pirates, islamists and maritime treaties
Yesterday I linked to this article and pointed out the unexpected reason that Islamic militants were saying nice things about pirates in Somalia. Here’s a little more on that. Note that MoU=Memorandum of Understanding.
The MoU signed between the governments of Somalia and Kenya leaves room for different intepretations, as the document openly admits that upcoming submissions to the UN body may allow the two countries to lay claim over the so-called “area of dispute.”
This vague clause throws into question Somalia’s sovereign rights over natural resources found on the continental shelf, as the long-standing “maritime dispute” between Somalia and Kenya has been placed on hold to allow Kenya to lay claim over the so-called “area of dispute” within the 10-year submission deadline period required under international law.
The document does not provide any information on longitude boundaries, but repeatedly states that the MoU does not impact the positions of Somalia and Kenya on the future delimination of the maritime boundary.
However, there is the sense that since Somalia is a weaker nation-state, the MoU was written to empower Kenya to lay claim over an area of ownership that has apparently been in “maritime dispute” for years.
The signing of this MoU comes at a time when Kenya is intensifying its search for oil, especially in offshore blocks, with Swedish and Chinese firms leading the effort.
Rebels opposed to the TFG in the Somali capital Mogadishu have spread information and accused the Somali government of “selling the sea” to the neighboring Republic of Kenya.
This information, rightly or wrongly, has largely been accepted at face-value by a Somali public reeling from nearly 20 years of civil war, gross abuse of public trust and a legacy inherited from the colonial years.
The agreement has caused confusion and conflicting statements have been issued in the media by individuals who allege that a section of the Somali territorial waters has been handed over to another country, an allegation that has no basis.
The two countries [Kenya and Somalia] are not in conflict over territorial waters and not a single inch of Somali territorial water has been handed over [to another country]. The territorial border between the two countries is the same as the border on the land and it is not possible to give part of the territorial waters away while it remains the same as the border markings on the land.
The memorandum of understanding between the countries states that if there is any maritime dispute, it will be referred to international arbitration. This has been put in place as a precaution in case there is any dispute at all. This precaution has been wrongly interpreted.
This kind of agreement is usually signed once every 20 years and there is a deadline to comply on 13 May 2009 failure to which both countries will loose the territory. The territorial waters will then be handed over to the United Nations agency in charge of the oceans.
So it’s all perfectly clear now, right? Good. The real question will be what actually happens at sea. The Somali “government” is hardly in a position to enforce any agreement it may make. And Kenya doesn’t need anyone’s permission if it wants Somali waters- the illegal fishing operations and the toxic dumpers never asked anyone.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
