Fisheries and Somali Pirates: ideas for tomorrow

Somali maritime pirates have often said, if it wasn’t for foreign trawlers, invading their fisheries, they would never have turned to piracy. John Vidal, with London’s Guardian newspaper, uses this logic in advocating an international response to suppressing illegal fishing. This is purely ‘pirated spin’, the reality is one successful pirate attack equals nearly a lifetime worth of earning in the Horn of Africa region. To quote Treasure Island, “‘Money!’ cried the squire. ‘Have you heard the story? What were these villains after but money? What do they care for but money? For what would they risk their rascal carcases but money?’”^[1] This said, there are a couple ways piracy might be less lucrative if a robust Somali fishing industry were to be resurrected.

 

Firstly, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) needs to define their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982. This would provide the legal basis for proceeding to step two. As long as the reward-risk ratio for maritime piracy outweighs that of fishing, there won't be much demand for pirates to become (or go back to) fishing. One successful 'piracy for ransom' (PFR) or 'kidnapping for ransom' (KFR) could provide the equivalent of a lifetime's earnings for the average Somali.

The European Union Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) has been training Ugandan soldiers attached to African Union's Somalia Mission (AMISOM) to be part of a ‘vessel protection detachment’ (VPD) programme aimed at guarding the transport of supplies to Mogadishu for AMISOM and the United Nations World Food Programme (UN WFP). It’s a joint UN Security Council (UN SC) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (S/2011/662, para 52) programme. The programme sounds similar to one of adding private security to commercial vessels, the difference here is that they are AMISOM and WFP vessels which have been chartered by the UN Support Office for the AMISOM (UNSOA) and the WFP. Logistical challenges of moving VPD to and from charter vessels et cetera. Once domestic shipping into Somalia transfers from shield of Combine Maritime Task Force (CMF), NATO and EU NAVFOR in 2014, there needs to be a multi-pronged strategy.

AMISOM might be a good entity to have move from a 'on land' police to transitioning VPD units to a coast guard. As far as fisheries go, the TFG might consider a licensing scheme to sell fishing licences to non-Somali fishing companies. Assuming the licence scheme isn't corrupted, it could generate revenue to help fund the coast guard. The coast guard would be tasked with law and environmental enforcement of the EEZ.

The fear, as with many 3rd World Countries, is corruption. Galmudug Prison is a great example of why Western standards are not always the best ideas - this was a multi-million Euro project built to EU standards and resulted in several hundred convicted pirates being freed and the guards and their families occupying section of the prison as "apartments", since it was so much nicer than anywhere else in the region. Efforts need to have a goal of eventually being self-funding, as the TFG, Somaliland, Puntland and Galmudug should at one point take control of self-governance.

---

^[1] Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island 32 (Oxford UP 2008) (1883)

Gaddafi killed: reign began with coup, ended in revolution

Col Gaddafi in early 2011 denouncing threat of revolution

No leader should reign over a sovereign state with utter disregard for the welfare and prosperity of the citizenry. This week marks the end of Col Muammar Gaddafi, who had been Libya’s tyrannical ruler for 42 years. It seems rather ironic that Gaddafi - who, at age 27, led a bloodless coup d’etat in 1969 against the Libyan monarchy – was disposed of himself in a revolution, which in many ways reflected the American struggle for independence. The assassination of Gaddafi marks the symbolic end to tyranny in Libya.[1] I wish Libyans Godspeed, as they secure the blessings of liberty and strive to establish a new republic in northern Africa.

Under the basic principles of Natural law, a government only exists as the result of the consent of the people. When a government no longer has regards for the general welfare, security or prosperity of the people; then there comes a point when the allegiance of the governed is no longer obligatory in the face of tyranny. The American Declaration of Independence promulgated this legal reasoning and made a call to action – “...it is [the people’s] duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Such basic fundamental rights of equality and self-determination are now enshrined in the UN Charter.

Gaddafi, struggling, after NATO

planes hit his convoy

Just as French air force jets fired warning shots in front of the convoy attempting to evacuate Col Gaddafi from Sirte, the revolution and death of a ruthless dictator should be a message to governments around the globe that it’s the people who consent to be governed. When those leaders fail to heed the warnings, ignoring free and fair elections and abusing power, reducing it to absolute despotism, then those grievances, under Natural law, are sufficient for dissolving the bands which tie the people to the government.

______________________________________________________

[1] M Soper, 'The Death of Libyan Leader Moammar Khadafy' (Denver Post: 22 October 2011); http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2011/10/21/the-death-of-libyan-leader-moammar-khadafy-2-letters/15186/; accessed 22 Oct 2011 

Lugar: Libyan "Conflict" lacks exit strategy, clear purpose, & US Senate approval to engage in war

US Sen Lugar (R-IN) has criticized Obama for deploying U.S. forces without a clear exit strategy, repeatedly called the conflict a “war” (a term the White House rejects), and said the president violated the Constitution in intervening without a formal authorization from Congress.[1]

Barack Obama left the Senate after two years there for a presidential run, making few close friends in the chamber because of his short tenure. But before he left, Obama cultivated an unlikely bond with a Republican US Senator 29 years his senior: Richard G. Lugar. Lugar was the former Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and negotiated the START Treaty. Many Democrats have floated Lugar's name as a possible Sec of State replace to Sec Clinton - not now, not after his remarks about Libya. Talk has shifted to Sen John Kerry.[2]

“The president still has not clearly stated what our goals are or what would constitute success. He has not stated whether the United States would accept a stalemate in the civil war, nor has he put forward a plan for ending Gaddafi’s rule,” Lugar said.[3]

The intervention in Libya is to oust an enemy of the US, create a new market for American energy companies (currently Libya has been dominated by Italian, British, French and Turkish Energy companies, which is anti-competition), use blow-up missiles so the US can purchase new ones (which helps the American Military Industry), and support the US allies in the NATO and the Arab League. Oh yes, and justify the war (my bad, “conflict”) with a UNSC resolution and calling the action one of humanitarianism. The US should be a pro at these things, they practiced in Iraq.

The senator’s criticisms of Obama’s Libya policy are similar to those of other members of both parties. Lugar is obviously one of those old anti-war, pro-rule of law, anti-humanitarian and anti-capitalistic Republicans. He should be ashamed of not seeing the potential economic benefits of Libya and the potential of killing an enemy of the US - Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi.[4]
____________________________________

[1] Landler & Shanker. "Gates and Clinton Unite to Defend Libya Intervention, and Say It May Last Awhile" The New York Times 28 March 2011 p A9
[2] "US public, Congress remain skeptical of Libyan mission" DEUTSCHE WELLE 1 April 2011 accessed 3 April 2011
[3] Bacon, P. "On Libya, former ally takes on Obama" The Washington Post 2 April 2011 accessed 3 April 2011 [4] Shanker & Cooper. "Doctrine for Libya: Not Carved in Stone" The New York Times 30 March 2011 accessed 3 April 2011

India, Pakistan & American foreign intrests

At times I become frustrated by American foreign policy, as it is like a violinist who picks up the interment with his right hand, but plays with his left. During the Cold War, Pakistan was a loyal allied of the United States, though in the 21st Century we have elected to ease friendship ties in support of Pakistan’s arch rival, India. Securing more trade with India, a nation previously supported by the Soviet Union and on the verge of becoming one of the most populous nations on Earth, is brilliant in terms of opening more markets and advancing American commercial interests. The frustration comes from the US not doing more to strengthen security efforts with Pakistan. The Surge, which occurred back in July saw a massive influx of NATO military forces, but led to a tsunami of anti-western dissidents fleeing into the mountainous regions of Pakistan. The evacuation of Afghanistan by the majority of al-Qaeda and the Taliban to Pakistan has led to a de-stabilization in parts of that nation.

Peshawar, Pakistan is the home of one of my good friends. I was with her the day she learned her aunt had been killed by a suicide-bomb in one of the market places. Her brother-in-law is a professor of terrorism studies at the university and I learned a lot from them about life on the ground as it were. Abandonment in Pakistan and a focus solely on Indian trade and economic policy is a risky move for Pakistan. From a US perspective, the shift in support and trade advantages to counter that of China and secure vast markets for goods, services, labour and capital did not come soon enough. Pakistan is quite insignificant in an economic sphere of influence. Those who are strong Indian supporters argue that Pakistan is one of the most corrupt States in the world and that constantly having military leaders is an indication of the weakness of the democracy. These assertions whether true or not are probably closer to fact, than fiction.

What can be done about Pakistan? The US has a reputation for failing to think about unintended consequences and I am proposing using history as a means for not repeating cyclical errors. Pakistan is ripe for further destabilization and angering the population by using statements, such as “militant”, which are tantamount to asserting the Pakistani State is recklessly out of control and in the realm of what a previous American president would have called “evil”. Pakistani officials realized that President Obama had to talk tough in order to win the support of India and secure trade advantages in the Far East. Proposing a UN Security Council permanent seat for India is a step towards diluting the voting power of China and Russia along with France and the United Kingdom on some issues. Pakistan is too small a political power to ever be seriously considered for an expansion seat. If any American foreign policy team can persuade the UNGA and the UNSC to amend the charter to add India to the ranks of the permanent five, then it will be President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, both of whom the world seems to view in more divine terms, as opposed to political actors on a world stage.

Considering history, the US always abandons good ideas long before the relevance becomes empirical. The US should begin transfer funding to Pakistan’s educational system to ensure al-Qaeda and the Taliban do not brainwash weakening allies into becoming our enemies. NATO and Pakistan should work on creating a joint security plan for alleviating the major security risks. In light of changing policies, the UK and US should retract proposed plans to restrict Pakistanis travelling to their respective sovereignties. Continuing a culture exchange to break down looming societal barriers will serve the west well in years to come.

The weaknesses of my argument concern the lack of political will, a shift in policy from Pakistani based to Indian based, and being a bit idealistic in proposing aiding Pakistan’s educational system and calling for a NATO security arrangement.

Indian trade security and the potential for new markets for goods, services, labour and capital is a major advantage in the east, especially as China is beginning to flex its economic muscle. Fear of China moving off of the dollar as it’s hedging currency could further devalue the US dollar. India is not without its flaws, as it has a rich heritage of class divide, corruption, domestic crime, and governmental and omissions human rights abuse. Pakistan is a nation in peril, as it went from a relatively save country at the beginning of the War in Afghanistan to being a very dangerous State today. Strong support for Pakistan’s neighbour and calling the state “militant”, and not making a distinction between radical Islam and the Religion of Islam are good methods for losing the allegiance of a now questioning Pakistani society. The situation is summed up best by saying, “That's Maciavelli”.

NATO Sec.-Gen. Rasmussen visits the University of Edinburgh to urge US and UK to keep troops in Afghanistan

Today the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former prime minister of Denmark, visited the University of Edinburgh’s School of Law at Old College to give a landmark address on the future of the War in Afghanistan. Aside from the policy and political nature of his visit, I noted the difference between Mr. Rasmussen’s visit today and the visit of His Royal Highness Prince Philips’ visit to Old College yesterday. Yesterday, HRH Prince Philip, who serves as the Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, arrived at the law school with the normal police motorcade and his usual detail of six bodyguards and a small team of agents who had done advance work. Today, Secretary-General Rasmussen arrives with a full police motorcade, four suburban-assault vehicles, about 40-50 police were around the Old College with police vehicles of all shapes and sizes blocking every street from automobiles around the law school. Secret service agents were milling in every part of the law school and special officers in black uniforms walked along the roofline of the Old College. A protest was organized today outside the large gates of Old College and the view from the windows displayed more reporters with cameras, than protesters holding signs. Thought the evening news seems to be reporting copious amounts of protesters were present – I wonder where they were. Certainly the entire group was not outside the law school, as that was a dismal display if I ever saw one, though maybe it gives credence to Rasmussen’s message to keep troops in Afghanistan. The spoils of hosting a major world leader is the ability of students to snag sandwiches from the buffet table where the reception was located – a very Scottish stunt indeed. The excitement of Prince Philip and Anders Rasmussen has been pretty fun, but a shame neither one of them could make time to chat with the students who study in Old College.