MOGADISHU (SONNA): The International Crisis Group (ICG) claims to be a voice for peace and stability, yet its latest publication, Helping Somalia Move Beyond a Shaky Status Quo, exposes a pattern of bias, misinformation, and vested interest. The report does not aim to strengthen Somalia’s sovereignty or stability. It seeks to preserve a narrative of perpetual fragility that keeps international actors, including ICG itself, relevant and funded. In truth, this is not a “crisis prevention group” but a “crisis benefit group.” Its existence and financial survival depend on the very instability it claims to oppose.
- Promoting Dependency, Not Sovereignty
The ICG frames Somalia’s challenges as problems that can only be managed through external mediation and continuous foreign involvement. Its recommendations call on the European Union, the African Union, and the United Nations to intensify their political role in Somalia’s internal affairs. This narrative ignores Somalia’s growing institutional progress under President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s administration and delegitimizes Somali-led solutions.
By insisting that international diplomacy is the only way forward, the ICG undermines Somalia’s right to self-determination. The report calls for Brussels to “mediate” between Mogadishu and federal member states as though Somalia cannot resolve internal disputes without European supervision. This paternalistic view treats the Somali government as incapable of leadership, while foreign organizations position themselves as indispensable managers of Somali politics. That approach benefits the ICG and its donors, not the Somali people.
- Distorting Somalia’s Political Reality
The ICG’s portrayal of Somalia’s federal system is one-sided and misleading. It depicts Mogadishu as an overbearing central authority while presenting certain regional leaders as victims of centralization. This framing ignores that Puntland and Jubaland have repeatedly undermined national consensus and delayed critical reforms. The government’s push for universal suffrage and constitutional clarity is not authoritarian, as the report suggests, but an essential step toward legitimate democracy.
By siding with federal member states that defy national agreements, the ICG is not promoting balance but fueling division. Its selective interpretation of events serves to reinforce conflict between the center and the periphery. The organization’s bias is evident in its tone, which downplays the obstruction of progress by local elites while magnifying minor administrative missteps by the federal government. This imbalance helps sustain the perception that Somalia is inherently ungovernable, a narrative that attracts foreign funding to groups like ICG.
- Misrepresenting Security Progress
The report exaggerates Al-Shabaab’s resurgence and implies that Somalia’s security forces are incapable of protecting their own territory without perpetual foreign support. It fails to acknowledge that the Somali National Army, in coordination with local militias and international partners, reclaimed and stabilized large parts of central Somalia in recent years.
Instead of recognizing this progress, the ICG uses selective data to present a pessimistic picture. This serves a political purpose: it justifies continued international funding for external missions like AUSSOM, which ICG heavily references as a cornerstone of its recommendations. The more dependent Somalia remains on foreign forces, the longer organizations like ICG stay relevant as “policy advisors.”
- Financial Incentives Behind the Narrative
The ICG’s funding model depends on maintaining a steady stream of crises. It receives donations from governments, foundations, and institutions that have a vested interest in sustaining global intervention networks. Somalia’s instability ensures that ICG continues to produce “updates,” “watch lists,” and “policy briefings” that attract attention, funding, and influence.
A genuinely stable Somalia, capable of setting its own agenda, would reduce the need for such intermediaries. For this reason, the organization has little incentive to promote genuine reform. Every crisis becomes a marketing tool. Every setback becomes an opportunity to issue a new report and secure new grants. Somalia’s fragility, for ICG, is not a tragedy to solve—it is a business model to sustain.
- Undermining Somali Leadership and Reform
The report dismisses Somalia’s ongoing institutional and legal reforms, particularly those that strengthen transparency, anti-corruption, and governance. By framing these efforts as politically motivated or premature, ICG diminishes the legitimacy of Somali institutions. The government’s electoral reforms aim to transition from clan-based politics to one-person-one-vote democracy, a historic step forward. Yet, ICG portrays this as a potential source of conflict rather than a necessary evolution of Somali statehood.
This narrative weakens public confidence in government-led initiatives and emboldens opposition figures who rely on foreign sympathy to maintain political relevance. In doing so, the ICG does not contribute to peacebuilding; it obstructs it.
- A Hidden Agenda of Influence
The ICG’s persistent calls for “shuttle diplomacy,” “external mediation,” and “roadmap reassessment” are not neutral proposals. They are tools to keep Western institutions embedded in Somalia’s decision-making process. This ensures a continued flow of consulting contracts, research grants, and donor engagement for the ICG and its affiliates.
By presenting itself as an expert intermediary, the ICG gains access to policymakers and donors who rely on its reports for guidance. Its authority depends on keeping countries like Somalia portrayed as unstable and in need of permanent foreign management. Stability would make such organizations redundant, so instability becomes their asset.
- The Truth Behind the Bias
Somalia’s federal government is not perfect, but it is advancing toward genuine self-governance. The state has made significant gains in fiscal management, security reform, and diplomacy. It has reestablished relationships with international financial institutions and strengthened regional cooperation. None of these achievements receive recognition in ICG’s narrative.
Instead, the organization repeats outdated assumptions that Somalia is a failed state in need of external direction. This bias is not analytical, it is strategic. By depicting progress as illusions, the ICG justifies its continued role as a “crisis monitor” rather than acknowledging that Somalia is emerging from dependency toward stability.
The International Crisis Group’s report on Somalia is neither neutral nor constructive. It is an advocacy piece designed to preserve influence, funding, and control over Somalia’s future. By exaggerating instability, undermining Somali leadership, and promoting endless foreign oversight, the organization positions itself as a beneficiary of Somalia’s fragility.
A truly honest assessment would recognize Somalia’s resilience, its legitimate reforms, and its capacity for self-determination. The path to stability does not lie in more foreign reports or endless mediation. It lies in trusting the Somali people and their institutions to decide their own future, free from the manipulative interests of those who profit from the crisis.
Ismail D. Osman: Former Deputy Director of NISA. Specializing in writings on BRICS, the Horn of Africa’s security, and geopolitical landscapes with an emphasis on governance and security. Contact: osmando@gmail.com. Twitter: @osmando
