As founders enter the race, questions grow over whether narratives are aimed at attracting pro-Israel support
Another report has arrived. It comes with a clean layout, formal language, and an institutional logo. It claims to evaluate Somalia’s performance at the United Nations Security Council. From a distance, it looks like serious policy work. Look closer, and it falls apart fast. What you actually find is a collection of recycled accusations, anonymous sources, and one-sided conclusions wrapped in the appearance of expertise.
So let’s be direct about what this is.
Using unverified claims and unnamed whispers as the foundation of a report is not analysis. It is a strategy. When a document relies on vague sources, avoids evidence that can be checked, and amplifies only one narrative, it has already failed the basic test of honest research. Credible institutions do not operate this way. This is how agendas get pushed while hiding behind academic language.
And the timing of this report is not a coincidence.
HIPS has spent years watching its credibility drain away. It once had a real identity as a think tank. That identity is gone. After losing serious funding, the organization appears to have gone looking for new patrons and a new reason to stay relevant. That shift is visible in the work. The tone is different. The targets are different. The intent is harder to pretend away.
Now consider the bigger picture.
Somalia is under real pressure right now. The country is rebuilding its institutions while navigating a difficult regional and global environment. At a moment when steady progress is being made, a report emerges that paints Somalia as fundamentally broken, diplomatically ineffective, and incapable of managing its own affairs.
Ask yourself. Is that objective analysis, or is it part of a broader pattern?
Because that kind of portrayal does more than critique. It reinforces a narrative that Somalia is destined to remain fragile. It chips away at confidence, both inside the country and abroad. It tells partners, investors, and observers that progress is temporary, that institutions are weak by nature, and that the state cannot stand on its own.
That narrative serves a purpose.
When a country is consistently framed as unstable and incapable, it becomes easier for others to justify sidelining it, questioning its authority, or shaping outcomes in ways that would not be acceptable with a stronger state. Fragility, repeated often enough, becomes an identity rather than a phase.
And HIPS, whether driven by internal ambitions or external incentives, is contributing to that pattern by amplifying a narrative that keeps Somalia seen not as a country recovering, but as one that must remain fragile.
Follow the threads, and the picture becomes impossible to dismiss. HIPS is no longer a neutral policy outfit. It has become a political actor with clear ambitions, and the evidence is sitting in plain sight. Two of its founders have already declared themselves candidates in the next election. That single fact collapses any remaining claim to independent research. When an organization steps into the political arena, its reports stop being analysed.
They become campaign tools dressed up in policy language. Right now, the federal government has secured real and visible diplomatic gains at the UN Security Council. This report does not engage with those wins honestly. It tries to reframe progress as failure and momentum as dysfunction. But there is something even more deliberate happening beneath the surface.
By pushing a narrative of Somali weakness and institutional breakdown, the report sends a direct signal to external actors, including Israel, that alternative political bets inside Somalia are worth exploring. That is the real message. Not just criticism of the government. Positioning against it. Not just a research report. A pitch to foreign powers about who should be backed next and why.
A genuine research institution would offer criticism that is balanced and grounded. It would acknowledge where progress has been made while pointing out where gaps remain. It would protect Somalia’s credibility on the international stage even while pushing for internal reform. Instead, this report does the opposite. It amplifies every failure, dismisses every gain, and feeds the exact narratives that Somalia’s adversaries need at exactly the moment they need them.
That is treason, this is sabotage
Somalia is moving forward. Anyone following the country honestly can see it. Returning to the UN Security Council is not a symbol. It is a real diplomatic platform with real influence. Yes, institutions are still being built. Yes, capacity challenges remain. Those are facts that deserve honest discussion. But honest discussion is not what this report offers. It uses those facts as weapons rather than starting points for solutions.
There is a line between being a critic and being an actor with an agenda. Once an organization crosses that line, it is no longer observing events. It is shaping them. And the direction HIPS is shaping things right now does not serve Somalia. It serves the forces working to pull the country apart.
I have said this before, and I will say it again clearly. HIPS is not operating as an independent think tank. It is functioning as a tool for foreign interests that want to keep Somalia weak, divided, and unable to defend its own sovereignty. The reports it produces are not research products. They are operational instruments, and Its director takes orders like a waiter in a fancy restaurant.
This report is a test. It was written to see how the Federal Government of Somalia responds. If the government stays quiet, more reports will follow. Each one will be a little bolder. Each one will push a little further. That is how this playbook works.
The Federal Government of Somalia needs to act. Not react. Act. That means pursuing legal options, making the foreign backing behind these reports visible to the public, and shutting down HIPS operations inside the country. Silence is not neutrality at this point. Silence is an answer that invites more of the same.
Somalia has survived worse. But surviving is not the same as winning. It is time to treat this threat with the seriousness it deserves.
Ismail D. Osman is a former Deputy Director of Somalia’s National Intelligence and Security Agency. He writes on Somalia, the Horn of Africa, and regional security with a focus on governance and power dynamics. Contact: [email protected] | X: @osmando
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Somalia Today.