MOGADISHU, Somalia – When Ethiopia’s new ambassador, Suleiman Dedefo, presented his credentials in Mogadishu on August 5, the ceremony was officially framed as a “diplomatic reset” aimed at mending ties. Yet, for many observers in the Horn of Africa, the appointment was not a peace offering but a masterstroke of coercive diplomacy.

Coming just months after a seismic port deal with the breakaway region of Somaliland shattered regional stability, sending an envoy who reportedly supports Somaliland’s self-determination is widely seen as a calculated affront—a move designed to humiliate Somalia into accepting a new, diminished reality.

Somalia’s acceptance of the ambassador, a decision made under no immense political and security pressure, has placed the nation in a state of humiliation.

The crisis that precipitated this moment erupted on January 1, 2024, when Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Somaliland’s President Muse Bihi Abdi.

The deal reportedly grants landlocked Ethiopia a 50-year lease for a naval base on the Red Sea coast in exchange for a stake in Ethiopian Airlines and, most contentiously, an “in-depth assessment” toward officially recognizing Somaliland’s independence.

Mogadishu, which views Somaliland as an integral part of its territory, reacted with fury, condemning the deal as an “act of aggression” and a violation of its sovereignty. The Somali government recalled its ambassador from Addis Ababa, passed a law nullifying the MoU, and launched a diplomatic campaign to rally international opposition.

This set the stage for a high-stakes confrontation, with Prime Minister Abiy framing sea access as an “existential” right for his nation of 125 million people.

This aggressive posturing is a hallmark of what analysts call the “Abiy Doctrine”: a highly personalized, transactional, and populist foreign policy. This approach de-institutionalizes diplomacy, using it as a tool to distract from severe domestic crises—including ethnic conflicts and a dire economy—and stoke nationalist fervor. The MoU, a diplomatic “bombshell,” served this purpose perfectly.

A diplomatic trap

The appointment of Ambassador Dedefo is a direct continuation of this strategy. By sending a diplomat who personifies the very policy that Somalia condemns, Ethiopia is signaling that the MoU is non-negotiable. This is not diplomacy aimed at reconciliation; it is diplomacy as a tool of coercion, intended to compel Somalia to legitimize the agreement by engaging with its representative.

This move is the culmination of a deliberate strategy of national humiliation, a potent tool of statecraft used by dominant powers to degrade and subjugate rivals.

The campaign began with Abiy’s rhetoric, was compounded by a previous ambassador’s remarks labeling Somalia a nation “created by colonialists,” and punctuated by Abiy’s threats to “humiliate” anyone who challenges Ethiopia. Accepting Dedefo forces Somalia to participate in its degradation, a corrosive act for national prestige.

Mogadishu’s decision to accept the ambassador was a significant strategic miscalculation that should never have occurred.

International law, specifically Article 4 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, provides a sovereign shield, allowing a host country to refuse an ambassadorial appointment (agrément) without offering any justification. This was Somalia’s cleanest and most powerful opportunity to reject Ethiopia’s provocation before it escalated.

By accepting an envoy who personifies a policy that violates its sovereignty, the Somali government undermined its months-long diplomatic campaign against the MoU and signaled a capacity for capitulation. This move has normalized the national humiliation and established a dangerous precedent that Somalia’s sovereign red lines are negotiable.

However, having made this initial error, international law still offers a powerful, if risky, remedy. Under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a host country can declare any diplomat persona non grata (PNG) at any time and without explanation, forcing their recall.

This right is absolute and can be exercised even after an ambassador’s credentials have been accepted. Somalia has used this very tool before, expelling the previous Ethiopian ambassador in April 2024 for “internal interference” related to the MoU.

Expelling Ambassador Dedefo now would be a decisive reassertion of Somali sovereignty and a reversal of the national humiliation. It would send a clear message to Ethiopia and Somalia’s allies, like Turkey and Egypt, that its sovereign red lines are firm.