What is becoming of multilateralism?
Today's regional Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) body's 48th Extraordinary Session is facing a challenge to its legitimacy and influence. Hosted in Kampala by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, the meeting of heads of state and government is set to tackle ongoing armed conflict in Sudan and the diplomatic fallout from the recent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Ethiopia and Somaliland, among other topics. But in the space of just a couple of days, Sudanese and Ethiopian delegations withdrew from participating, albeit for radically different reasons. Their withdrawal, and regional leaders’ inability to chart a path through the Sudanese war, speaks to a broader dilemma of multilateral institutions in the Horn of Africa amid the rise of Gulf influence in an increasingly multi-polar world.
On Tuesday 16 January, the Sudanese Foreign Ministry announced that it had withdrawn from the summit in protest over the invitation of Rapid Support Force (RSF) leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo 'Hemedti.' The statement alleged that IGAD had set a "dangerous precedent" by inviting the paramilitary commander, who has signalled that he will attend. An Ethiopian statement, meanwhile, cited scheduling conflicts to explain its absence from today's meeting. The absence of two key governments from this Extraordinary Summit, when disputes in which they are involved are central to the agenda, will likely undermine IGAD's ability to fully engage with both issues effectively.
The withdrawal of the Republic of Sudan, and thereby the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), is a blow to the regional bloc, which has sought a ceasefire between the army and its former paramilitary allies. It is a blow to all those looking beyond temporary ceasefires. Unlike the limited scope of the Jeddah process, led by the US and Saudi Arabia, IGAD was positioned to utilise its political framework to facilitate a meeting between Hemedti and SAF Chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan that could pave the way for a sustainable ceasefire.
At the same time, the African Union (AU) finally appointed a high-level panel to work to resolve the Sudanese armed conflict. Mohamed Ibn Chambas, the AU High Representative for Silencing the Guns, has been appointed as Chair, with the former Ugandan Vice President Speciosa Wandira-Kazibiwe and former head of the AU Transition Mission in Somalia Francisco Madeira completing the three-person panel. The appointment of the panel should be cautiously welcomed, and may help to get peace efforts back on track. Yet the creation of another negotiating track could further muddy crowded diplomatic endeavours on Sudan. It is also unclear how the panel relates to the UN Secretary General's Personal Envoy to Sudan, Ramtane Lamamra, or the still unnamed IGAD Special Representative. Mix-and-match peace efforts appear to have allowed the SAF and RSF to continue to engage how and when they like, making promises on humanitarian access that are quickly broken. But even if the negotiating body is forced to change, again, IGAD’s framing of the Sudanese conflict should not be abandoned as it best reflects the political realities of the war.
It seems neither IGAD nor the AU holds the sway they once did. A central reason is that governments in the Horn are increasingly searching for financial support from assertive Gulf powers, to pursue their domestic agendas. In recent years, these powers, largely Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, have sought to secure influence and national security interests in their regional backyard, with major implications.
Countries, not just in the Horn, are increasingly dismissive of international norms and institutions meant to ameliorate the excesses of autocracies and wayward governments. Multilateral institutions like the AU are finding themselves in a bind, deriving their authority and legitimacy from sovereign states that no longer abide, or even pay lip service to, their most fundamental principles. The founding documents of the AU in the early 2000s emerged out of a post-colonial era marked by internecine warfare, famine and failed states. But the haphazard application of AU principles today has undermined their value. Illiberal multilateralism and political paralysis now arguably define the continent's predominant organisation.
It would be wrong, however, to dismiss the significance of IGAD, which still represents the best hope for multilateralism in the Horn. Armed conflict in Sudan and fallout from the Ethiopia-Somaliland MOU aren't the only topics on the agenda today. Two IGAD members, Kenya and Uganda, are grappling over Nairobi's refusal to license a Ugandan-owned oil marketer to manage Kampala's fuel imports. On 28 December, Uganda filed a lawsuit against Kenya to force it to allow the Uganda National Oil Corporation a local license. Ugandan President Museveni and Kenyan President Ruto are scheduled to meet on the sidelines of the summit to hopefully end the increasingly costly dispute. Moreover, IGAD's summit today is not the flashpoint of struggling multilateralism, but rather a continuation of global challenges over the past decade. IGAD should refrain from forceful pronouncements on either side of the conflicts on the agenda in Entebbe. In the absence of key members, any resolution risks being perceived as biased, undermining the credibility and authority of the organisation. Instead, IGAD should eschew such politicisation, reinforcing the organisation's status as a platform for collective, consensus-based action and taking concrete measures to empower the Secretariat as a neutral, professional platform for dispute resolution.
Still, there needs to be an honest appraisal of shifting power across the Horn. Pretending that politics today is business as usual only undermines the relevance and influence of important bodies like the AU and IGAD. Only with clear-sighted analysis that the world is warming, war is proliferating, and accepted international norms are being ignored can these bodies reposition themselves to serve the populations of their member states.
By the Horn Edition team
Gain unlimited access to all our Editorials. Unlock Full Access to Our Expert Editorials — Trusted Insights, Unlimited Reading.
Create your Sahan account LoginUnlock lifetime access to all our Premium editorial content
In a landmark ruling last week, five senior judges of Somalia’s Supreme Court declared incumbent President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s (HSM) May 2026 term extension unlawful and held that Parliament’s mandate had expired in April 2026, thereby rendering Villa Somalia’s "one-person, one-vote" (OPOV) electoral process illegal and its outcome invalid. Consequently, the judges directed all Somali political parties to agree on a new electoral framework within 30 days and conduct a credible poll within 90 days.
Every political system generates its own distinctive catchphrases, slogans, and metaphors, and Somalia is no exception. Indeed, the administration of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HSM) has proven to be one of the country's most prolific creators of political branding. Among the most notable was the aspirational slogan "Soomali heshiis ah dunida naheshiis la ah" (Somalia at peace with itself and with the world). Always more ideal than reality, the phrase now rings hollow at a time when the nation remains deeply fractured internally and relations with regional neighbours have grown increasingly frosty. Similarly, the Simón Bolívar-style moniker "Dal xoreeye" (The Liberator) feels intensely contradicted by reality as significant swathes of the country risk reverting to Al-Shabaab control. Other slogans, such as "Birmade" and "Dan Qaran", have likewise been quietly discarded.
Ethiopia’s leaders are fighting a new war with an old conviction: that military victory can permanently settle the question of who owns the state. But the coalition that encircled Tigray in 2020 has fractured, the regional balance has shifted, and drone capabilities are spreading to the government’s opponents. The battlefield looks familiar, but the strategic conditions are profoundly different. The danger lies in mistaking the temporary capture of territory for the resolution of deep-seated conflict, a ruinous road Ethiopia has travelled before; its towns bear the scars, and its people carry the losses.
In social psychology, the term "desperation conundrum" refers to a psychological paradox wherein an acute, extreme, or severe need for an objective inadvertently impedes its attainment. This occurs because an intense sense of urgency frequently drives choices and behaviours that alienate the very outcome that is so desperately sought.
Somalia’s contemporary political trajectory is profoundly defined by the month of October. Within the Somali collective consciousness, October is not merely another page on the calendar; it is the recurring crucible of political upheaval, tragedy and systemic transformation.
The Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) has since 10 October been deploying National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA) forces, specifically the little-known Public Protection Forces (Ilaalada Shacabka / People’s Protection Forces), in Wadajir. This mobilisation is concentrated close to the home of ex-President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed – a development widely criticised by many Somalis as provocative. Some interpret the build-up as a prelude, possibly, to some form of armed action against the former president and leader of the opposition Somali Future Council, amid uncorroborated media reports that President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HSM) has used Abgaal clan elders to relay an ultimatum demanding the disarmament of Sharif and other opposition figures.
It’s been a bruising week for the Somali Federal Government (FGS), headed by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HSM), whose constitutional term of office expired in May this year. Yesterday, forces aligned with the administration of Jubaland peacefully took control of the strategic border town of Beled Haawo in Somalia’s Gedo region – a lucrative customs post for trade and transit with Kenya. Roughly 1,000 Daraawiish paramilitaries loyal to Abdirashid Hassan Janan – a fickle politician who is notorious for changing sides in a volatile region – reportedly deployed across key sites in the town following negotiations with the previous local administration.
Plans are intensifying within Hiiraan to establish an autonomous "Hiiraan State." This development reflects deep-seated regional and clan cleavages reasserting themselves in local politics, set against the backdrop of a stalled federal process, a breakdown in talks between President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HSM) and the opposition Somalia Future Council (SFC), and an unravelling Somali federation.
Nearly a month has passed since a powerful blast destroyed the home of General Mahad, widely known as Taliye Shub, in Doolow, a political dissident who opposed the government of Hassan Sheikh Mohamud.