The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars held a fascinating forum recently that was not only thought-provoking about a major trans-national crime issue, but also offered some possible answers about why some African countries remain under-developed despite hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money and numerous external and internal development plans.
Antonio Mazzitelli of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime presented a cycle that appears to explain a great many things we see on the continent. Organized crime cartels from Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East seek vulnerable countries in Africa, especially those with inadequate governance systems and/or high poverty, to serve as conduits to markets in Europe and North America. According to Mazzitelli, heroin (mostly from Afghanistan with a bit from Pakistan) moves into Ethiopia and Kenya and on to Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria. Cocaine (largely from Columbia, Bolivia and Peru) moves through Equatorial Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire Sierra Leone and Senegal.
Once the illicit drug trafficking has begun, the tremendous amounts of money it generates makes corruption inevitable. Drug trafficking produces an estimated US$400 billion annually. The amount of money it generates makes it easy to bribe officials who are poorly or even sporadically paid. Drugs also allow the entry to terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, who often engage in drug trafficking to raise money for their activities. The deliberate corruption of governance systems produces weak states in which the law enforcement system exists, but only to hold off the chaos that makes even illegal activities difficult. Justice is for sale to the highest bidder. Conflict from unfair, undemocratic governance produces refugees, whose instability limits economic development and whose movements can destabilize neighboring countries as well.
The question one must ask from this information is: to what extent are African governments cooperating in keeping their governmental systems ineffective and damaging legitimate, sustainable economic growth? Corrupt government officials also benefit when there are inadequate controls and oversight of their activities. Too many short-sighted officials subvert their own nations to make money today without a thought of their homeland’s tomorrows. Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Ghana have seen political developments in recent years that are cutting into this drug cycle. Donor nations, such as the United States, must first act to cut their own demand for drugs and then help other African countries step up their efforts to curb the flow of illicit drugs, which not only poison the lives of their citizens , but dim the prospects for their future.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Beating Up Straw Men
Noted economist and defender of development assistance Jeffrey Sachs re-ignited the age-old disagreement about the value of foreign aid in a recent essay on the Huffington Post web site. In lambasting aid critics Dambisa Moyo and Bill Easterly, he set up his straw men and knocked them down, but in doing so, he failed to get to the heart of the disagreement. He just managed to slur two people who have a valid point to make about the effectiveness of aid.
The fact that Moyo and Easterly received a scholarship or a grant does not invalidate their skepticism about the effectiveness of foreign aid. Calling them hypocrites mixes points that confuse people and doesn’t help resolve this longtime disagreement. Reasonable aid critics do not say all foreign aid is bad. The main point they make is whether the aid helps to achieve long-term self-sufficiency or whether it creates ongoing dependency. It is not cruel to suggest that much of the billions of dollars in aid that has been extended over the years never reached the intended beneficiaries. We know aid money has been misappropriated and/or stolen. So to suggest that Moyo and others are calling for suffering is disingenuous. It is the governments that fail to apply aid properly that are responsible for much of this suffering.
The prime examples Sachs and others offer as countries that have used foreign aid to become self-sufficient always seems to feature South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Israel and other countries not in Africa. The best Sachs could offer of aid recipients on the continent weaning themselves from aid are Egypt, which he describes as being “on the path,” and Rwanda, Tanzania and Ghana. The issue critics raise is how long it takes to become self-sufficient and whether the aid itself or policy changes to encourage entrepreneurship is the reason for progress in eliminating poverty.
Rwanda, for example, is now heavily dependent on foreign aid, which supports an estimated 70% of the government’s budget. Rwandan President Paul Kagame is furiously trying to lessen this dependency. As Moyo points out in her response to Sachs, if a continued high level of aid were the answer, why is Kagame trying so hard to reverse course? Moyo points out that after all the aid provided in the last couple of decades to African countries, 70% now live on US$2 a day as opposed to only 10% in the 1970s. Where is the success in that?
When many of us in the Africanist community first expressed support for the African Growth and Opportunity Act in the 1990s, we were criticized for wanting to cut aid in favor of trade. The fact that Africans wanted to be self-sufficient was lost on some U.S. government officials who thought Africans couldn’t succeed on their own without aid. There is nothing more damaging to progress for Africans trying to overcome poverty than the bigotry of low expectations. To borrow an old phrase: Africans need a hand up not an everlasting handout.
The fact that Moyo and Easterly received a scholarship or a grant does not invalidate their skepticism about the effectiveness of foreign aid. Calling them hypocrites mixes points that confuse people and doesn’t help resolve this longtime disagreement. Reasonable aid critics do not say all foreign aid is bad. The main point they make is whether the aid helps to achieve long-term self-sufficiency or whether it creates ongoing dependency. It is not cruel to suggest that much of the billions of dollars in aid that has been extended over the years never reached the intended beneficiaries. We know aid money has been misappropriated and/or stolen. So to suggest that Moyo and others are calling for suffering is disingenuous. It is the governments that fail to apply aid properly that are responsible for much of this suffering.
The prime examples Sachs and others offer as countries that have used foreign aid to become self-sufficient always seems to feature South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Israel and other countries not in Africa. The best Sachs could offer of aid recipients on the continent weaning themselves from aid are Egypt, which he describes as being “on the path,” and Rwanda, Tanzania and Ghana. The issue critics raise is how long it takes to become self-sufficient and whether the aid itself or policy changes to encourage entrepreneurship is the reason for progress in eliminating poverty.
Rwanda, for example, is now heavily dependent on foreign aid, which supports an estimated 70% of the government’s budget. Rwandan President Paul Kagame is furiously trying to lessen this dependency. As Moyo points out in her response to Sachs, if a continued high level of aid were the answer, why is Kagame trying so hard to reverse course? Moyo points out that after all the aid provided in the last couple of decades to African countries, 70% now live on US$2 a day as opposed to only 10% in the 1970s. Where is the success in that?
When many of us in the Africanist community first expressed support for the African Growth and Opportunity Act in the 1990s, we were criticized for wanting to cut aid in favor of trade. The fact that Africans wanted to be self-sufficient was lost on some U.S. government officials who thought Africans couldn’t succeed on their own without aid. There is nothing more damaging to progress for Africans trying to overcome poverty than the bigotry of low expectations. To borrow an old phrase: Africans need a hand up not an everlasting handout.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Rush to an African Market
Generally, when we speak of foreign direct investment in an African country, we’re talking about American, European, Middle Eastern or Asian investment. Increasingly, however, other African nations are investing on the continent, and this has its positive and negative aspects.
Uganda, for example, is experiencing a rush of investments from throughout Africa, but primarily from South Africa. There currently are 50 South African companies registered in Uganda – from the telecom firm MTN to Digital Satellite Television, the country’s only pay television company, to Game Store, the largest retailer in Uganda, to South African Airways.
Other African investors also see Uganda as a prime new market. Several Nigerian banks are now operating in Uganda: Bank PHB, United Bank of Africa and Global Trust. Kenyan banks also have entered the scene: Kenya Commercial Bank, Equity Bank, Uchumi and Fina Bank, as well as Kenya Airways. Investors from Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Tanzania and Zimbabwe also have expressed interest in investing in Uganda.
This tide of investment comes despite Uganda’s bad roads, collapsed railway network and erratic power supply. And it doesn’t seem affected by the continued war against the Lord’s Resistance Army in the North. Sounds like a net gain for Uganda, doesn’t it? Well here’s the bad news.
Uganda’s Nile Bank and many other major firms have been bought by African investors. Meanwhile, the Uganda Development Bank has failed, and the country’s commercial banks are reluctant to give investors long-term loans. Uganda’s market is being flooded by counterfeit products, which endangers citizens, undermines investment and destroys innovation.
Still, African investment in Uganda is a positive trend for cross-border commercial partnerships. African countries just need to figure out how to nurture local companies without putting up the protectionist shield and hindering foreign direct investment. Of course, that’s easier said than done, and even countries like the United States have had difficulty managing that balancing act. If ever there was a situation in which World Trade Organization technical assistance could be useful, this is it.
Uganda, for example, is experiencing a rush of investments from throughout Africa, but primarily from South Africa. There currently are 50 South African companies registered in Uganda – from the telecom firm MTN to Digital Satellite Television, the country’s only pay television company, to Game Store, the largest retailer in Uganda, to South African Airways.
Other African investors also see Uganda as a prime new market. Several Nigerian banks are now operating in Uganda: Bank PHB, United Bank of Africa and Global Trust. Kenyan banks also have entered the scene: Kenya Commercial Bank, Equity Bank, Uchumi and Fina Bank, as well as Kenya Airways. Investors from Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Tanzania and Zimbabwe also have expressed interest in investing in Uganda.
This tide of investment comes despite Uganda’s bad roads, collapsed railway network and erratic power supply. And it doesn’t seem affected by the continued war against the Lord’s Resistance Army in the North. Sounds like a net gain for Uganda, doesn’t it? Well here’s the bad news.
Uganda’s Nile Bank and many other major firms have been bought by African investors. Meanwhile, the Uganda Development Bank has failed, and the country’s commercial banks are reluctant to give investors long-term loans. Uganda’s market is being flooded by counterfeit products, which endangers citizens, undermines investment and destroys innovation.
Still, African investment in Uganda is a positive trend for cross-border commercial partnerships. African countries just need to figure out how to nurture local companies without putting up the protectionist shield and hindering foreign direct investment. Of course, that’s easier said than done, and even countries like the United States have had difficulty managing that balancing act. If ever there was a situation in which World Trade Organization technical assistance could be useful, this is it.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
An Action of Hope
In the aftermath of President Barack Obama’s decision to make Ghana his first visit to the continent during his Administration this summer, speculation is growing about his so-called “snub” of his father’s homeland. If you look at his action as a slap at Kenya, you would be short-sighted. His action is actually one of hope for Kenya.
Since its independence in 1963, the Republic of Kenya has been a key African ally for the United States. In addition to offering rear bases for critical American military engagement in the Middle East, Kenya has been a reliable supporting vote in the United Nations and has been an anchor of the troubled Horn of Africa through the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. The country is one of America’s top 10 trading partners in Africa, and in the recently released report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on what U.S. corporations think about investing in Africa, Kenya remains near the top of the list of African countries in which the corporate community is interested.
Moreover, the current leaders of the Kenyan government – President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga – were among the leaders of the pro-democracy movement in the 1990s that produced a multi-party government in their country. Unfortunately, these heroes of the struggle for democracy have had trouble untangling themselves from years of political competition in order to come together in a fully functional coalition government. Unity governments are always difficult because one has to determine how to work together but still maintain one’s political options.
President Obama made clear long before he took office how important good governance is to him. In a survey produced by a civil society coalition led by the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation in 2007, Obama said: “I will make improved governance a priority for foreign assistance.” This message has been reiterated this year to Kenya directly by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnny Carson.
Rather than take the easy negative view, we must look at this as President Obama saying to two feuding cousins: “Stop the infighting and work together for the sake of the family.” Most of us have been in that situation when dealing with fractious family, and we took our action with hope and not a punitive spirit. Kenya has been and remains important to us, and the U.S. government is not saying otherwise by selecting Ghana as his first stop in Africa. There is plenty of time for the Kenyan leaders to resolve their differences so this Son of Kenya can return to a nation that has regained its customary place as one of Africa’s success stories.
Since its independence in 1963, the Republic of Kenya has been a key African ally for the United States. In addition to offering rear bases for critical American military engagement in the Middle East, Kenya has been a reliable supporting vote in the United Nations and has been an anchor of the troubled Horn of Africa through the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. The country is one of America’s top 10 trading partners in Africa, and in the recently released report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on what U.S. corporations think about investing in Africa, Kenya remains near the top of the list of African countries in which the corporate community is interested.
Moreover, the current leaders of the Kenyan government – President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga – were among the leaders of the pro-democracy movement in the 1990s that produced a multi-party government in their country. Unfortunately, these heroes of the struggle for democracy have had trouble untangling themselves from years of political competition in order to come together in a fully functional coalition government. Unity governments are always difficult because one has to determine how to work together but still maintain one’s political options.
President Obama made clear long before he took office how important good governance is to him. In a survey produced by a civil society coalition led by the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation in 2007, Obama said: “I will make improved governance a priority for foreign assistance.” This message has been reiterated this year to Kenya directly by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnny Carson.
Rather than take the easy negative view, we must look at this as President Obama saying to two feuding cousins: “Stop the infighting and work together for the sake of the family.” Most of us have been in that situation when dealing with fractious family, and we took our action with hope and not a punitive spirit. Kenya has been and remains important to us, and the U.S. government is not saying otherwise by selecting Ghana as his first stop in Africa. There is plenty of time for the Kenyan leaders to resolve their differences so this Son of Kenya can return to a nation that has regained its customary place as one of Africa’s success stories.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Still the Dark Continent
In more ancient times, Africa was known as the “Dark Continent,” more for its mystery than for its people. There was little fact and much fiction. Historically, Europe was awash in legends about Africa. For example, the European quest for Prester John, the fabled African Christian king, led to the exploration of Africa and eventually to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. One would think that with all the travel to Africa and enhanced communications today, more would be known about the birthplace of mankind, but that apparently is not the case.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study of American corporate views on Africa, and among the many interesting insights that survey reveals is that many American corporate leaders have been to Africa, but they still don’t know enough about the continent to feel comfortable about investing. According to the survey of senior executives in 30 leading multi-nationals, 41% of them have visited Africa often, 22% feel they have made extensive visits to Africa and 14% have visited Africa at least a few times. One corporate leader said, “Africa is very complex – culturally more diverse than Europeans of Americans think. I feel I know Africa ‘somewhat.’”
So why do these corporate leaders who largely have been to African nations, still feel they have a lack of understanding of the continent? The study found that U.S. corporations are often disinclined to consider doing business in Africa because the news about the African continent is mostly of chaos and unrest. So while the survey indicates that there is more knowledge about Africa than ever before among U.S. corporations, these leaders remain leery of investment even though they have seen for themselves what is on the ground in African nations.
Many Americans, lacking the colonial familiarity of Europeans, continue to feel uncomfortable in the unfamiliar terrain of Africa. Not even seeing is believing if there is no confirmation of what is seen in the American media. The Asian and European media report on commercial accomplishments in Africa as well as its failures; American media only sees war, famine and natural disaster. So corporate leaders evidently go expecting to see the worst rather than expecting the best.
If our media doesn’t change its tune, Americans will miss out on commercial opportunities others run to see. As the old adage goes: there are none so blind as those who will not see.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study of American corporate views on Africa, and among the many interesting insights that survey reveals is that many American corporate leaders have been to Africa, but they still don’t know enough about the continent to feel comfortable about investing. According to the survey of senior executives in 30 leading multi-nationals, 41% of them have visited Africa often, 22% feel they have made extensive visits to Africa and 14% have visited Africa at least a few times. One corporate leader said, “Africa is very complex – culturally more diverse than Europeans of Americans think. I feel I know Africa ‘somewhat.’”
So why do these corporate leaders who largely have been to African nations, still feel they have a lack of understanding of the continent? The study found that U.S. corporations are often disinclined to consider doing business in Africa because the news about the African continent is mostly of chaos and unrest. So while the survey indicates that there is more knowledge about Africa than ever before among U.S. corporations, these leaders remain leery of investment even though they have seen for themselves what is on the ground in African nations.
Many Americans, lacking the colonial familiarity of Europeans, continue to feel uncomfortable in the unfamiliar terrain of Africa. Not even seeing is believing if there is no confirmation of what is seen in the American media. The Asian and European media report on commercial accomplishments in Africa as well as its failures; American media only sees war, famine and natural disaster. So corporate leaders evidently go expecting to see the worst rather than expecting the best.
If our media doesn’t change its tune, Americans will miss out on commercial opportunities others run to see. As the old adage goes: there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Clearing the Way for 2010
In the preparations for the next national elections in Ethiopia, the government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is preparing for what looks like change, but what is more likely to end up with the same power structure as today. This is despite a seemingly dramatic political action by Meles.
A few weeks ago, Meles told Africa Confidential newsletter that it was time for the old guard to step aside in his dominant Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the broader Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) coalition through which it rules. He reportedly said he would leave it up to his ruling coalition and his party whether he would run again, but no change was agreed to at the quarterly EPRDF meeting in February, which ultimately is not expected to ask him to step aside. Even if he were to step aside, his most often cited successors (Minister of Foreign Affairs Seyoum Mesfin, Deputy Prime Minister Addisu Legesse, Federal Affairs Minister Abay Tsehaye and Health Minister Tewodros Adhanom) are not considered to advocate positions that represent a break in policy with the current government. However, it is those very policies with which many Ethiopians take issue.
In the aftermath of a 2005 election process that was considered to be a distinct improvement over past elections, suspicions of a manipulated vote count provoked demonstrations in which nearly 200 people were killed by government forces. The Government claimed seven policemen were killed by armed demonstrators, but could never produce any weapons as proof. Thousands of Ethiopians were jailed without charge or without trial for more than a year. Even now, four years after that election, the Ethiopian government continues to harass and jail political opponents, such as Birtukan Mideksa, head of the Unity for Democracy and Justice party, who was rearrested for allegedly saying she didn’t apologize for her part in the 2005 violence in order to get out of jail. She has been sentenced to serve the previous life term. More than 30 other prisoners of conscience, as Amnesty International calls them, have been in custody since April 24.
Meanwhile, the Government of Ethiopia has virtually criminalized most human rights work in the country, according to a Human Rights Watch report, and has made it almost impossible for local civil society organizations to function in any meaningful way to monitor the next elections. The Charities and Societies Proclamation, enacted in January of this year, considers any civil society organization to be foreign if it receives more than 10% of its support from outside the country. In a poor country like Ethiopia, that means almost all such organizations would be considered foreign and forced to operate under limitations that would choke operations with red tape, cripple it with fines or place leadership in danger of jail terms.
The post-election mess of 2005 led to legislation in the U.S. Congress that would end some military assistance (except for peacekeeping and self-defense materials) and place very limited sanctions on those government officials involved in the violence. Republicans in the House blocked it when they were in control of Congress, but Democrats passed it in the House, though not in the Senate. It remains to be seen if former supporters such as Congressmen Donald Payne or Chris Smith will reintroduce legislation to spur electoral and human rights reform in Ethiopia in this session of Congress.
A few weeks ago, Meles told Africa Confidential newsletter that it was time for the old guard to step aside in his dominant Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the broader Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) coalition through which it rules. He reportedly said he would leave it up to his ruling coalition and his party whether he would run again, but no change was agreed to at the quarterly EPRDF meeting in February, which ultimately is not expected to ask him to step aside. Even if he were to step aside, his most often cited successors (Minister of Foreign Affairs Seyoum Mesfin, Deputy Prime Minister Addisu Legesse, Federal Affairs Minister Abay Tsehaye and Health Minister Tewodros Adhanom) are not considered to advocate positions that represent a break in policy with the current government. However, it is those very policies with which many Ethiopians take issue.
In the aftermath of a 2005 election process that was considered to be a distinct improvement over past elections, suspicions of a manipulated vote count provoked demonstrations in which nearly 200 people were killed by government forces. The Government claimed seven policemen were killed by armed demonstrators, but could never produce any weapons as proof. Thousands of Ethiopians were jailed without charge or without trial for more than a year. Even now, four years after that election, the Ethiopian government continues to harass and jail political opponents, such as Birtukan Mideksa, head of the Unity for Democracy and Justice party, who was rearrested for allegedly saying she didn’t apologize for her part in the 2005 violence in order to get out of jail. She has been sentenced to serve the previous life term. More than 30 other prisoners of conscience, as Amnesty International calls them, have been in custody since April 24.
Meanwhile, the Government of Ethiopia has virtually criminalized most human rights work in the country, according to a Human Rights Watch report, and has made it almost impossible for local civil society organizations to function in any meaningful way to monitor the next elections. The Charities and Societies Proclamation, enacted in January of this year, considers any civil society organization to be foreign if it receives more than 10% of its support from outside the country. In a poor country like Ethiopia, that means almost all such organizations would be considered foreign and forced to operate under limitations that would choke operations with red tape, cripple it with fines or place leadership in danger of jail terms.
The post-election mess of 2005 led to legislation in the U.S. Congress that would end some military assistance (except for peacekeeping and self-defense materials) and place very limited sanctions on those government officials involved in the violence. Republicans in the House blocked it when they were in control of Congress, but Democrats passed it in the House, though not in the Senate. It remains to be seen if former supporters such as Congressmen Donald Payne or Chris Smith will reintroduce legislation to spur electoral and human rights reform in Ethiopia in this session of Congress.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Beyond Pirate Sympathy
Looking at young Mr. Abduhl Wali-i-Musa being brought into court in handcuffs, it is natural to feel sympathy for a teenager lured into criminal activity. As the only survivor of four pirates who tried to hijack the American Maersk Alabama and did take ship captain Richard Phillips hostage last month, he has become, in the minds of some observers, yet another symbol of American brutality. Yet the image of poor Somali fishermen merely protecting their territorial waters and trying to eke out a living in a war-torn nation is a false one.
The United Nations envoy to Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, is a man to be trusted. So when he states that nuclear material and heavy metals are being dumped in Somali waters, that is a claim to be believed. Nevertheless, the pirate attacks are mostly taking place beyond the 12-mile limit set by international law as a nation’s nautical boundaries. That is not defending one’s own waters, especially when well-equipped “mother ships” even farther out to sea are tracking vessels to be hijacked and those vessels sometimes contain humanitarian supplies for Somali people.
Someone said to me recently that the pirates haven’t killed anyone and that Somali elders from Puntland should have been brought in to engage in negotiations before force was used. It is true that the pirates have not shown a bloodthirsty streak, and in fact, feeding the hostages reportedly has become an industry unto itself in the port of Eyl. Special restaurants are said to have been established to prepare food for the crews of hijacked ships. However, when you hold loaded weapons on crews, hijack vessels and hold them for ransom, you have crossed a line that places your own life in jeopardy.
More than 30% of the world’s oil passes through the now-endangered Gulf of Aden, and there is little patience in feeding a growing piracy industry. Besides, the Somali pirates last year earned an estimated US$30million, while the Puntland budget was only US$20 million. How likely is it that Puntland leaders have the ability or the will to stop the pirates? They haven’t done much to stop the pirates thus far, and the port town of Eyl has been a safe haven for pirates who build fancy houses and drive expensive cars without concern for being arrested.
Still, this is a situation created by the neglect of Western nations, which saw the country devolve into chaos in the early 1990s and have done little to end the strife many Somalis have endured for nearly two decades. At an April 23 donor conference in Brussels, more than US$200 million was pledged to support the 4,000-troop strong African Union Mission in Somalia and strengthen the Transitional Federal Government security forces. Even as the pirates are brought to justice, these donors must be serious about helping to restore Somalia to the community of nations, or those who pray for our help today will turn against us and toward the criminals tomorrow. Young Mr. Musa is only an example of what the future could look like if we fail.
The United Nations envoy to Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, is a man to be trusted. So when he states that nuclear material and heavy metals are being dumped in Somali waters, that is a claim to be believed. Nevertheless, the pirate attacks are mostly taking place beyond the 12-mile limit set by international law as a nation’s nautical boundaries. That is not defending one’s own waters, especially when well-equipped “mother ships” even farther out to sea are tracking vessels to be hijacked and those vessels sometimes contain humanitarian supplies for Somali people.
Someone said to me recently that the pirates haven’t killed anyone and that Somali elders from Puntland should have been brought in to engage in negotiations before force was used. It is true that the pirates have not shown a bloodthirsty streak, and in fact, feeding the hostages reportedly has become an industry unto itself in the port of Eyl. Special restaurants are said to have been established to prepare food for the crews of hijacked ships. However, when you hold loaded weapons on crews, hijack vessels and hold them for ransom, you have crossed a line that places your own life in jeopardy.
More than 30% of the world’s oil passes through the now-endangered Gulf of Aden, and there is little patience in feeding a growing piracy industry. Besides, the Somali pirates last year earned an estimated US$30million, while the Puntland budget was only US$20 million. How likely is it that Puntland leaders have the ability or the will to stop the pirates? They haven’t done much to stop the pirates thus far, and the port town of Eyl has been a safe haven for pirates who build fancy houses and drive expensive cars without concern for being arrested.
Still, this is a situation created by the neglect of Western nations, which saw the country devolve into chaos in the early 1990s and have done little to end the strife many Somalis have endured for nearly two decades. At an April 23 donor conference in Brussels, more than US$200 million was pledged to support the 4,000-troop strong African Union Mission in Somalia and strengthen the Transitional Federal Government security forces. Even as the pirates are brought to justice, these donors must be serious about helping to restore Somalia to the community of nations, or those who pray for our help today will turn against us and toward the criminals tomorrow. Young Mr. Musa is only an example of what the future could look like if we fail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
