The UK government's stance on the conflicts in Sudan and Somalia is facing scrutiny, with analysts questioning whether its actions align with its stated policies. In Sudan, despite publicly calling for accountability amidst the ongoing war between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the UK reportedly blocked more aggressive measures aimed at preventing atrocities as the violence intensified. This move is akin to a star quarterback calling for a more aggressive offense but then pulling back on the play call at the line of scrimmage.

Further east, the UK's position on Somalia is also under the microscope. While officially supporting Somalia's territorial integrity, the UK maintains a stake in a strategic port in Somaliland, a breakaway region it does not recognize. This is like a team owner publicly backing the coach while simultaneously negotiating with a replacement behind closed doors.

"The UK’s credibility is increasingly judged by the risks it is willing, or unwilling, to take," said Amgad Fareid Eltayeb, a Sudanese policy analyst. Eltayeb's assessment highlights the growing perception that the UK's words may not match its actions in the Horn of Africa.

The situation in Sudan has been deteriorating since the outbreak of conflict between the Sudanese army and the RSF. The British government, like other international actors, has expressed concern over the widespread death and devastation suffered by civilians. However, reports suggest that behind the scenes, the UK resisted more forceful strategies to curb the violence. This reluctance to take decisive action has drawn comparisons to historical instances where international powers have been criticized for their hesitant responses to humanitarian crises.

Somaliland declared independence from Somalia in 1991, but it has not been internationally recognized as a sovereign state. The UK's involvement in the port of Berbera, a key infrastructure asset in Somaliland, presents a diplomatic challenge. It's a bit like a team investing heavily in a player from a rival franchise, creating tension and questions about loyalty.

The UK's dual approach to Sudan and Somalia raises questions about its long-term strategy in the Horn of Africa. Are these calculated moves to protect its interests, or are they indicative of a lack of a coherent policy? The answer to that question will determine whether the UK can regain the trust of the region and play a constructive role in resolving these complex conflicts. The next few months will be crucial in determining whether the UK can turn its game around and prove its commitment to peace and stability in the Horn of Africa.