Marian Roble, an educated commentator specializing in Middle East and Horn of Africa affairs, Red Sea geopolitics and Somaliland, has published a striking Arabic-language analysis on her X (Twitter) account, sharply criticizing Somalia’s appeal to Arab countries to use their influence to prevent the further international recognition of Somaliland.
In the analysis, which I have translated into English, Roble portrays Somalia’s diplomatic campaign not as a confident defense of territorial sovereignty, but as an increasingly desperate attempt to prevent international recognition from catching up with what she describes as an already established political reality in Somaliland.
“This is not a defense of sovereignty. It is the plea of an entity that can no longer hide its own weakness.”
A Union That Collapsed in 1991
Roble argues that after more than three decades of political instability and state collapse, Mogadishu is asking Arab governments to prevent the international community from recognizing what she says already exists on the ground in Somaliland: an elected government, functioning institutions, its own currency, defined borders and a security system that, in her view, has provided greater stability than Somalia has been able to establish even in its capital.
She challenges the continued description of Somaliland’s independence as “secession,” arguing that such a characterization overlooks the historical circumstances surrounding the collapse of the Somali state.
According to her analysis, the unity that Somalia continues to defend as a political principle effectively collapsed in 1991.
“Those who describe the restoration of sovereignty in Somaliland as ‘secession’ speak as if there had been a successful state that was torn apart,” she writes, arguing that Somalia’s history instead reflects a period of collapse followed by international involvement and dependence.
“That Is Not Sovereignty”
One of the strongest parts of Roble’s argument focuses on Somalia’s relationship with international institutions and foreign security partners.
She argues that Mogadishu remains heavily dependent on international assistance, foreign security missions and external funding, with major security decisions influenced by actors outside Somalia.
Her conclusion is blunt:
“That is not sovereignty.”
Roble characterizes this situation as a form of international trusteeship, arguing that the language of sovereignty is being maintained through diplomatic statements while Somalia remains deeply dependent on international actors.
Turkey’s Growing Role Comes Under Fire
Roble then turns her attention to Turkey, portraying Ankara’s expanding role in Somalia as another central element in her argument.
She points to Turkey’s military presence, its training of Somali forces and its diplomatic involvement, while also accusing Ankara of gaining influence over ports, contracts and strategic economic sectors.
Although these relations are officially described as a “strategic partnership,” Roble gives them a far more critical interpretation.
She describes the relationship as “soft colonialism and legalized plunder,” arguing that political and military support comes alongside access to resources and strategic influence.
“What Militarization?”
Roble also questions Somalia’s warnings about the alleged “militarization” of the Somaliland issue.
“What militarization?”
She argues that Somaliland has been managing its coastline, ports and airports while maintaining its own governing institutions.
By contrast, she depicts Mogadishu as a government that remains dependent on international security arrangements and foreign partners.
Her argument is therefore framed around what she sees as a contradiction: Somalia calling for territorial unity while simultaneously relying heavily on external actors for security, political and economic support.
Israeli Recognition as a “Revelation,” Not a Creation
A central claim in Roble’s analysis is that Israeli recognition of Somaliland did not create Somaliland as a political entity.
Instead, she argues, it exposed an existing reality that the international community is increasingly being forced to confront.
“Israeli recognition did not create a state. It exposed the reality they refuse to acknowledge.”
According to Roble, international actors are increasingly engaging with authorities that exercise effective control over territory and institutions, rather than simply recognizing claims based on historical political arrangements.
“Stop Recognition Before Reality Becomes an Official Document”
Roble interprets Somalia’s appeal to Arab countries to use their influence against further recognition as an attempt to delay the transformation of political reality into formal diplomatic recognition.
Her message is particularly sharp:
“Apply pressure so that reality does not become an official document.”
She argues that preventing recognition would allow the political slogan of Somali unity to continue despite what she portrays as a fragmented political landscape and a central government that does not exercise complete control over Somalia’s territory and resources.
A Challenge to the Arab World
Roble concludes by shifting the focus to the future of the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.
Her argument is that countries seeking long-term regional stability should engage with the political realities on the ground, including Somaliland, rather than attempting to preserve an increasingly contested status quo.
The analysis ultimately presents Somaliland as a functioning political entity whose international recognition, in Roble’s view, is a question of when rather than whether.
Her broader message is unmistakable: diplomatic pressure may delay recognition, but it cannot permanently erase political realities that have developed over decades.