Hiiraan Online

By Abdi Dirshe
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

From the outset let me remind you that even though the United States was very much involved in the crafting of the UNCOLS also known as the Sea Treaty, it has not yet ratified it, why?

The writer seems surprisingly selective in his arguments and charges. He accuses others of being conspiracy theorists, when it is clear from his writing that he has sinister motives by not being forthcoming with rationale answers, such as what are the benefits for a country that is mired in a protracted civil strive for almost two decades to sign this maritime agreement and why they deemed this to be a priority. He struggles to formulate a defensible account of the motives of both Kenya and Norway and I will argue that his oversight is an updated version of his unpatriotic stance towards the people of Somalia as he was one of the strongest proponents of the invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia.

I see an evil motive when a government that barely controls few blocks of the capital forgoes the continued reconciliation process for this MOU and does it in secrecy without any consultation and consideration of its people. The new government was sworn in on February 22, 2009 and its Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Abdirahman Adan Ibbi was conducting secret talks in Kenya on March 10, 2009 with the deputy of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Somalia, Mr. Charles Petrie and Ambassador Hans Wilhelm Longva from the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. This is less than a month from the TFG’s inauguration. Does this have relevance to Hosh? Obviously not 

The writer engages in fictional description when he categorically puts aside the wicked motives of Norway as an outside expert which initiated the process and crafted the MOU document, conspiring with the Kenyan government which in return offered Norway exploration rights. Moreover, applying a simple cost benefit analysis reveals that Norway paid $200 Million to Kenya, to guarantee its long term oil exploration and other economic interests.  This is called cost benefit analysis as the opportunity cost of incurring such cost has far greater potential and longer-term benefits. In the countries on the periphery this is called bribery but in Western democracy this cost is legit and is also called business expenditure; what is $200 million when future earning of such investment can bring in billions of dollars, where is the moral compass of the West you so arrogantly speak of?.

Even the commonwealth secretariat admits that fact and states that “Securing exclusive access and jurisdictional certainty to the potentially lucrative resources of the seabed such as oil, gas, minerals and living marine organisms” is clearly what motivates Kenya to sign such MOU with Somalia. Hosh seems to be fine with this crude and cruel motive.

When both the Royal Norwegian Foreign Ministry and its petroleum Directorate are involved in the drafting of the MOU and assisted Kenya in its submission, then we to ought to examine the motive, albeit (a sinister motive) or at best a monetary motive. As evidenced by its submission Kenya is motivated by acquiring an additional 102,000 square kilometers of continental shelf with a potential of oil, gas and other resources and Norway, in return, is rewarded handsomely with rich exploration contract. It is mind boggling that Hosh claims that the Western world is now showing a moral high ground to correct its grave gloomy past and because of this moral compass the least developed countries are reaping the West’s generosity and this somehow gives other “technologically more advanced” countries the right to expropriate other less developed countries’ resources. Historically, the Western powers had a bloody colonial history in Africa in which they have made unilateral and arbitrary border demarcations, favouring one country over another. In this respect, we’re, unfortunately, reminded again by this MoU of our past colonial history in which Great Britain has given a Somali territory to Kenya.  This is perhaps why every Somali is paranoid about this agreement and to paraphrase you, any Somali who is not paranoid about this MOU between Kenya and Somalia must have his head examined.  

Here are some more hard facts that you need to contemplate and why we should all be concerned of this MOU between Kenya and Somalia.

First, for the record though the law stipulates the coastal states to make submission 10 years after ratifying the convention, in this regard article 4 of the convention states that “a coastal State for which the Convention entered into force before 13 May 1999 is requested to submit particulars of the outer limits of the continental shelf to the Commission, together with supporting scientific and technical data by 13 May 2009.”  It must be noted here that the bolded Italic “Requested” as shown in this article 4 is an indication, that coastal states are not legally bound to make any submission, and how in the case of Somalia a country that is identified as a failed state and is mired in a protracted civil war could submit particulars of the outer limits of the continental shelf with supporting scientific and technical data is indeed mind boggling if not impossible.

Even in June 2008 meeting between states to the convention admitted this dilemma that Somalia continues to experience a number of constraints relating to the political and security situation in the country. Had the transitional unity government of Somalia named a National Commission to study this issue and offer recommendations to the government, it would have given it more credibility. It’s incumbent upon those in the government to show leadership and be guided by the principles of good governance.      

Secondly’ Norway’s assistance should be viewed with suspicion for this simple reason. We know Norway was involved and even assisted Somalia with the preliminary information indicative of the outer limits of the continental shelf of Somalia, but if Norway had good intentions then why include a liability statement such as this, “Norway takes no position, nor does it accept any responsibility for, any legal or other issues pertaining to the preparations of the submission, including with regards to baseline.” The insertion of such disclaimer clause must give us strong signal as to the true intentions of Norway and other involved parties.  

This offers a different perspective of why every Somali is paranoid about this agreement, and to paraphrase you, any Somali who is not paranoid about this MOU between Kenya and Somalia must have his head examined. 

In conclusion, it is inexcusable to attack those who have made strong argument for public inquiry and discourse about this issue such as the esteemed Professor Abdi I. Samatar and the outspoken Somali intellectual, Sadia Aden. In their defense, I must offer their exceptional academic achievements as evidence and their tireless activism in their search for durable peace in Somalia. A short time research on their background such as googling would produce a lengthy academic achievement.

Hosh’s failure to do justice to the broader implications of this complex issue, not to mention the legality and morality of it, is noteworthy and telling.