Would Turkeye Be an Honest Broker in Somalia’s Crisis?

By Dayib Sh. Ahmed

In Mogadishu, Somalia, during periods of profound political uncertainty, states often rely upon designated international mediators to stabilize governance and prevent systemic collapse. Ordinarily, such mediators are expected to function as neutral arbiters, facilitating de-escalation and guiding the parties back from the brink of institutional breakdown.

However, where the appointed mediator simultaneously assumes the role of principal architect and primary beneficiary of the underlying crisis, the character of diplomatic engagement is fundamentally altered. In such circumstances, diplomacy may be construed as having deviated from its customary neutral function and instead becoming an instrument intertwined with, or contributing to, the perpetuation of the very instability it is meant to resolve.

As heavy gunfire shakes Mogadishu and smoke rises over residential neighborhoods , a high-level Turkish delegation composed of diplomats and intelligence officials has arrived in the capital. Ostensibly, their mission is to facilitate dialogue between the Federal Government of Somalia and a fractured opposition reeling from a heavily contested political transition. In reality, Ankara is entering a theater of its own making, attempting to arbitrate a crisis where its own financial, geopolitical, and military interests are deeply and inextricably entangled. The current push for mediation is an exercise in political theater, designed not to restore a consensus-based democracy, but to rubber-stamp an authoritarian slide.