[ad_1]
The last three weeks have been the scene of a strange diplomatic dispute between Kenya and Somalia. The Kenyan government recalled its ambassador to Mogadishu and fired him, saying the Somali leaders had tried to sell parts of Kenyan territory.
The two neighbors are grappling with a dispute over their maritime boundary, both claiming a narrow triangle of 100,000 km2 of oceanic shelf that would contain significant oil and gas deposits. After five years of attempts by both sides to negotiate a compromise, Somalia finally filed a case with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2014, which has still not been decided. However, Kenya continued to operate as it had no dispute and has already sold mining licenses to international companies of the triangle.
The latest outbreak centers, at least nominal, were the subject of a controversial public meeting organized in London by the Somali Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources and Spectrum Geo, a Norwegian seismic data processing company. The agenda of the meeting was not very clear. Government officials initially suggested that this offer would be an invitation to bid. She went on to say that the meeting would present seismic data collected by Spectrum and provide more detailed information on offshore blocks.
This confusion pushed Somali citizens living in London to storm the meeting to protest the alleged offshore block auction to foreign investors, the boycott of the meeting by the opposition parties and the opposition parties. members of the upper house of Somalia, then the break with Kenya.
The tone of Kenya's statement of 16 February concerning the convening of its ambassador in Mogadishu was striking. It did not state that Somalia was an enemy state, claiming that Somalia had indeed auctioned "blocks of oil and gas located in the territorial maritime area of Kenya".
He thundered about a map that had apparently been posted during the conference showing the disputed territory that is part of Somalia and that indirectly threatened to use as leverage "four hundred thousand refugees and asylum seekers." Somali asylum "in Kenya.
He also "reminded the Somali government and the international community" that he had troops in the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), which is helping to fight the armed group linked to al-Qaeda. , al-Shabab. "The patience of the Kenyan people is not infinite," he warned.
Somalis are much more patient, it seems. In a nuanced retort a day later, the Somali government said no bids had been made, explained that the map in question reflected Somalia's long-standing position and recalled that the country is not in the country. had no intention of taking unilateral measures (of the Kenya a type) in the disputed area until the ICJ rendered its verdict.
What is causing such an overreaction from Kenya? Well, maybe we could panic about the possibility of losing the case before the ICJ. Clearly, Somalia appears to be the most confident of both about its prospects in court, which is expected to reach a verdict this year. Somalia has already won the first round after the court in 2017 rejected the Kenya case challenge on the grounds that the two countries had already agreed to settle the case amicably.
Moreover, it is a strategy that Kenya has deployed before. The perceived success of his brutal and brutal campaign against crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court against President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy, William Ruto, may have encouraged Kenya to believe it can also tyrannize its northeastern neighbor.
Kenya is not new to playing the bull in the Somali porcelain store. The Somali government was not consulted in October 2011, when Kenya sent troops to the other side of the border, nor when the objectives of the invasion were transformed: to pursue the kidnappers to seize the second port of southern Somalia, Kismayo.
Against the will of Mogadishu, Kenyan troops brought Ahmed Madobe, former ally of Al Shabab, to power as president of the new Jubaland state administration. The country ignored a resolution of the Somali parliament asking its troops to leave. In addition, Kenyan forces in Somalia have been accused of illegal trade in charcoal and sugar, which enriches the terrorist group they are supposed to fight.
According to an article in the Standard newspaper, one of Kenya's claims to restoring diplomatic relations was that Somalia withdraws from its trial before the ICJ. This emphasis may be more indicative of Kenya's true intentions.
It therefore appears that, having already sold exploration rights in disputed areas to companies such as ENI, Total, Anadarko and others, and facing huge claims for compensation in case the ICJ In favor of Somalia, Kenya fabricated a diplomatic incident to prevent judgment and force Somalia to accept a negotiated solution.
Mogadishu is already in a weaker diplomatic position, having already irritated its international partners at the beginning of the year by expelling the highest UN official in the country, Nicholas Haysom. Kenya may have felt the blood.
Such tactics, however, are a double-edged sword. A serious break with Somalia would affect Kenya's participation in AMISOM and risk radicalizing borders and legitimizing Somali-based terrorists targeting Kenya. It would also undermine the regional cooperation on which AMISOM depends by weakening the fight against Al-Shabab and endangering the people of the region.
It is therefore in the interest of all that Kenya writes its speech and is committed, as the editorialized by The Star, to respect the decision of the ICJ.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.
[ad_2]
Source link
