In January 2026, Somalia assumed the presidency of the United Nations Security Council. This rotation is standard practice among the Council’s 15 member states, yet it sparked controversy and concern among observers. The presidency allows Somalia to set meeting agendas, lead discussions, and represent the Council in international matters. For many, this represents a significant achievement for a country working to recover from decades of civil unrest.
Supporters view Somalia’s new role within the UNSC as a marker of progress. Yet critics see it as a troubling indication of the Council’s declining authority. Tweets from frustrated individuals reflect this sentiment: “Somalia is currently the president of the UN Security Council. The United States should LEAVE the UN and never come back. I’m sick of it.” Such remarks highlight the perception among skeptics that the UN is falling short in its responsibilities.
Critics argue that Somalia’s ongoing struggles—such as internal terrorism, political fragmentation, and dependence on international support—undermine its ability to lead effectively on global security. A UN Security Council briefing from June 2024 showcased these challenges. The country is still embroiled in conflict with Al-Shabaab, has 3.8 million internally displaced residents, and is grappling with a complex constitutional transition amid tensions with regions like Puntland.
Moreover, Somalia’s reliance on African Union peacekeeping forces and UN logistical support further complicates its standing as a global leader. Recent troop withdrawals as part of a transition strategy have raised alarms about the Somali government’s readiness to handle security independently. UN officials noted that only a small portion of Somalia’s humanitarian response plan had secured funding by mid-2024, illustrating the gap between the country’s ambitions and its actual capabilities.
Somalia’s presidency is not a result of its merit or achievements. The role rotates among UNSC members, and Somalia’s term is a function of its position as a non-permanent member from 2024 to 2026. Still, the importance of symbolic leadership cannot be underestimated. As Somalia represents the Council for just one month, the implications of its chairmanship resonate beyond that brief timeframe.
Concerns about Somalia’s symbolic leadership intensify given its recent diplomatic clashes, like the dispute with Israel over Somaliland. Somalia called Israel’s recognition of the self-declared region—a territory the Somali government insists is part of its own—“a flagrant assault” on its sovereignty. Such actions raise questions about Somalia’s ability to exercise neutrality and uphold global diplomatic standards during its presidency of the Security Council.
The UN Security Council has faced scrutiny for its inaction on pressing global crises, including the wars in Ukraine and Sudan. Thus, allowing a fragile state like Somalia to guide Council discussions—however briefly—raises concerns about further damage to the institution’s credibility. Concerns around this leadership role are echoed in the international community, with a former U.S. diplomat commenting, “If a country still reliant on peacekeepers and foreign aid gets to chair sessions on international peace and security, we have to ask what message that sends about the Council’s seriousness.”
Somalia, however, aims to leverage its presidency to draw attention to African security issues and promote multilateral cooperation. “This leadership role signifies Mogadishu’s full reintegration into the heart of global governance,” remarked a diplomat in a recent press release. Yet, skepticism remains prevalent. Beneath the surface, Somalia grapples with enduring problems: political infighting, violence, and a struggling economy still mired in the legacy of collapse.
Documents from the Security Council highlight Somalia’s dependence on foreign assistance and peacekeeping, undermining its authority. Reports from Malta’s mission to the UN noted that “conditions were not conducive to the safe participation of a civil-society representative” during Council sessions concerning Somalia—an illustration of the persistent instability that hinders governance.
Some view the presidency as a confidence-building measure. “Diplomats view this presidency as a clear indication that Somalia has fully reintegrated into the international system,” stated an observer. Critics counter that such symbolic gestures reveal the UN’s indifference toward result-oriented governance. The consequences of such actions may deepen distrust in the international system, they warn.
The issue prompts reflection for American taxpayers as well. The U.S. shoulders approximately 22% of the UN’s annual budget, a staggering figure that exceeds $11 billion when considering peacekeeping and voluntary agencies. Yet over the years, U.S. influence within the UN has declined. Rising powers in the General Assembly, alongside the Security Council’s gridlock due to vetoes from China and Russia, have led to frustrations over its efficacy in pursuing American interests.
It’s essential to note that Somalia’s presidency does not allow it blanket authority over the Security Council. Decisions require consensus or majority approval. Nevertheless, holding the presidency provides Somalia with a significant platform for agenda-setting and prioritizing issues during its 31-day term. Many observers question whether this voice aligns with the fundamental peace and security objectives that the Council is meant to champion.
As dissatisfaction grows, discussions about America’s involvement in the United Nations are becoming increasingly urgent. Critics highlight an ironic situation: a nation that has received extensive U.S. assistance over the years is now leading the very body responsible for maintaining global order, despite a precarious record at home. For many, this highlights yet another instance of a misaligned governance structure—where symbolism overtakes substance. Such realities pose challenges for those considering the value of continued U.S. investment in international institutions amid pressing domestic concerns.
"*" indicates required fields
