I found the resurgence of piracy ominously coincidental, considering the hype surrounding radical economic transformation in South Africa. My frustration with the quality of debate in our country is that playing the man is a much more appealing sport than playing the ball; but back to that later.

Ishan Tharoor, writing for Time, aptly described Somali pirates as “not desperate bandits, experts say, rather savvy opportunists in the most lawless corner of the planet”.

Why would fishermen turn to pirates and carry out the most daring attacks, claiming close to $200 million in ransom?

Since the collapse of the government in Somalia in 1991, Tharoor writes, “Somali waters have become the site of an international free-for-all, with fishing fleets from around the world illegally plundering Somali stocks and freezing out the country’s own rudimentarily-equipped fishermen”.

He quotes a UN report, estimating that about $300 million worth of seafood was stolen from the coast of Somalia annually. Sounds familiar?

Global giants use their power, experience and networks to marginalise locals and plausibly explain their unfair advantage as globalisation. African governments respond more enthusiastically to international investors than to their own people – who are patient and understanding, but can turn nasty when disillusioned.

The International Crime Commission and the International Maritime Bureau reported in 2014 that “piracy has reached its lowest levels in six years, with 264 attacks worldwide in 2013, a 40% drop since Somali piracy peaked in 2011”.

The active intervention by the international community, meant the Horn of Africa could breathe again; briefly. Regrettably, the intervention was merely to protect their cargo and crew or contain Al Qaeda, not to help the people of Somalia.

Now, piracy seems on the rise again in Somalia (and President Donald Trump is talking tough), after it was tamed from 2014 as a result of international patrols. Ransom payable got unbearable and maritime traffic became too risky or too expensive to insure, rich nations of the world got involved to stem the piracy in Somali waters.

This, however, did not address the core of the problem: securing the interests of the little guy in Somalia, toiling daily to support their family; someone like Ahmed Mohammed Ali.

This 27-year old fisherman from Durduri told Jessica Hatcher of Al Jazeera in October 2015 that he had had to abandon fishing because although anti-hijacking patrols had stopped piracy, the big illegal fishing boats had returned. These were the same boats that had triggered piracy in the first place.

In Africa, our leaders tend to react more enthusiastically to the World Economic Forum or Fitch or the World Bank.

Roads get resurfaced and services improved when the Commonwealth comes to town; but when a service delivery protest erupts in a small village, the leaders get dismissed for their ingratitude or are accused of being somebody else’s political pawn.

When black South Africans complained about Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) not delivering broad-based benefits, some in the ruling party got so defensive. Phrases like “there is nothing wrong with black people getting rich” or even “I did not struggle to be poor” were echoed.

As factually valid as these were, they missed the point: the majority were asking for their share of the gig, and they were feeling left out.

Twenty-three years since 1994, high levels of unemployment, income inequality, inept state-owned enterprises, pedestrian economic growth and cracks in the ruling elite are conspiring to breed more defensive tactics among the well off.

Just as Somalia does not need a partial international patrol as intervention, but decisive solutions to the problems that are elbowing ordinary fishermen from their rightful maritime economy, South Africa could do without the name-calling, scapegoating, political demagoguery, recycled concepts such as radical economic transformation or the attack on white monopoly capital.

It needs a South Africa First mindset, which prioritises results and lasting broad-based socio-economic impact.

* Kgomoeswana is author of Africa is Open for Business, a media commentator and public speaker on African business affairs, and a weekly columnist for African Independent – Twitter Handle: @VictorAfrica

** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.

The Sunday Independent

They are among the Muslims and members of other minority groups who are joining the ranks of Minnesotans who applied to become gun owners in 2016.

For Abdulahi, it’s a natural response to an uptick in hate crimes since the election of Donald Trump.

“Donald Trump has directly pointed fingers at the Somali community,” Abdulahi said, referring to the president-elect’s statements before the election that Somalis are a “disaster” for Minnesota. “It’s something you don’t expect to hear from a presidential candidate. We’ve seen backlash. We are not going to stand [for] that.”

Fears about Trump’s rhetoric on one hand, and fears that his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton might try to restrict gun ownership on the other fueled a spike in gun permit applications in Minnesota this year. As of Dec. 7, the state has issued 70,112 permits, a 57 percent increase over the 44,696 issued last year, according to a report from the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The permits are valid for five years, so the total includes both newly issued and renewing permits.

That compares with 29 percent of blacks when asked the same question in 2012.

There is no data on the number of Muslim-Americans buying guns, and permit application records don’t reveal demographic information beyond the age, gender and the county of the applicant.

But Andrew Rothman, president of Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, a Minnesota-based nonprofit that advocates for “gun and self-defense rights,” says he’s seeing a growing number of Somali men coming in for gun lessons.

Rothman said his organization welcomes their participation.

“We have always said civil rights are for every population that may be subject to discrimination and violence because of their heritage and other personal characteristics.”

Abdulahi and Yusuf are urging Somali-Americans to “live without fear through Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

The two have formed a group and have held several meetings in the community.

Their group is also addressing security concerns by working with law enforcement and hiring armed security guards to patrol Somali malls, schools and mosques that could be targets of hate crimes.

Fresh in their minds is a foiled plot to bomb a mosque and an apartment building housing Somali immigrants in Garden City, Kan., in October.

Concerns about guns

Some worry, however, that a push within the Muslim community to get gun permits could place Minnesota’s Somali-Americans in an undesirable spotlight and invoke ugly memories of Somalia’s civil war.

Abdulwahid Osman, an attorney for the family of the man who stabbed 10 people at St. Cloud’s Crossroads Mall, applauded Yusuf and Abdulahi’s message to the Somali community to stay vigilant, and he does not argue with individual choices for self-defense.

“It’s up to individuals to make their own decision on how to protect themselves,” he said. “The religion tells us, the constitution tells us, and circumstances tell us.”

But he worries how their message would be perceived by Minnesotans at large.

He urges Somali-led organizations to provide their clients with safety guidelines rather than tout gun ownership.

“What are we going to do if an active shooter breaks in?” he asked. “Are we going to run, hide or make a call? We need everyone to be aware of safety procedures.”

Lul Hersi of St. Cloud, a mother of four, wants to be a gun owner, but fears having a gun around her two teenage boys who are dealing with racial tensions in the city.

“There is never a [better] time than now, but I don’t feel safe to have a gun in my house,” she said.

For Yusuf and the dozens of Somalis who come to the group meetings, there is a sense of urgency.

They fear that Trump’s administration will restrict Muslims from obtaining firearms. “They might put us on watch list or have a special mark on us,” said Yusuf.

Abdulahi’s fifth-grade daughter has been taunted in school because she wears a hijab. Yusuf’s wife is unnerved by the looks she gets on the streets.

“This is the right time to start owning guns and protecting ourselves and families,” Yusuf said, adding, “We have schools, mosques and community centers that need to be protected.”

People not as comfortable

John Monson, owner of Bill’s Gun Shop & Range in Robbinsdale, said he has a number of Muslim customers, but they are not the only people buying guns or seeking permits to carry.

“Any time you add gun control, more people want to buy more guns,” said Monson. “We sold more guns because of that and people are not as comfortable in their neighborhoods anymore.”

Haji Yusuf said he also sees more Somalis interested in guns. Yusuf, no relation to Abdul Yusuf, created the Facebook page “Somali-American Gun Club” and is the co-founder of #UniteCloud, a social media attempt to ease cultural tensions in St. Cloud. He is now preparing to start a nonprofit to educate community members about the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership.

“It is necessary to own a gun just in case there is something that might happen,” he said. “The world has changed — things have not been the same. There are people that are acting out to harm us. It’s a matter of saving my life and my family’s life.”

CIID WANAAGSAN: Munaasabadda ciidda barakaysan ee CIIDUL ADXA, waxaanu dhammaan umadda islaamka meel kasta oo ay joogaan u rajaynaynaa inay ku ciidaan ciid farxad leh oo barakaysan ilaahayna uga dhigo mid ay khayr iyo naxariista eebbe ku naaloodaann, Ciiddan iyo kuwa kale ee soo socdaba “Insha Allah” ….A A M I I N…A A M I I N.

Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mahmoud and Somaliland President Ahmed Silanyo came together for the first time in a tripartite meeting held by top Turkish officials at the request of the two parties in Ankara. Somali Minister Abdul Karim H. Guled and Somaliland Foreign Minister Mohamed Omar signed the communiqué on behalf of their governments to restart dialogue between the two sides and decided to have another meeting in İstanbul within 90 days.

The purpose of the meeting was to reopen dialogue after the leadership change in the Somali Federal Republic, and to establish a way forward for dialogue. A new government took office in Somalia after elections held last September.

The Somali and Somaliland leaders agreed on the need to consolidate cooperation on the security sector through sharing intelligence and training as well as sharing scholarships for sector professionals in order to become more effective in the fight against terrorism, extremism, piracy, activities such as illegal fishing, toxic dumping and maritime crime.

President Obama issued a memo Monday to Secretary of State John Kerry that said Somalia is eligible to receive defense equipment.

The move does not immediately grant military assistance to Somalia. However, it allows Secretary Kerry to consider taking steps to do so in the future.

A senior Obama administration official says the authorization is part of a normalization of relations between the United States and Somalia.

The United States formally recognized Somalia’s government earlier this year, the first time Washington has recognized a Somali government since 1991.

Last month, the United Nations Security Council partially lifted an arms embargo on Somalia to help government forces who are fighting Islamist militants in the country.

Labelled as a failed state, Somalia is finally on the long road to recovery, but is their new constitution holding them back?

Whilst the country’s new constitution may be deemed a success, many have argued that it is just a $60 million panacea that is creating further problems for the re-emerging Somali democracy. The aim was, amongst other things, to promote human rights, however, the 2012 constitution legalises discriminatory ethnic nepotism, or clanism, in the form of the so-called 4.5 formula. This is the system, which gives the each of the four major Somali clans 61 seats of the new 275-member Federal Parliament, leaving the remaining 31 seats for the combined remaining minority clans.

However, the constitution goes further, incentivising clan-based balkanisation. It has already grandfathered certain clan-based political entities such as Puntland and Galmudug as semi-autonomous federal states, and it grants them discretions to go into deals with any foreign entity they wish for oil explorations, mining of minerals etc.

On the one hand, Article 44, which deals with Natural Resources, states that: “The allocation of the natural resources of the Federal Republic of Somalia shall be negotiated by, and agreed upon, by the Federal Government and the Federal Member States in accordance with this Constitution.”

On the other hand, Article 142 (1), which deals with existing Federal Member States in Somalia provides a major loophole. “Until such time that all the Federal Member States of Somalia are established and the adopted Federal Member State Constitutions are harmonized with the Somali Federal Constitution, the Federal Member States existing prior to the provisional adoption of this Provisional Constitution by a National Constituent Assembly shall retain and exercise powers endowed by their own State Constitution.”

While the constitution is peppered with enough articles to keep the fire burning, it is in these two particular articles that the so-called Ghost-lords, those keen to exploit the country’s natural resources, hit the jackpot. The constitution restricts the Federal Government from engaging in any deals on natural resources, yet allows the Federal States to engage as they please. Under such temptation, who—save a few—would be interested in working and sacrificing to save and sustain the state?

Eight months ago, like a few other insightful analysts, I warned against the danger woven into the new constitution. In an article (bluntly) titled A Constitution of Ambiguity and Deferment, I wrote: “If the new parliament does not make the necessary changes as soon as it assumes its responsibilities, the new constitution could, among other things, undermine the profound security and stabilization accomplishments of recent months.”

The foundation of every peaceful nation is an unambiguous set of laws or a thoroughly negotiated and ratified social contract. As I argued in the aforementioned article, this basic premise could not have been lost on the framers of the current constitution. By framers, I refer to those who, perhaps due to their naïveté or political myopia, decided that the best way to sustain peace in Somalia is to put the cart before the horse.

They accepted a dysfunctional constitution that did not clearly define demarcation of authority, land ownership, or resources-sharing as a legitimate prerequisite to “emerge out of the transitional status”.

So, the moral argument that helped pass this embarrassment of a constitution was: “Reconciliation can wait. We are sick and tired of being in transition; let’s just accept anything handed to us in order to regain our sovereignty.”

What is the point of sovereignty, if the treatment is more or less the same? Sovereignty is not a badge worn as a façade; it is a right, and for that reason, it should be demanded and protected.

Since the matter at hand cannot be remedied by judiciary intervention, as that branch is currently being revamped, and this matter needs more than constitutional interpretation, the Federal Parliament has the duty to step in to deescalate the steadily mounting clan tension, and fix the constitution. As an institution that includes practically all Somali clans, the Parliament indeed has the legitimate authority.

Speaker Mohamed Osman Jawari and all MPs who are willing to put their nation’s interest above their personal, clan or regional interests should take this bull by the horns.

Author

Abukar ArmanWebsite | Twitter Abukar is a DiploAct (a fusion of diplomacy and activism), a former diplomat and a recovering political analyst. You can email him on abukar_arman [at] yahoo [dot] com

Shams Hussain says third-party involvment hindering Somali peacemaking efforts. Shams Hussain, an academic who recently visited Dubai, said there are also ‘invisible actors’ intervening in Somalia.

Dubai: An analyst on Somali affairs has said foreign intervention in Somalia — left without a central government since the 1991 ousting of its then military ruler — is “the root cause of civil strife”.

Shams Hussain, an academic who holds dual Somali and British nationality, said: “One would argue that 90 per cent of the problems in Somalia are based on foreign intervention. They include regional and international actors.”

Shams, on a recent visit to the UAE, identified the regional actors as mainly the neighbouring countries of Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as the “IGAD counters”. IGAD — the Intergovernmental Authority on Development — is a regional bloc of east African nations including Somalia. One of its stated objectives is to support “the prevention, management and resolution of inter-state and intra-state conflicts through dialogue.”

Meanwhile, the international actors, according to Shams, include the US and the European Union. In an exclusive interview with Gulf News, Shams said: “There are also invisible actors who intervene through others. Piracy and the [Al Qaida-linked] Al Shabab militia were created by outsiders.

“But exactly who is behind it all, I don’t know. What I do know is that without outside support and a blind eye, they would not have lasted this long.” Shams pointed out that divisions in Somalia go back to the colonial period that led it to be divided into five parts: British Somaliland, French Somaliland, Italian Somalia, the Ogaden-Haud and reserved areas (given by the UK to Ethiopia) and the Northern Frontier Districts (ceded to Kenya by the UK).

She added that in 1991, the former British Somaliland in the north west dissolved the union and engaged in separate peace processes inside the country, which were “locally funded, implementing and electing a government and a parliament that is also regulated by the House of Elders.” However, Somaliland so far remains unrecognised internationally.

“Somaliland emerged as a hot potato to potential interventionists. On the one hand, its stability was not conducive for foreign troops. When they were united Somalis were accused of being ‘expansionists’ and not adhering to the boundaries left by the European colonial powers. When divided, they were accused of being secessionists.”

Meanwhile, developments have taken a different turn in the southern regions, Shams added. “The southern region — a former Italian colony — branched out differently. Two decades have passed with internal conflict and despite 13 peacemaking conferences worldwide the likelihood of peace stays delayed,” she said. From 2000 to 2012, a series of internationally recognised ‘transitional’ institutions were formed. Today, a permanent Federal Government of Somalia is in place. “We are pleased that the so-called transitional governments ended,” Shams said, but though “the recognition of the Somali federal government is a positive step, one has to bear in mind that there are foreign troops inside Somalia. This time they are fellow Africans funded by international actors who purport to ‘help stability’. When asked why foreign powers would be interested in Somalia, Shams replied: “The answer is simple: strategy and resources. Somalia is located in one of the most strategic places in the world, connecting Africa, Asia and Europe through shipping lines of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, not to mention the Suez Canal and the oil routes of Arabia.”

She added that Somalia is rich in mineral resources, including oil and gas, livestock, agriculture and fishery. “I think both the regional and international actors should revisit the nature of their involvement in Somalia. These actors are talking about their security, but nobody mentions the sovereignty infringement of Somalia, the illegal fishing, toxic waste dumping,” she said.

Despite the challenges facing Somalia, Shams remains an optimist, putting her faith in the spirit of her people. “Somalis have suffered a lot, but they exhibited a magnificent strength and resilience.”

Source: Gulf news