AMISOM Navy Opposed by Somalia, Fig Leaf for French Cheapskates?

By Matthew Russell Lee

 

UNITED NATIONS, February 16 – Back in November 2012, despite there being ten votes on the 15 member UN Security Council to include and pay for a naval component in the Somalia mission AMISOM, the decision was deferred for four months.

 As Inner City Press reported, this was largely blamed on “cheapness” by France, which did not want to pay.

   Now the idea appears to have been not deferred but shot down.

   Fawzia Y. H Adam, the Somali deputy prime minister who addressed the Security Council this week announced “our strong opposition to a maritime force to be authorized for AMISOM. There is no compelling reason to take the campaign against AI Shabab to sea. Piracy, people trafficking and smuggling are important challenges but are not linked to the mandate of AMISOM.”

   Despite these stated reasons, UN cynics are wondering if the real concern about paying wasn't given the fig leaf of a Somali speech.

  On November 7, after "three or four" countries blocked a 12 month extension of the Somalia peacekeeping mission and funding of a maritime component,  the  Security Council adopted by a 15-0 vote a four month extension.

   Inner City Press covered the negotiations, here, and then put online the earlier 12-month draft, here, as a public service.

  After the vote, countries ranging from South Africa and India to Guatemala said in their explanations of vote that the maritime component should have been included.

  South Africa's Deputy Permanent Representative Doctor Mashabane came to the stakeout and Inner City Press asked him, how many votes did you have for the maritime component?

  Ten, he said, adding that it was blocked by "three or four" Council members. (Another well placed source, a Permanent Representative, told Inner City Press the cheapness came mostly "from France.")

  Inner City Press asked if Kenya will now withdraw its ships, since the Security Council didn't approve funding for this maritime component. Mashabane said he couldn't speak for Kenya, but added that the African Union doesn't just wake up and make requests, and that its requests should be treated with more respect by the UN Security Council.

 
  Well, not yet. Watch this site.

Amid Mali Pledges, UK Defense Minister Hammond "Misspoke," France Is Blamed, Doesn't Know

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- Amid a flurry of financial pledges in Addis Ababa for the Malian Army and the prospective AFISMA mission, outside the UN Security Council on Tuesday Inner City Press asked French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud how much France is pledging. He said they are pledging, but that he did not know how much.

  Moments later a Security Council diplomat told Inner City Press, "By intervening in Libya, France caused the Mali problem. Let them pay for it!" Anonymity was granted because the diplomat is not the Permanent Representative.

  Whatever the pledges made, it's worth remembering that Western countries on the Security Council decided not to pay for the Kenyan naval component of the African Union's AMISOM mission in Somalia, after its work in Kismayo. So will all of these pledges actually be paid.

  Meanwhile, amid bafflement at the statement by UK Defense Secretary Phil Hammond that Mali is a predominantly Christian country, Inner City Press asked the UK Mission to the UN if he said that.

  The UK Mission's new Head of Press and Public Affairs, Iona Thomas, "we spoke earlier about the UK Defence Secretary’s comments on religion in Mali earlier today. I can confirm that he misspoke." It's appreciated. Watch this site.

On Somalia, UNSC Led by France Plays Cheap on Ships, Mogadishu in Manhattan III

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 7 -- After "three or four" countries blocked a 12 month extension of the Somalia peacekeeping mission and funding of a maritime component, Wednesday morning the UN Security Council adopted by a 15-0 vote a mere four month extension.

   Inner City Press covered the negotiations, here, and is now putting online the earlier 12-month draft, here, as a public service.

  After the vote, countries ranging from South Africa and India to Guatemala said in their explanations of vote that the maritime component should have been included. 

  South Africa's Deputy Permanent Representative Doctor Mashabane came to the stakeout and Inner City Press asked him, how many votes did you have for the maritime component?

  Ten, he said, adding that it was blocked by "three or four" Council members. (Another well placed source told Inner City Press the cheapness came mostly "from France.")

  Inner City Press asked if Kenya will now withdraw its ships, since the Security Council didn't approve funding for this maritime component. Mashabane said he couldn't speak for Kenya, but added that the African Union doesn't just wake up and make requests, and that its requests should be treated with more respect by the UN Security Council.

  This is a topic that Italy's Romano Prodi was paid by the UN to study. Now he is paid as an Under Secretary General, working from Italy, covering the Sahel and Mali. France wants approval to spend UN money in Mali. Why not for the job done and to be done in Somalia?

  Further inquiry with a proponent or defender of the compromise yields the position that the four month rollover will allow more time to consult with Somalia's president, on issues like the arms embargo. That way, the argument goes, the process will be more Somali led.

  There was also some downplaying of Kenya getting shorted. Its sailors, it's said, are already getting "paid by the EU."

  A real issue seems to be that the EU "African Peace Facility" which has directed funds to AMISOM will now be shifted over to Mali.

    Some say the US was most opposed to the provision directing Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to study, with the AU, funding to replace this European Union facility. This is a reason it would be good to have more stakeouts by the US.

Mogadishu in Manhattan III: Finally, Inner City Press has exclusively learned of another round of intrigue in the Somali Mission to the UN. Idd Beddel Mohamed, who had made previous forays for promotion within the Mission, is now said to be "campaigning in Mogadishu," and that this includes a letter to the UN Secretariat again naming him(self) to a position. 

 Inner City Press is putting the letter online, here, as a public service and more.

  The problem, the sources say, is that the letter is from the FORMER Minister. They say that the date of the letter is one day after the designated prime minster left New York after the attending the General Debate. 

  During his stay at the UN GA, nothing of any contents of the letter was discussed or brought to the attention of the Somali Ambassador. However, Idd Beddel flew to Mogadishu and sent the letter straight to the Secretary General's office "bypassing the whole Somalia mission." Now what?  Watch this site.

On Somalia, US Still Disputes Funding Study, So Roll Over 4 Months, Past Rice and South Africa

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 6 -- On the Somalia resolution pending in the UN Security Council, the European "cheapness" on which Inner City Press reported November 1 continues -- now joined by mounting US aversion to another provision, Operative Paragraph (OP) 10.

  The result is that 24 hours before the extended deadline of the Somalia mission's mandate, the UK penned resolution with a one year extension has still not been put "in blue" and ready for voting. Rather a mere four month extension was being prepared.

   When Inner City Press asked this month's Security Council president Hardeep Singh Puri about it on November 2, he expressed opposition to another short term roll over. But that now seems possible.

  It appears that the UK is more concerned with the position of the US than the African Union, which wants the Kenyan maritime component in.

 The US is said to oppose OP 10, which would say the Security Council

"welcomes support to AMISOM by the African Union's partners, especially through the European Union's African Peace Facility, but notes the limited resources of this facility in the context of AMISOM' s mandate renewal, underlines the importance of predictable and sustainable funding for AMISOM, as called for by the AU, and requests the Secretary General, in consultation with the AU, to include in his upcoming review options and recommendations for AMISOM's funding."

  African members have asked, what's wrong with at least at least studying this?  More recently they have proposed more vague language, about Ban Ki-moon looking into the funding issue with the AU. But the UK tells them this might still be too much.

  A well placed source mused to Inner City Press that the four month kicking the can down the road might be so "Susan Rice is off the Security Council, and South Africa is off the Security Council."

  The latter is certain -- Rwanda formally joins on January 1 -- while the latter seems based on an adverse result on the day of the quote, or ascension to Foggy Bottom. (A wise analysis says Kerry's ascention might, if Scott Brown loses to Elizabeth Warren, make Brown favored to take and "re-hat" Kerry's Bay State Senate seat.

  But enough of US politics -- "that's what the UK says" -- the re-hatting we'll stay focused on here is of AMISOM. 

  On the Somalia arms embargo, a concern has arisen that lifting the embargo might help Somaliland and Puntland become more independent. On the charcoal sales, the draft would have the Council noting the "intention of the Somali authorities to study this unique situation further, and expressing its willingness to take further action, if appropriate and in consultation with the Somali authorities, to address this situation."

  Also at issue is proposed Operative Paragraph 5 of the draft, which says the Security Council

"Expresses its intention to review AMISOM's authorised tasks as provided for in paragraph 1 of this resolution within four months ofthe date of this resolution and no longer than six months, including reassessing the utility of a maritime component."

  African and other members of the Security Council have asked the European members why they are adverse to paying for the Kenyan naval component which, even outside of AMISOM and its ostensible human rights standards, help drive Al Shabaab out of Kismayo.

  The responses have ranged from wanting more information about the maritime component -- one source counters, it's a little late, isn't it? -- to not wanting the Kenyan Navy to take over from the Europeans' own anti-piracy Operation ATALANTA. Click here for previous Inner City Press coverage of that.

   An African diplomatic source told Inner City Press, "It seems the Europeans don't want their parliaments to see that the fight against piracy could be done better and cheaper than they are doing it."

  Another compared this standoff to past reimbursements, including depreciation, to Germany for its ships off Lebanon in the UNIFIL mission.

 Germany's foreign minister Westerwelle is slated to be at the UN on Wednesday -- rain or shine. Watch this site.

On Somalia, UNSC Disputes Paragraphs on Ships, EU & Study of Funding, Arms Embargo

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 4 -- On the Somalia resolution pending in the UN Security Council, the European "cheapness" on which Inner City Press reported November 1 continues, even as the November 7 extended expiration of the mandate of the AMISON mission approaches.

  As issue is proposed Operative Paragraph 5 of the draft, which says the Security Council

"Expresses its intention to review AMISOM's authorised tasks as provided for in paragraph 1 of this resolution within four months ofthe date of this resolution and no longer than six months, including reassessing the utility of a maritime component."

  African and other members of the Security Council have asked the European members why they are adverse to paying for the Kenyan naval component which, even outside of AMISOM and its ostensible human rights standards, help drive Al Shabaab out of Kismayo.

  The responses have ranged from wanting more information about the maritime component -- one source counters, it's a little late, isn't it? -- to not wanting the Kenyan Navy to take over from the Europeans' own anti-piracy Operation ATALANTA. Click here for previous Inner City Press coverage of that.

   An African diplomatic source told Inner City Press, "It seems the Europeans don't want their parliaments to see that the fight against piracy could be done better and cheaper than they are doing it."

  Another compared this standoff to past reimbursements, including depreciation, to Germany for its ships off Lebanon in the UNIFIL mission.

  The United States, whose Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman was as of Friday rumored to be on the way to Mogadishu, is said to oppose another paragraph, OP 10, which would say the Security Council

"welcomes support to AMISOM by the African Union's partners, especially through the European Union's African Peace Facility, but notes the limited resources of this facility in the context of AMISOM' s mandate renewal, underlines the importance of predictable and sustainable funding for AMISOM, as called for by the AU, and requests the Secretary General, in consultation with the AU, to include in his upcoming review options and recommendations for AMISOM's funding."

  African members have asked, what's wrong with at least at least studying this?

  On the Somalia arms embargo, a concern has arisen the lifting the embargo might help Somaliland and Puntland become more independent. On the charcoal sales, the draft would have the Council noting the "intention of the Somali authorities to study this unique situation further, and expressing its willingness to take further action, if appropriate and in consultation with the Somali authorities, to address this situation."

  On November 2, this month's Security Council president Hardeep Singh Puri of India told Inner City Press he doesn't like "kicking the can down the road." Watch this site.

After Kenyan Navy Shells Somalia, Lamamra Says Kenya IS Part of AMISOM

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 26 -- For weeks as the Kenyan Navy has shelled the Somali town of Kismayo, resulting even back in mid August in the death of civilians, Inner City Press has asked the UN what safeguards are in place.

The answer, belatedly from the UN Spokesperson's Office and then from UK's Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, was that the AMISON mission "does not have a naval component," and that Kenya's navy is not part of AMISOM.

Earlier in the week, this and a question about Kenya's ground forces killing six civilians outside Kismayo were referred by the UN Spokesperson to envoy Augustine Mahiga's press conference later that day. But Mahiga canceled that press conference.

Finally on Wednesday Mahiga appeared at a stakeout after a mini-summit on Somalia, along with UN top politico Jeffrey Feltman, Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, Prime Minister of Somalia, and Ramtane Lamamra, African Union Commissioner for Peace and Security. Inner City Press posed the question, explicitly about the shelling by Kenya's Navy.

The AU's Lamamra insisted that "Kenya is part of AMISOM." But again -- not the Navy, which was asked about. On land forces killing civilians, Abdiweli Mohamed Ali to his credit said he had spoken with the Kenyan defense forces. 

  He also told Inner City Press that Puntland is part of the process, and he hopes to convince Somaliland to join. It was not possible to ask Lamamra a follow up on this, at least not on Wednesday evening. Watch this site.

UK Says AMISOM Complies With Rights, But Kenya Navy Not Part of AMISOM

By Matthew Russell Lee

 

UNITED NATIONS, September 18, updated -- As Kenya's navy has been shelling and "softening up" Kismayo in Somalia, and in the process killing at least three civilians, Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN what safeguards are in place.

  After pointing out that the Kenyan navy is not part of the UN-assisted AMISOM mission, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky finally pointed back to a three week old statement by the UN's humanitarian Mark Bowden.

  But given the UN's role in funding AMISOM, with which the Kenyan naval shelling is clearly coordinated, doesn't the UN have a greater role?

   On Tuesday morning Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant about the shelling, after he described the just-passed Security Council resolution and upcoming summit meeting at the UN.

   Lyall Grant said the Kenya's ground troops are part of AMISOM, but the "Kenyan navy assets" are not. He said he would not speak to the timetable for re-taking Kismayo from Al Shabab, which he called "a longstanding objective that will be pursued."

  Inner City Press asked, since the Kenyan navy is clearly coordinating with the Council authorized (and UN funded) AMISOM, what safeguards are in place?

  Lyall Grant said the issue goes beyond Somalia, whenever regional organizations are authorized by the Council in this way.

  He said while less direct than with UN blue helmets (or berets), AMISOM is still expected to comply with human rights, and he said "we have not reasons to believe that they are not doing so."

  But what about the Kenyan Navy and its shelling?

  There was previously a dispute in the Security Council about whether to fund the Kenyan naval component, or at least its maintenance. Did declining to provide that funding leave this de facto component outside any human rights safeguards?
Watch this site.

Here is the UK Mission transcript:

 
Inner City Press: you mentioned Al-Shabaab, and there’s been a lot of reports in recent days of the Kenyan Army and AMISOM closing in on Kismayo, and also some shelling from ships that are said to be in the Kenyan Navy. I’m wondering 1) what you can say about this kind of end game with Al-Shabaab, but a question arose, whether the Kenyan navy was part of AMISOM, was it ever approved by the Council, are you paying for the ships, and if, what safeguards are in place for this, essentially, shelling into Kismayo that some people say has killed at least three civilians?

Amb. Lyall Grant: “Well, it has always been a long term objective of both AMISOM and the Somali authorities to take back control of Kismayo from Al-Shabaab. I’m not going to comment on the timetable for that, or the plans for that. But that is clearly an objective and it’s an objective that will be pursued. In terms of the Kenyan naval assets, they are not formally part of AMISOM. The Kenyan troops since June, when the MoU was signed with the African Union, have become part of AMISOM and are being funded accordingly. But the Kenyan naval assets are funded by the Kenyans and are not part of AMISOM.”

Inner City Press: something I’ve been trying to figure out for a few days. Since it’s working obviously in coordination with AMISOM, and there are at least reports, Human Rights Watch put out a report that a pregnant woman and two children were killed by the shelling, how does the Council ensure that something that’s part of a mission that it authorised, that there’s human rights monitoring, and safeguards in place for the whole operation, and not only part of it.

Amb. Lyall Grant: “Well, that is a general challenge that goes beyond the case of Somalia. There are other examples of regional organisations that are authorised, mandated, by the Security Council to take action. Now obviously, when it is a full UN peacekeeping operation with blue berets, there is a more direct control on the part of the UN system and on the part of the Security Council on issues like human rights. With the case of AMISOM, it is a more distant, hands off relationship. But nonetheless, it is a UN authorised mission and we do expect AMISOM to abide by international standards of human rights and humanitarian law, and we have no reason to think that they are not doing so.”

As Kenya Navy Shells Somalia, UN Last Whispered Concern 3 Weeks Ago, Mahiga Winks?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 7 -- On Somalia, does the UN whisper one thing but means another? Three times Inner City Press has asked the UN if its envoy Augustine Mahiga has anything to say about the shelling of Kismayo by the Kenyan Navy, which in mid August killed at least three civilians but has continued since.

UN spokesman Martin Nesirky, the second time Inner City Press asked, said that the AMISOM mission has no naval component. But Kenya's military has confirmed it is their ship. Inner City Press on September 6 asked if the UN is just looking the other way:

Inner City Press: the Kenyan army has said 'that is our ship.' So basically you have shelling by one country of another in support of a UN-supported peacekeeping mission, but with everyone winking, like this is not ours, it’s not related to us. If it is not authorized by AMISOM, is it in contrary to law? Is there some, since civilians have been reportedly killed by some of the shelling, is there any UN response to it at all?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, as I said, Matthew, we have been checking, and as soon as I have something, I will let you know, okay? But I assure you that we have been checking and asking.

The next day, Nesirky read out a three week old statement not by Mahiga but by the humanitarian coordinator for Somalia, Mark Bowden. It seems clear that Kenya has not listened to Bowden; perhaps it was never meant to.

Meanwhile the UN's lead envoy Augustine Mahiga did speak out on September 6 -- but only in an open letter trying to tell Somali parliamentarians how to vote.

Mahiga, for the perceived success of his mission, would like Al Shabab driven out of Kismayo, apparently be any means necessary. So his underling whispers the UN's concern, with the Kenyan Navy ignores and keeps on shelling. And Mahiga speaks only on other topics. 

 Does the UN whisper one thing but means another? It sure seems like it. Watch this site.