Ethiopia, a landlocked nation with ambitions for sea access, is reportedly seeking a lease arrangement akin to the 1903 Guantanamo deal. Somalia must tread carefully.
In 1903, a deal was struck between the United States and Cuba that would leave an enduring mark on international relations. The agreement gave the U.S. control over Guantanamo Bay, ostensibly as a lease. Over a century later, Cuba’s attempts to reclaim this piece of its sovereign territory have been repeatedly denied, leaving Guantanamo as a stark reminder of the dangers of signing away land, even temporarily.
Today, Somalia faces a similar challenge. Ethiopia, a landlocked nation with ambitions for sea access, is reportedly seeking a lease arrangement akin to the 1903 Guantanamo deal. Somalia must tread carefully. Any such agreement could result in the permanent loss of Somali territory or strategic assets, no matter how it is framed initially.
A Lease That Never Ends
The 1903 Guantanamo agreement seemed simple at the time. It granted the U.S. use of the bay for naval purposes in exchange for an annual payment to Cuba. However, the deal’s terms were heavily skewed in favor of the U.S., leaving Cuba with little to no power to terminate it. Even as geopolitical tides shifted and Cuba sought to reclaim the land, the agreement stood firm, enforced by the military might of the United States.
This historical precedent should serve as a cautionary tale for Somalia. Any lease signed today could be nearly impossible to revoke, especially if Ethiopia builds infrastructure or establishes a permanent presence. Agreements that appear beneficial in the short term can have devastating long-term consequences.
Why Ethiopia Wants a Lease
Ethiopia’s desire for sea access is no secret. As one of Africa’s fastest-growing economies, the country’s lack of direct access to the ocean is a significant handicap. While Ethiopia already uses Djibouti’s port for most of its trade, it appears that Ethiopia is seeking more than just commercial access. The idea of securing a naval base or direct control over Somali ports gives Ethiopia strategic leverage and independence that Djibouti cannot offer.
Djibouti, recognizing Ethiopia’s ambitions, recently suggested Tadjoura, a location on its territory, as a viable alternative for Ethiopia’s maritime needs. Yet Ethiopia seems uninterested, likely because what it truly desires is something more permanent and autonomous. Tadjoura would involve limitations, oversight, and dependence on Djibouti’s sovereignty. A lease with Somalia, however, could provide Ethiopia with unchecked control over a piece of Somali territory.
Somalia’s Sovereignty at Risk
For Somalia, granting Ethiopia such a lease would be a grave mistake. Somalia is only beginning to rebuild after decades of conflict and fragmentation. Its territorial integrity remains fragile, and any loss of sovereignty—even in the form of a lease—could set a dangerous precedent. The lease could become a foothold for Ethiopia to expand its influence, turning a temporary agreement into a de facto permanent occupation.
Moreover, Somalia’s coastline is among the longest and most strategic in Africa. Ports like Berbera, Bossaso, and Kismayo are gateways to the Indian Ocean, with immense potential for trade and economic growth. Leasing any of these ports to Ethiopia would undermine Somalia’s ability to control its own resources and chart its economic future.
A Lesson from History
Guantanamo Bay is not the only example of nations regretting agreements that compromise sovereignty. Across the world, similar deals have left lasting scars. China’s lease of Hong Kong to the British in 1898, for instance, resulted in over a century of foreign control before the city was returned in 1997. The economic benefits promised in such arrangements often pale in comparison to the loss of autonomy and the struggles to reclaim control.
Somalia must learn from these examples. History shows that once a lease is signed, the lessor often loses the ability to enforce its own sovereignty. In the case of Guantanamo, Cuba receives an annual payment of just $4,085—a paltry sum for a strategically vital piece of land. Somalia could face a similar fate if it allows Ethiopia to secure a long-term lease under unequal terms.
Ethiopia’s desire for sea access is understandable, but Somalia must not be pressured into making hasty decisions. Any negotiations should prioritize Somalia’s national interests and sovereignty. Somalia should consider offering Ethiopia limited commercial access to its ports, similar to its current arrangement with Djibouti. Such agreements can promote trade and regional cooperation without compromising Somali sovereignty.
Additionally, Somalia should consult legal and diplomatic experts to ensure that any agreements are fair, transparent, and enforceable. The country must also engage its citizens and lawmakers in these decisions to avoid the perception of backroom deals that undermine public trust.
Finally, Somalia must strengthen its alliances with regional and international partners. By building a coalition of support, Somalia can resist external pressures and protect its territorial integrity.
A Time for Vigilance
Somalia is at a crossroads. As Ethiopia’s ambitions grow, so too do the risks of making the wrong decision. A lease might seem like a simple solution, but it could open the door to a century of regret. By learning from history and prioritizing its sovereignty, Somalia can safeguard its future and ensure that its resources remain firmly under Somali control.
By: Ismail D. Osman
Ismail D. Osman: Former Deputy Director of Somalia National Intelligence & Security Agency (NISA) – Writes in Somalia, Horn of Africa Security and Geopolitical focusing on governance and security. You can reach him osmando[at]gmail.com @osmando
