Somalia stands at a crossroads. After decades of civil war and institutional collapse, the nation faces a critical decision about its future security arrangements. Recent defence agreements with Pakistan, Jordan, and Qatar have sparked debate about the most effective path forward. However, examining these partnerships through the lens of genuine institutional development reveals stark differences between approaches that empower Somalia’s long-term sovereignty and those that risk creating new forms of dependency.
The contrast between Pakistan’s military-first engagement and the comprehensive institutional support provided by the European Union, India, and the African Union illustrates a fundamental truth: authentic partnerships build capacity from within, whilst opportunistic arrangements extract resources and create dependency. This distinction has profound implications for Somalia’s journey towards self-reliance and sustainable security.
The EU’s Transparent Institution-Building Model
The European Union’s approach to Somalia exemplifies genuine partnership through transparency and institutional strengthening. The EU Training Mission in Somalia (EUTM) has operated since 2010, providing strategic advice, mentoring, and capacity-building directly to Somali institutions. Unlike arrangements focused on military hardware, EUTM emphasises creating “a sustainable Somali-owned training system” that strengthens the nation’s ability to defend itself independently.
EUCAP Somalia, the EU’s civilian capacity-building mission, demonstrates transparent engagement by working directly with Somali authorities to develop maritime security and police capabilities. The mission publishes detailed reports on its activities and maintains clear accountability to both European taxpayers and Somali citizens. This transparency builds trust and ensures that capacity-building efforts align with Somalia’s genuine needs rather than external agendas.
The EU’s comprehensive evaluation of its Somalia cooperation (2014-2021) reveals both successes and challenges whilst maintaining public accountability. This level of scrutiny and adaptation demonstrates genuine partnership—one that learns from experience and adjusts to better serve Somali interests rather than pursuing predetermined objectives.
India’s Capacity-Building Partnership
India’s engagement with Somalia reflects a similar commitment to institutional development over dependency creation. The India-Somalia partnership encompasses trade, security cooperation, healthcare, and educational exchanges. Significantly, India provides scholarships for Somali students through ITEC and ICCR programmes, building human capital that remains within Somalia’s control.
India’s historical contribution to peacekeeping in Somalia, including the sacrifice of twelve Indian soldiers during UNOSOM-II, demonstrates long-term commitment to Somali stability rather than short-term gain. Recent cooperation agreements focus on facilitating medical and educational opportunities for Somali citizens whilst strengthening bilateral security cooperation through transparent frameworks.
This approach contrasts sharply with arrangements that prioritise military hardware over human development. India’s emphasis on capacity-building in multiple sectors—including health, education, and governance—creates lasting institutional strength that serves Somalia’s interests across generations.
African Union’s Comprehensive Support
The African Union’s evolving engagement in Somalia, from AMISOM to AUSSOM, demonstrates how regional partners can support institutional development whilst respecting sovereignty. Unlike foreign military arrangements focused on bases or equipment, AU missions emphasise “capacity-building initiatives that equip Somali security forces with training needed to assume greater responsibility for the country’s security”.
The AU’s approach includes supporting federal state creation, mentoring police forces, and facilitating dialogue between different levels of government. These efforts build Somalia’s internal capacity for governance and conflict resolution rather than creating external dependencies. The AU also conducts regular assessments and adjustments to ensure its support aligns with evolving Somali needs.
Importantly, AU engagement includes transparency mechanisms and public accountability that allow Somali citizens to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of international support. This contrasts with opaque military arrangements that lack public oversight or clear benefit to ordinary Somalis.
Pakistan’s Military-First Approach: Creating Dependency
Pakistan’s recent defence agreements with Somalia reflect a fundamentally different approach—one that prioritises military relationships over comprehensive institutional development. This military-first engagement mirrors Pakistan’s broader pattern of opportunistic international partnerships driven by strategic self-interest rather than genuine development cooperation.
The proposed memorandum of understanding that sparked regional controversy exemplifies how military arrangements can threaten rather than enhance sovereignty. Such agreements risk creating new forms of external control that constrain rather than expand national decision-making capacity.
Why Institutions Matter More Than Hardware
Real security for Somalia depends on strong institutions, not foreign military hardware or bases. The European Union’s emphasis on “strategic level advice to Somali authorities within security institutions” recognises that lasting stability requires capable governance structures, not external dependencies.
India’s focus on educational exchanges and human capital development similarly builds Somalia’s long-term capacity for self-governance and development. These approaches create lasting change because they strengthen Somali capabilities rather than substituting foreign capabilities for domestic ones.
The African Union’s support for federal state development and inter-governmental dialogue addresses the root causes of conflict through institutional strengthening rather than mere military intervention. This comprehensive approach recognises that security ultimately depends on legitimate governance and inclusive political processes.
The Path Forward: Choosing Real Partners
Somalia’s future depends on choosing partners committed to genuine institutional development over those pursuing opportunistic military arrangements. The contrast between transparent, accountable partnerships and opaque military deals reveals fundamental differences in intention and outcome.
Real partners like the EU, India, and African Union build Somalia’s capacity for independent decision-making through education, institutional development, and transparent cooperation. They subject their engagement to public scrutiny and adjust based on Somali feedback because their ultimate goal is Somali success, not external advantage.
Opportunistic partners prioritise military relationships that create dependency whilst offering limited transparency or accountability to Somali citizens. Such arrangements risk compromising the sovereignty that decades of struggle have sought to rebuild. Somalia deserves partnerships that strengthen its institutions, develop its human capital, and respect its sovereignty. The choice between dependency and development, between extraction and empowerment, will determine whether Somalia achieves genuine security or merely exchanges one form of external control for another.
The lesson is clear: real partners build institutions, not bases. They create capacity, not dependency. They serve Somalia’s interests transparently rather than pursuing hidden agendas. Somalia’s security lies not in foreign military arrangements but in strong institutions accountable to the Somali people themselves.
(Hailing from Kashmir and based in New Delhi, Mehak Farooq is a journalist specialising in defence and strategic affairs. Her work spans security, geopolitics, veterans’ welfare, foreign policy, and the evolving challenges of national and regional stability.)