Kenya or Somalia: Who owns the sea and what lies beneath

[Tillamook]

For years, Kenya and Somalia have argued over where their maritime boundary in the Indian Ocean runs. The International Court of Justice in The Hague could now decide who owns the sea, a decision that will only suit one.

 

A narrow triangle off the coast of Africa, in the Indian Ocean, about 100,000 square kilometers (62,000 square miles), is the bone of contention between neighboring Kenya and Somalia. Both countries want the area because it supposedly has a large deposit of oil and gas, but it's not clear to which country it belongs.

 

"The position of the boundary is a gray area," said Timothy Walter, a maritime border conflict researcher at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in South Africa.

 

For Kenya, however, the boundary is quite clear. It lies line parallel to the line of latitude. That gives Kenya the larger share of the maritime area and it has already sold mining licenses to international companies. But Somalia disagrees.

 

The Somalis want the boundary to extend to the southeast as an extension of the land border. In 2009, both countries agreed that the United Nations commission in charge of mediating border disputes should determine the border line once and for all. They also agreed that they should continue to work together to find a solution so that the matter would not have to go to court.

 

 

That does not seem to have worked - at least from the Somali perspective. In 2014, Somalia sued Kenya at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The court represents one way of solving border conflicts in maritime areas if bilateral or regional attempts fail.

 

The Somali government wrote in its lawsuit that that was exactly what had happened. "The parties met numerous times to discuss how the dispute can be settled. But no progress was made in any of the meetings," the government said.

Somalia has long been considered a failed state without a functioning government. It has only had an elected president again since 2012 and now seems anxious to safeguard what it regards as its sovereign rights in the Indian Ocean.

 

Somalia wants the ICJ to define the boundary as laid down by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other international sea laws.

 

In disputed cases, a temporary boundary is drawn along a line that is at the same distance from both coastlines, if there are no physical obstacles to this. A test period is then implemented to see if this boundary is fair to both sides or if it benefits or disadvantages one or the other.

 

Kenyan forces are helping Somalia in the fight against al-Shabab

Kenya's government, however, is sticking to its preferred border demarcation. For nearly 100 years, it had considered this line to be its border, the government wrote.

Since Kenya and Somalia had agreed to settle the dispute out of court, Kenya appealed to the court in 2015 opposing the litigation. The court now wants to hear both sides, beginning Monday and will then decide whether it will initiate proceedings.

 

Only one winner

If court proceedings are opened, then the decision on the border will be binding. Walker thinks that a court case is a high risk for both states. "If the court should decide in favor of Somalia, the Kenyan border would shift dramatically," he said.

 

This could lead to a dispute over the maritime boundary with Kenya's southern neighbor Tanzania, which could in turn have an impact on Mozambique, Madagascar and South Africa.

 

A compromise is possible, of course, at least in theory: "Both countries could share the area and the mining of raw materials," Walker said. He said there is a good example in West Africa, where Nigeria and the archipelago of Sao Tome and Principe teamed up to produce oil.

But for Somalia and Kenya, Walker does not see any chance. "Both countries do not want to make any compromise when it comes to their own sovereign rights. That can change, of course, but at the moment, it looks like an either-or decision," he said. Walker estimates that the decision will be made next year.

 

Somalia is increasingly protecting its borders as the government in Mogadishu asserts control over the country

Sea-blindness is over

Overall, experts like Walker are observing a growing trend for states, especially in Africa, to take an interest in setting their maritime borders. Walker calls it the "end of the sea-blindness."

"Most African states lack a substantial navy or a coastguard and many conflicts have spilled over land boundaries or land borders. So historically, there has always been a focus on what is happening on land. Now, that's changing because what we can see more and more is the resources from the sea are more accessible now through better technological processes," Walker said.

To the west of the continent, Ghana and Ivory Coast are engaged in a similar conflict about their boundary in the Atlantic Ocean. The two countries are currently awaiting a decision by the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea, an alternative to the International Court of Justice, which resolves border disputes between conflicting countries.

East African neighbors Malawi and Tanzania also have a boundary dispute, this time located in a lake. Lake Malawi borders Tanzania and holds huge amounts of oil deposits. But the colonial-era border for Tanzania ends on the bank of the lake.

These are not the only countries waiting to see how the conflict between Kenya and Somalia continues.

 

DW

[Tillamook]

This could lead to a dispute over the maritime boundary with Kenya’s southern neighbor Tanzania, which could in turn have an impact on Mozambique, Madagascar and South Africa.

 

After the ICC decides in favor of Kenya, the court will claim that because they do not want to set a precedent that will have a domino effect of maritime disputes all over Africa, Somalia must surrender its waters to Kenya.

 

... and however unfortunate and sad such an outcome may be for us Somalis, I can't say I blame Kenya for taking advantage of weakened Somalia.

[Holac]

Kenya owns according to Culusoow.

[Che -Guevara]

This "European Court" is not afraid of setting precedent when it comes to Africa states.

 

From a legal irrespective, Kenya's case is flimsy.

 

That said what irks me is Cumar Calooley, Shariif Gaab and Abdishakur Nacas are actually contesting in the Somali "election". They have no shame at all.

[Ahmed Sacid]

Killing each other for qabiil and ideology put us in this situation.

Dont blame Kenya, blame ourselves.

[Ahmed Sacid]

@Che -Guevara

said:

This "European Court" is not afraid of setting precedent when it comes to Africa states.

 

From a legal irrespective, Kenya's case is flimsy.

 

That said what irks me is Cumar Calooley, Shariif Gaab and Abdishakur Nacas are actually contesting in the Somali "election". They have no shame at all.

 

Is so disgusting that traitors are running for presidency

 

 

It makes me sick

[galbeedi]

I do believe that the Kenyans will lose this one. Their president and vice president and their government in an earlier case refused to cooperate with this court.

 

For the first time we also clearly understood that what prime minister Ina C/Rashiid and former minister C/shakuur did was sign a memorandum of understanding to resolve the issue through United Nation's conflict resolution. They should not have done that, but to be fair, that did not mean they gave away the Somali sea.

[maakhiri1]

The main DEFENCE from KENYA is MOU, MOU, and MOU.

 

here http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/161/19088.pdf

 

And it puzzles me the traitors, QOORTA somalida u geliye MOU, Omar BUUR, Shariif Ahmed and AbdiShakur are all still here, with impunity, and some still hold offices. They should be barred from public office for life.

 

Still, I am very confident SOMALIS will win, sababtoo Xaq bay ku doodi

[gooni]

mushkiladdu waxa noo muuqda waa ka weyntahay aragtidayda

 

khiyaano wadan arin sahlan ma'ahan markii lagu cabiro halbeeg fiican.

 

dadka damiirka leh isma sharaxaan mas'uul dambana ma noqdaan, way is dilaan si, si wanaagsan loogu aaso kii laaluushka siiyayna u ogaado in lacagtiisii khasaartay.

 

khaladku meeshuu ka yimid waa madaxweynayaasha layska dooranayo ayadoon dhakhtar lasoo marin wax u kala saarana aysan jirin.

 

madaxweynaha hadda jooga wuxuu idaacadda ka sheegay asagoo isla quman si loogu arko nin wadaniya (khalad aa dhacay aa ka daba tagowhaynaa beesa badanaana ku baxday).

 

su'aasha dadka canjeeladooda iska dubta sidaydoo kale is weydiinayaa waxay tahay, see masuulka labaad ama sedexaad u noqdeen ayagoo ku eedaysan khiyaano qaran?

 

soo kama dhigna yaa wax ila gadi yaqaan?

 

warqadda la saxiixay waxaa keliya oo ku qornaa is af garad, macno ma lahayn! waa siday ku andocoodeen, haddii lays af gartay maxaa muranka keenay iyo la qarash garoobo?

 

madax aan oran karin dalka anaa iska leh hogaankoodu waa khasaaro.

 

umaddaa iska tabaalaysan intaa ka badan caalamka hortiisa yaan lagu dulayne isaga hor dhaqaaqa

 

Arrad waa dan, uskagna waa doqonimo.

[Tillamook]

@galbeedi

said:

I do believe that the Kenyans will lose this one. Their president and vice president and their government in an earlier case refused to cooperate with this court.

 

For the first time we also clearly understood that what prime minister Ina C/Rashiid and former minister C/shakuur did was sign a memorandum of understanding to resolve the issue through United Nation's conflict resolution. They should not have done that, but to be fair, that did not mean they gave away the Somali sea.

 

I agree... no one individual can "give" away anything that belongs to the Somali people, so this brouhaha about Omar "giving" away our sea is just election season politicking.

 

However, a negative outcome of this court case for Somalia could potentially become an ambition killing disaster for Cumar.

 

[galbeedi]

Guuni, hawsha waxa soo dedajiyey calaamadaynta iyo dib u cusboonaysiinta shariga badaha oo sodonkii sanaba dib loo eego ayaa ku soo beegantay. Kii hore waxa la saxiixay 1979, kan Soomaalida iyo Kenyaatugu ku heshiiyeen in laga wada hadlo waxa uu ahaa 2009. Ma jirto haba yaraatee dhul la siiyey Kenyaatiga ee waxa ay sameeyeen heshiiskii ayey dhinac kale u duween ayagoo ka faa'iidaysanaya Soomaalida liidata.

 

The way I see , it is electioneering. If you carefully read the memorandum, it only mentions the submission grants to one another outside the exclusive zone of 200 nautical miles.

 

"Memorandum of understanding between the government of the Republic of Kenya and the Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic, to grant each other no objection in respect of submissions on the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles to the commission".

 

It is clear that Kenya used this " MOA" to maneuver and used to grant exploration rights to foreign companies in the disputed area while Somalia was weak. By deploying troops to Kismaayo and Jubba , they wished to ignore the issue and never expected a Somali state was bold enough to challenge.

 

The bold moves by the diaspora and the Somali parliament to bring the issue to the forefront should be applauded by all Somalis. Finally , it was former foreign minister Dr. C/raxman Baile who was outraged and sent the issue to the court after Kenya refused or missed to show up at the arbitration meeting.

 

Also , remember, Kenya is not saying that the sea is their, they are arguing that ;" we should resolve the issue through the conflict resolution forums rather than the international court".

 

 

 

 

[Che -Guevara]

It's also worth remembering the Norwegians and their companies jump ships when the issue came to light.

 

Don't negotiate or sign anything without your lawyers being present

[galbeedi]

Exactly. In the real world the fine print is important. That is why people bring their lawyers when doing important transactions.

 

I heard that the document signed first by minister C/shakur was drafted by Kenyan lawyers.

[Che -Guevara]

That's mostly true.

 

Kenya presented another document by Fowsia; in it, the parties seem to suggest that they will agree on framework or methods of settling the dispute. We have to be very vigilant!

 

Something new from Kenyans

 

http://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2016/Sept/117781/kenya_and_somalia_plan_free_visa_pact.aspx

[maakhiri1]

Raga qaar laf baa toobin lagu hayaa, iyo indho iska rid from the real truth...what electioneering you talking about? I can see Hassan Culusow want now to use this as political currency, giving updates every 5 minutes like he doesn't have anything else to do but he did not sign the MOU, he did not direct the MOU, and the whole conflict and MOU was before him?

 

Agree, MOU does not give any land/sea to Kenya, but set motion for discussion, negoations, and created confusion, and that is all what smart Kenyans/lawyers wanted from beginning. C/shakir merely signed something he had no clue, and believe, he was even more tempted not to sign but was forced by Sharif Ahmed and Omar Sharmaake, All three current Presidential candidates,and this warrant till further investigation, to block them from running. It was either incompetence, or corruption.

 

You have to think and understand why KENYA is all about this MOU, it is because they want to cancel any court hearing and force SOMALIS to negotiation, which can take decades, at the same time continue mining/exploring.

 

The whole game of the Kenyas was to forces SOMALIS to never ending cycle of negotiations, and the MOU is the golden key. if only Somalis had an exit stategy under the MOU, like subject to parliament approval,which was not included.

 

Markii QAYLADA , SOmalitalk, isku yeedhay, after the SOmali parliament rejected this MOU, Somalis government and everyone realised the mistakes made, saw the clear intentions of The Kenyans, Qalin ku xadka iyo indho sarcaadka, and with great job filed this case.

 

GOD forbid but if the court says, that negotiations are not exhausted, and you both agreed to continue negotiations as agreed under MOU, then KENYA wins.

 

Kenya does not want the case to continue as they know they will lose.