Analysis by Suleiman Ismail Bolaleh
The United Nations Security Council’s decision to lift the decades-old arms embargo on Somalia was intended to strengthen the country’s national security institutions and enhance its capacity to combat terrorism. However, this analysis argues that the decision also exposed significant structural weaknesses in Somalia’s security architecture, creating strategic vulnerabilities in a country where weapons management systems remain fragile.
Rather than immediately strengthening state security, lifting the embargo appears to have highlighted longstanding deficiencies in arms registration, inventory control, secure storage, and chain-of-custody oversight. In this context, critics argue that the increased availability of imported weapons has heightened the risk of political misuse, intensified tensions between the Federal Government and Federal Member States, and increased concerns about the possible diversion of weapons to non-state armed groups, including Al-Shabaab.
Somalia continues to lack a fully functional national framework for comprehensive weapons registration, inventory management, and accountability. Decades of conflict have weakened state institutions, while corruption and limited administrative capacity continue to undermine effective oversight. This analysis suggests that these institutional shortcomings have complicated the government’s ability to manage growing volumes of imported military equipment with adequate transparency and accountability.
Weapons supplied by international partners—including Turkey, the United States, and Qatar—have entered a security environment where storage, tracking, and distribution mechanisms remain under development. Critics argue that, without stronger oversight, these conditions increase the risk of diversion, unauthorized transfers, and political misuse. They further contend that such vulnerabilities may undermine both counterterrorism objectives and broader state-building efforts.
Federal–Regional Confrontations Intensify
The weaknesses in Somalia’s security governance have become more apparent during periods of heightened political tension between the Federal Government and several Federal Member States.
- Jubaland Confrontation: During earlier political disputes, federal security deployments toward Jubaland became a source of significant controversy, with critics arguing that internationally supported military capabilities were employed in politically sensitive circumstances rather than exclusively for counterterrorism purposes.
- Southwest State Tensions: Security operations in Baidoa during leadership disputes similarly generated concerns among observers that state security institutions were becoming increasingly intertwined with domestic political competition.
- Puntland Friction: More recent confrontations involving federal and Puntland forces have further illustrated how unresolved constitutional disputes can rapidly escalate when heavily armed security forces operate in politically contested environments.
Taken together, these developments illustrate a broader governance challenge: political competition frequently overlaps with security operations, blurring the distinction between legitimate state security activities and politically driven coercion.
Structural Drivers of Vulnerability
This analysis identifies four principal factors contributing to Somalia’s continuing security vulnerabilities:
- Fragmented security institutions: Federal and regional security forces continue to operate under competing command structures, limiting unified national control.
- Incomplete institutional reforms: Oversight mechanisms for weapons management and security sector governance remain underdeveloped and unevenly implemented.
- Persistent political mistrust: Security operations are often viewed through the lens of political rivalry, reducing confidence in national institutions.
- Governance challenges and corruption: Weak accountability mechanisms and entrenched corruption continue to undermine effective control over state security resources.
Within this environment, even legitimate security operations may be perceived as politically motivated, while politically motivated actions can be presented as matters of national security. This ambiguity weakens public confidence and complicates efforts to build professional, accountable security institutions.
Reassessing the UN’s Strategic Calculus
From this analytical perspective, the decision to lift the UN arms embargo may have preceded the development of sufficiently robust national mechanisms for weapons management and oversight. The absence of comprehensive systems for tracking, securing, and accounting for imported arms may have increased the risks associated with expanding Somalia’s access to military equipment while political and institutional reforms remain incomplete.
Accordingly, some analysts argue that the United Nations Security Council should periodically reassess the effectiveness of its current approach and consider whether additional monitoring measures—or, if conditions significantly deteriorate, targeted restrictions—may be warranted until Somalia establishes credible national systems for weapons registration, secure storage, inventory management, and independent oversight.
Ultimately, the long-term effectiveness of any international security assistance will depend not only on the volume of military support provided, but also on the strength, transparency, and accountability of the institutions responsible for managing it.
About the Author
Suleiman Ismail Bolaleh is a Somaliland-born human rights activist and the chairman and founding member of the Horn of Africa Human Rights Watch Committee (HORNWATCH). His dedication for being the voice of voiceless He was honored with the Center for Justice & Accountability’s Judith Lee Stronach Human Rights Award in San Francisco in May 2015. Now, he lives in the United State of America.
