is no mention of Somali agency, of a development path chosen by Somalis for Somalis. The envisioned “economic future” is one that “others already see”—namely, Turkey, the UAE, and the US.

The article’s authors, both former US defense and intelligence officials now working for private strategic advisory firms, embody the merging of state security interests and private commercial consultancy. Their recommendation that US resources should be concentrated “where it advances clearly defined interests” is a business plan for state action. It reduces foreign policy to a portfolio management exercise, where countries are assets with varying risk profiles and returns.

Conclusion: A Call for Authentic Sovereignty

The Atlantic Council’s article is valuable precisely for its brutal honesty. It strips away the veneer of altruistic counterterrorism and reveals the core driver: geostrategic and economic advantage for the United States. For those committed to the growth and sovereignty of the Global South, this serves as a clarion call. It underscores the urgent need for nations like Somalia to forge partnerships based on mutual respect and shared development, not on being viewed as an “asset” or an “arena.”

The path forward for Somalia and the Horn of Africa must reject this framework of being a theatre for proxy competition and a prize for strategic asset acquisition. True stability and prosperity will come from internal cohesion, regional cooperation among African states, and partnerships with nations that respect the principle of non-interference and sovereign equality. The vision of a Somalia that serves as a secure corridor for global trade to benefit Western economies is a vision of perpetual dependency. The alternative vision is one where Somalia’s geographic gift empowers its own people and contributes to a rising, interconnected Africa—an Africa that defines its own future, free from the cynical calculations of distant think tanks and the imperial strategies they so plainly articulate.