Inner City Press: Investigative Reporting from the United Nations

As Palau and Pew Fight To Save Sharks and Tuna, Japan Counters with Sushi and Conditional Aid

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 24 -- When nations and activists met this year about endangered species of sharks and Atlantic blue tuna, Japan lobbied against protections with conditional financial aid to small island states, and even sushi and shark fin soup receptions.

These stories were told Monday evening in the UN's new North Lawn building, as Jacques Cousteau's grandson spoke about seeing fewer and fewer sharks during his dives. . "We protect what we love," he quoted. But with sharks, given the perception of them as people killers, the phrase may not be helpful.

The event was sponsored by Palau, which had declared itself a shark sanctuary. A speech was given by its Permanent Representative to the UN, Stuart Beck, who is decidedly not from Palau. But as his deputy later explained to Inner City Press, he was Palau's lawyer even before it became independent.

Beck testified that Palau "championed adding four sharks to the CITES list of endangered species. Despite winning the majority of votes on all four, we could not overcome the obstructive super majority requirement."

Experts in the crowd uniformly trashed the role of Japan. It was ironic, as elsewhere in the North Lawn building Japan was presenting itself as an anti-nuclear hero. Janus face, forked tongue, one said.

Earlier on Monday, the Pew Environment Group held a press conference urging Regional Fisheries Management Organizations to do more about illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Inner City Press asked about such fishing off the coasts of Somalia and Western Sahara.

Kristin Von Kistowski, Susan Lieberman and Sarika Cullis-Suzuki, sharks and sushi not shown

Pew's Kristin Von Kistowski cautioned against excusing piracy in terms of illegal fishing. She added that international fleets harm coastal communities in Western Africa.

Susan Lieberman of Pew said that European Union fleets are overfishing, and the the depletion of fish stock off Somalia may have played a role in driving former fishermen to piracy. Video here, from Minute 36.

This stood in welcome contrast to the commander of the EUNAVFOR ships, who earlier this month was dismissive of Somali claims about illegal fishing. Click here for that.

Footnote: weeks ago, Inner City Press asked a spokesman accompanying Japanese Foreign Minister Okada to the UN a series of simple questions, and has twice been promised answered. But none have arrived. Watch this site -- or CITES.

* * *

At UN, Illegal Fishing off Somalia and Pirates' Death Scoffed At, Preening Delayed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 14 -- "Ensuring that the pirates are treated in an appropriate manner is right at the forefront of our operations," Rear Admiral Peter Hudson of EUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta told the Press on Friday. Inner City Press asked about the Russian Navy's reported killing of ten pirates, either by casting them to sea without their navigation equipment or outright execution. "I can't comment on that," Hudson said. The forefront. The very forefront.

Hudson was among the few interesting speakers in a daylong "debate" on piracy in the UN General Assembly. Ahmedou Ould Abdullah, moderating the second panel, refused to let member states like Cape Verde speak, insisting that those on the podium proceed with their speeches and Powerpoint presentations -- Mr. Endo's barely legible from the hall, did include a little cartoon pirate.

The speakers from the Somali Transitional Federal Government and African Union tied the piracy issue to illegal fishing in Somali waters. Inner City Press asked Hudson about this, and about the dumping of toxic waste on Somali shores. Hudson was dismissive, saying there is very little fishing of any kind without two hundred miles of Somalia. He scoffed at any relations between illegal fishing and the seizing of oil tankers for ransom. Video here, from Minute 8:18.

GA on May 14 on piracy, actual debate and rights of Somalis not shown

But back in the GA hall, no member states was able to question Hudson on this. As usual with UN "debates," there were a series of prepared statements being read out, the lists between the podium and floor getting out of sink so that no one was responding to what had just been said. There was preening about pirates, a three-quarters empty GA hall filled with angry delegates denied until too late their right to preen. Watch this site.

Update of 5:47 p.m. - as the six o'clock show down looms, the Netherlands bragged about a decision in The Hague, and Mona Juul of Norway -- which though not an EU member has a ship under EU command -- talked about the Contact Group. As neighboring Yemen began, its representative was told to be brief, the meeting was almost over. And the other speakers?

Update of 5:58 p.m. - the moderator says his list includes, among others, Liberia, Tunisia, Sri Lanka, Spain (on behalf of the European Union), Greece, Syria, Korea, Thailand, Swaziland, Singapore, Argentina, India, Philippines and Lebanon. But he said while Liberia -- the "last speaker" -- has the floor, the other countries should think if they need to speak.

Update of 6:06 p.m. -- he's doing it, the moderator, saying no interpretation after 6:10, so it's going to end. One hears: who owns this organization?

Update of 6:09 p.m. -- the Ambassador of Khazakstan takes the floor, to read Ali Treki's final remarks. Sri Lanka walks out. The Philippines representative demands the floor, and says that it was very unfortunate many countries were not allowed to speak. The Philippines has many sailors in pirates' captivity. The UN Webcast is no longer working. This is off the clock.

Update of 6:16 p.m. -- the Ambassador of Kazakstan gavels the meeting to a close. "Have a nice weekend," she says. Without translation.

* * *

On Somalia, UN Belated Admits Rejections of its MOU With Kenya

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 15 -- A UN-promoted joint Law of the Sea filing by Kenya and those Somalis the UN works with, about Somalia's offshore rights, has finally been acknowledged by the UN as rejected by the Somalia parliament.

On March 12, 2010, the UN web site quietly added the notation that the "Memorandum of Understanding" about the filing, pushed by Nairobi based UN envoy Ahmedou Ould Abdallah and funded by oil drilling Norway, "has been rejected by the Parliament of the Transitional Federal Government Somalia, and is to be hence treated as non-actionable."

Inner City Press has reported extensively about this controversial MOU, which despite rejection in Somalia has been defended by the UN, Ould Abdallah and Norway. Another analysis by some Inner City Press sources is below.

But the UN's quiet admission that its plan for the Somali coastline was rejected by Somalis comes as the UN's Sanctions Group on Somalia is promoting its findings about widespread diversion of aid to Al Shabab. As Inner City Press reported, the Sanctions report has subject last week to a staged leak, first to the New York Times and then to wire services. Some UN correspondents reported did not appreciate the exposure of how the document was shown. But it is relevant, and should have been reported in the initial stories.

Ould Abdallah at UNSC stakeout, rejection of his LOS deal not shown

Here now is an alternative telling of the UN - Somali story, an update to Inner City Press' previous reporting on the MOU:

From the [beginning, many] Somalis were furious about the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), saying “Somali territorial waters would have been lost had this MOU succeed”. And any where that the Somali TFG delegations travel they were confronted by angry citizens asking them “why did they sign that MOU” and demanding answers from them.

While many Somali lawmakers (MPs) were criticizing the government about the controversial MOU with Kenya, and hand full of TFG ministers were shying away from defending it, Deputy Prime Minister ( he is also Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources) Abdirahman Adan Ibbi (AKA Prof. Ibbi) became the biggest lobbyist for the MOU - Weird huh!

Prof. Ibbi fought very had so that the MOU would go forward. In doing so he wrote a letter* to Ban Ki Moon on August 19, 2009 supporting the MOU – it was after the Somali parliament rejected the same MOU (and voted down on August 1, 2009).

What is serious about that letter was: it was signed by him, Prof. Ibbi, but is says it was written by TFG Prime Minister Omer Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke who was out of town at the time. When that letter became public Prof. Ibbi started to fade away into the background.

Prof. Ibbi had a backing of the TFG president Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, who also defended the MOU .

When the Somali PM Sharmarke realized that his deputy used his name, he (Sharmarke) wrote his own letter to Ban Ki Moon on October 10, 2009, supporting the Parliament decision. The funny thing is, Sharmarke’s office did not send that letter to The Secretary-General of UN as they should. Much later, realizing again, Sharmarke handed the letter to Somalia's Foreign Minister, Ali Jama Jangali so that he could hand deliver to Ban Ki Moon or at least send through appropriate channel.

Nobody knows whether Jangali handed that letter to The Secretary-General – at least it was not posted at the UN website as they did the previous letters regarding the same MOU.

While all these were going on, a group of Somali lawmakers, who were fed up with government, sent their own letter to Ban-Ki Moon asking him not to accept the controversial maritime deal between Kenyan and Somalia and remind him that Somali Parliament rejected it. Again that letter also was not posted at UN website and as far as we aware of, The Secretary-General of the United Nations did not respond the Somali MPs’ letter – at least he did send reply back.

We do not know what did it or which letter reached at the Ban Ki Moon’s desk. But we do know that there was an update at UN website on 12 March 2010 stating that: “The MOU has been rejected by the Parliament of the Transitional Federal Government Somalia, and is to be hence treated as non-actionable.

This has been a huge relief for Somalis in general as they realize that the MOU between Somalia and Kenya is non-actionable – which in legal term means NULL & VOID.

Somalis think this is very good statement from UN headquarters, why? The MOU between Somalia and Kenya had a backing of UN Somalia Office (based mainly in Nairobi Kenya). This has been a concern for Somali people. And that is why many believe that UN Headquarters did not acknowledge quickly when Somali Parliament rejected the same MOU.

This is also a news dawn for Somali political system, some say, as members of parliament realize that they can overrule any law (for Somalia) even if the president doesn’t approve it. There had been even a talk to impeach the Somali parliament speaker, Sheikh Aden Mohamed Nur (AKA Aaden Madoobe) as he did not act swiftly when the TFG government started the maritime MOU between Somalia/Kenya.

* Below is the link of Prof. Ibbi’s letter (at UN website)

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/ken35_09/som_re_ken_clcs35.pdf

You can compare with the Somali PM’s signature at following link (UN website).

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/preliminary/som_2009_letter.pdf

We'll have more on this.

These reports are usually also available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis.

Click here for a Reuters AlertNet piece by this correspondent about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click here for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali National Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an undefined trust fund. Video Analysis here

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the Inner City to Wall Street to the United Nations