BBC NEWS: Kenya ends Somali pirate's trials

[SealLion]

hi
again
folks!!!

Looks like the pirates are set to sail, yet again.

One of the latest scoops on the apparant pirate problem near the Horn of Africa states that Kenya will be terminating it's deal with the EU to trial and jail pirates caught of the coast near Somalia.

In all honesty, I had no idea that Kenya was in a deal with the EU to trial and jail pirates caught by various international navies. This is actually the first time I have heard of it.

Nevertheless, here's the news:

The Kenyan government has said it will not accept any more seized Somali pirates to be tried in its courts.

It said the international community had not lived up to its promises to help Kenya with the "burden" of prosecuting and imprisoning pirates.

The article does not specifically state why Kenya will be giving up it's deal with the EU navies but I have guessed at a reason below based on what the article states.

One of the main reasons I believe is over financial costs. You would think that Kenya might have received some kind of financial compensation with respect to insurance costs and other factors that have both indirectly and directly affected Kenya.

Such as the high cost of cost shipping through Kenyan ports which includes higher insurance fees as well as reduced traffic.

Apparently, tourist ships too have stayed away from that region.
Makes sense that they would considering what pirates are after, yes??

And for this reason Kenya must have made an agreement with the EU navies to prosecute pirates caught near coastlines raiding, raping, and pillaging various cargo ships and their maidens in distress.

That is why Kenya earlier agreed to prosecute pirates caught by the EU naval task force....

So now comes along the EU ambassador, Eric Van der Linden and states that

..... it was in Nairobi's interest to contain piracy, but it should not be its burden alone

I have no idea if that statement means that the EU will provide some kind of financial compensation or not as the article makes no mention of it.

I did make an earlier news post on the pirates and over some supposed allegations by Somalians and their complaints of international fishing crews in the region ignored.

Now, I'll tell you something here from one of my earlier posts about this news of Somalian pirates.
I don't believe in it.
It' a farcical tale at best.

This whole entire mumbo-jumbo about Somalian pirates is purposefully conjured up for the purpose of corporate gain.

Here's why and how:

Apparently, the Somalian pirates are quite poor.
This I believe to be true.
Many the people on the African continent are. Not just those people living along coastline of African states, but also in the Interior.

The reports of Somalian pirates who capture cargo vessels, apparently go an buy guns and more ammo for further raiding opportunities. Other than that, I really have no clue what else they would do with any ransom money.
If ransom money is actually a truthful claim to begin with.

The idea of ransom money could very well be a claim that is made up. It might not even be real claim to add to this supposed problem of ransoms demanded of by Somalian pirates.
But that's just my opinion.

I would tend to think that they give any money that they apparently get, give to their families.
You know....for basic living.

Now keep in mind that most of the media are owned by share-holders.
The main interest these shareholders have is to make money.

Not all western-based media are unreliable, but many are. Western, as well as Eastern-based media have commercial interests. Such media are also heavily influenced by governmental interests.

From what I understand from reading other reports is that Somali fisherman are fairly upset that the international fishing organizations are fishing in the Somalian coastal areas and removing what-ever stocks are available to those local fisherman in Somalia, Madagascar, and other nearby African states.

Additionally of what I understand from other reports is that the leader of Somalia, Omar Abdirashid Sharmarke, has been begging for help in controlling illegal fishing by international vessels in Somali waters.

Apparently, this action of illegal fishing by international fishing companies is the original reason for piracy occurring off the Somali and Madagascar coast.

Who has more power in this miscarriage of truth??

You can bet it's the one's with money.
Remember what I said earlier of share-holders and international fishing vessels representing fishing companies??

This, I believe, is why so little attention is given to the Somali pirates' side of the story

YOu see folks, media coverage of any kind can be ones-sided and superficial.

If Somalian pirates are making all these ransoms taking the loot from all these cargo vessels and tourist boats, you'd think that they were driving nice expensive BMWs, Porches, living in mansions, and the like, yes??

I've never heard of Somalian pirates driving BMW's and living the high life, living in 10-room mansions and the sort.
As a matter of fact, if you did hear that, you'd hear that Somalia is a very prosperous country, which it is not.

Somalia is still has an agricultural-based economy.
There are other things within the Somalian economy, but it is mainly agricultural.

There's also prospects for oil in the region. To be brutally honest, both American and Chinese oil companies are looking at the prospect of oil and other natural resources in Somalia.

Getting the picture now??

Somalian fisherman apparently are having the local fishing industry raped and pillaged by foreign commercial fishing industries.
That's just the start.
The big oil companies are probably going to come next.

Now think about some of these other reasons here that slik made mention of before in one of my news posts on Somalian pirates:

I believe that Somalian fisherman would more likely attack vessels that belong to international fishing crews rather than attack just plain old cargo vessels.

I mean, why would they attack vessels that have nothing to do with fishing??

If you were upset, would you not attack something that is related to your problems rather than attack something that has no relevance to your dispute over what-ever??

Additionally, pirates need fast boats.
Fast boats cost lots of money, yes??

Perhaps some of the Somalians involved in this piracy have fast boats, but IMO, I don't think that all of them have fast boats.

In addition, why fish the Somalian and Madagascan coast??
Why not fish other coastal regions??
Are other coastal regions depleted??
Because if those other coastal regions are depleted of fishing stocks, would that provide a reason why international fishing crews are in the Somali and Madagascan region now??

Look folks, if your interested what me and slik posted in one of my other news posts on the Somalian problem, as reported by unreliable Western and sometimes, Eastern-based media, that link is here:

Somalia

The link to the BBC news article is here:

BBC NEWS

Enjoy

[slikrapid]

Looks like the pirates are set to sail, yet again.

funny how they still find their way to cargo vessels even though the area is crammed with military ships from usa, europe, russia & china supposedly too - an example of what we may expect in the future, global military efforts/participation led by usa/nato: on seas (like near somalia) or ground (like in afghanistan), a step closer to the 'one world' army & governance

Kenya was in a deal with the EU to trial and jail pirates caught by various international navies. This is actually the first time I have heard of it.

even the legality of this idea is questionable: kenya trialing somali pirates (operating mostly in somalia or international waters) on behalf of the eu authorization!

One of the main reasons I believe is over financial costs. You would think that Kenya might have received some kind of financial compensation with respect to insurance costs and other factors that have both indirectly and directly affected Kenya.
Such as the high cost of cost shipping through Kenyan ports which includes higher insurance fees as well as reduced traffic.

kenya may be catching up to the fact that they won't be profiting from the deal, as i'm pretty sure their bigger insurance companies are in 'western' hands and 'their' cargo ships probably aren't being attacked, also, lower traffic means lower port importance, meaning lower prices for anything in that area, meaning a good chance to buy if one knows how the situation will be resolved in the near future

the pirates and over some supposed allegations by Somalians and their complaints of international fishing crews in the region ignored.
...
Other than that, I really have no clue what else they would do with any ransom money.
If ransom money is actually a truthful claim to begin with.

imo this is just an excuse, a reason why there would be a need to amass military vessels & seize permanent control of the area/route , profiting from 'protection' fees (basically a racketeering game), there are no poor fishermen turned pirate masterminds - those who do plunder and cash-in ransom are most likely western and/or western trained agents doing it for a fee, whereas the large portion of the 'spoils' goes to some offshore slush fund, which may explain the fact that none of the local somali pirates have actually shown any significant sign of getting richer, its simply because they work for someone else, they may just be used as low level soldiers working for pirate leaders, getting paid, but not having a clue where the ransom money goes and even less where it ends up later on

The idea of ransom money could very well be a claim that is made up.

imo its likely a real thing, as its simply more profitable to have it: if a company pays big insurance & protection, they can proceed without problems, but if they choose not to, then the pirates just happen to stumble upon them and demand a ransom - basically, its a win-win scenario for the puppeteers - some shipping company or a company that uses the ships for transportation gives them (or their allies/affiliates) hard time and they unleash the pirates on their ass!

Now keep in mind that most of the media are owned by share-holders.
The main interest these shareholders have is to make money.

so the puppeteers instruct them where to look for 'proper' information and they obey as a good 'owned' media does and/or they edit the potentially harmful information out, as a good 'owned' media editor does

There's also prospects for oil in the region. To be brutally honest, both American and Chinese oil companies are looking at the prospect of oil and other natural resources in Somalia.

actually, this oil craze in this part of the africa is consistent with similar developments in other countries with large oil reserves, like iraq - it seems as if the global governance aspirators are trying to get their hands on every? bigger oil supply, thus being able to control its price, availability (or scarcity, aka depletion 'card') and this can be a powerful strategic weapon for steering future economic trends & investments


in addition to this seems like usa & co. have been tampering with & stirring things up in this region for quite some time:

pre-ethiopian invasion on somalia:

the history of Western intervention in Somalia and the Horn of Africa extends back throughout the 20th century, during which time colonial powers and the Cold War superpowers waged proxy battles in constantly shifting alliances and conflicts. Somalia's civil wars--like those in Darfur and southern Sudan--must be seen as a direct result of the U.S. and the former USSR arming different sides with billions of dollars, all while famines raged.

The so-called humanitarian intervention by U.S. Marines in Somalia in 1992–93 was merely a continuation of this policy with a different name. Along with "fighting terror," humanitarian intervention became a watchword for the Clinton administration and the Bush administration after it--providing a cover for Washington's pursuit of economic and military aims, and justifying U.S. military deployment in the region.

In 2003, while the U.S. was invading and occupying Iraq, the U.S. military built a major base in Djibouti, a tiny but strategically located country next to Somalia and across the Red Sea from Yemen. The U.S. used its Camp Lemonier to train Ethiopian forces in the lead-up to the December 2006 invasion of Somalia.

the results:

Human Rights Watch published a report in December 2008 detailing the impact:

Two years of unconstrained warfare and violent rights abuses have helped to generate an ever-worsening humanitarian crisis, without adequate response. Since January 2007, at least 870,000 civilians have fled the chaos in Mogadishu alone--two-thirds of the city's population...Somalia's humanitarian needs are enormous.

Humanitarian organizations estimate that more than 3.25 million Somalis--over 40 percent of the population of south-central Somalia--will be in urgent need of assistance by the end of 2008...Freelance militias have robbed, murdered and raped displaced persons on the roads south towards Kenya. Hundreds of Somalis have drowned this year in desperate attempts to cross the Gulf of Aden by boat to Yemen.

And according to the Red Cross, about half of Somalia's population is dependent on food aid. Millions live in tent cities without adequate water, food or power, while hyperinflation has driven up the price of staple goods by six times since the start of 2008. As Whitney puts it, "It is the greatest humanitarian crisis in Africa today; a man-made hell entirely conjured up in Washington."

future prospects:

The Obama administration is also a strong proponent of Africom, a new U.S. military command for Africa officially launched on October 1, 2008, with the frightening potential to subject Somalia and other countries and regions to U.S. terror on a new scale. In fact, Africom could mean the Somali experience writ large for the entire continent, with local proxies and enhanced military reinforcement.

As Nunu Kidane put it in an article titled "Africom, Militarization and Resource Control":

If you're thinking traditional bases with thousands of military personnel, think again. General Kip Ward has said it is not about "bases" and "garrisons," but rather a network of sophisticated military operations strategically placed throughout the continent, which can be moved around and utilized for any purpose.

(1):
The Nightmare in Somalia
Another US Sponsored Catastrophe

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12318

[SealLion]

What an interesting article from Global Research that was made. I did read the Africom portion of the article and it is not surprising to hear of that at all considering the military-proxy influence that Africom is involved in.

What I really like is this quote here:

......."a different kind of command with a different orientation, one that we hope and expect will institutionalize a lasting security relationship with Africa." It is "a civilian-military partnership," where diplomatic and humanitarian relief by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will get directives from the Department of Defense

I emboldened those portions above because after reading it, I wanted to explore alternatives and possibilities to explain those.

Firstly, there states: a different kind of command with a different orientation

I took notice of the words / phrase different. NOrmally, a military command is more than likely oriented directly towards the obvious: military maneuvers and actions, yes??
However, I beg to differ over the obvious and normally intended definition of what a military command / base usually does.

Secondly, you see, considering that the word security is used in that phrase made by a US general, security, IMO, can have different connotations. It can mean energy security, military security, economic security, and a few other definitions that aren't really important at this stage of the explanation.

When I read that phrase made by the US general and taking into context over what the Global Research article spoke of, I interpret that phrase with respect to 'security', in the context of both economic and energy security. Most especially since Africom suppossedly has a different " orientation. "

That orientation is, IMO, under the guise of diplomatic and humanitarian relief.
This might very well be correct, I believe and may have truthful intentions.
But the Global Research article also makes mention of diplomatic and humanitarian reliefs taking it's directives from the defense department from the US.

I would question why would humanitarian relief takes directives from a defense department. Unless of course, relief is delivered of by soldiers, for example.
This I can believe b/c it does happen that relief does and can come from a military organization to a foreign outpost.

But when you consider the objectives of Africom, there is a bit more that meets the eye.

Have a look at this:

Official goals

U.S. Africa Command's formal mission statement.......

"United States Africa Command,......, conducts sustained security engagement through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign policy

Link: United States Africa Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

by the way. The geographic scope of command for Africom is:

..... all of the African continent except for Egypt.....

Ok. So it is there in support of US foreign policy.
OK.
That's fine.
But I went to one of the Wikipedia links near the bottom of that Wikipedia article entitled:

Blood Oil

Have a look at this:

Now according to the article, there exist in the Niger Delta ( in Nigeria, that is) , a bunch of militants that could expose an economic security risk to the US and even other countries, such as India, China, and maybe even some Euro countries.

apparently, on June 23, 2005 in the States, there convened a group of civilian and military people to an event that had energy and security as it's theme. The name of that meeting was called “Oil ShockWave”

Now IMO, not all conflict is construed by elite power brokers of the NWO, such as the Bilderberg Group.
IMO, some of the world's conflicts are genuine and not orchestrated by such elite groups.
That's just my opinion.
I'd say that the major one's are.
But I could be wrong, yes??

by the way, that event mentioned of above was hosted and organized by...

...public-interest groups concerned with energy policy and national security....

Those public interest groups aren't listed in that article.
I have no idea why.

Anyways...It's get's interesting real soon.

So apparently a civil conflict in the Niger Delta broke out. This was one of the discussions held at this meeting in the States:

Civil conflict breaks out in northern Nigeria—an area rife with Islamic militancy and religious violence—and the Nigerian Army is forced to intervene. The situation deteriorates, and international oil companies decide to end operations in the oil-rich Niger River delta, resulting in a loss of 800,000 barrels a day on the world market

That's still a lot of oil and might have an effect on world markets as we shall see...

.....Concurrently, in this scenario, a cold wave sweeping across the Northern Hemisphere boosts global demand by 800,000 barrels a day......

for every action, there is a re-action, yes??

Because global oil production is already functioning at close to .... 84 million barrels a day, small disruptions in supply shudder through the system very quickly.
A net deficit of almost two million barrels a day is a significant shock to the market, and the price of a barrel of oil rapidly goes to more than $80.

Well, someone was making money when the price of oil went up.
Guess who...??

I'll let you guys figure that out, yourselves.
So anyways, the interesting stuff starts right about here:

The United States...... would find itself in an extremely vulnerable position

Here's why:

Not only does the American economy rely on access to vast amounts of cheap oil, but the American military—heavily mechanized and tactically dependent on air power—literally runs on oil

can you figure things out now, folks??
cuz it's pretty easy to figure things out right there.

Eighty-dollar oil would mean that there was virtually no cushion in the world market and that any other disruption—a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, for example—would spike prices through the roof

well, IMO, I think that the price of oil did go through the roof about 2 years ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the price of oil go to some-where's around $ 140 a barrel??

If that isn't high, then I don't know what is.

But anyways, let's continue with the fun.

Nigeria—America’s fifth-largest oil supplier—could well be the next great triggering event

Well, IMO, those terrorist attacks are not genuine. I mean they are, but they are plausibly constructed and organized. All with the intent to have us believe that the world is becoming more and more chaotic.

Some of these chaotic events are construed.
And me and slik have talked about that a few times before.
Though, your probably wondering where the connection is between oil prices and the false premise of terrorist attacks come's in.

Create the impression of global unrest and chaos in which one of the instruments are terror and oil shortages, or high oil prices and global recession, or any other number of great combinations such as wars and the need for military interventions by foreign powers to keep the peace when one of the intentions might be peace through invasion and voila!!
You have an instant recipe for the New World Order.

, to continue with the article, we read this:

“The economic and national security risks of our dependence on oil—and especially on foreign oil—have reached unprecedented levels

Is there oil in the African region??
You betcha!!

In the Niger Delta there's lots.

.....Nigeria has become Africa's biggest producer of petroleum.....

Niger Delta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and....

Because Nigerian oil is so vital to the American economy......it ( Niger Delta oil, that is) was to be considered a “strategic national interest.”

Considering that Africoms interest's are all of Africa ( as stated above) , it is no wonder that there is military interests and interventions in Africa by US Africom in concert with US foreign policy and interests.
Those interests are also global interests, such as international corporate interests.

I can believe that Africom's interest's are also involved in the Madagascan and Somalian region.

This "war on terror" is part and parcel of the New World Order to bring about the justification for military interventions in that area of Africa.

Not just for Nigerian oil production and economic security for foreign powers, but also for justification for the potential oil that is in the offshore region of Somalia and Madagascar.
This I stated above in my previous post.
In this case, because it involves Somalian pirates, that military intervention is justified under the guise of security.

Yes. I can see your point, slik.
Africom isn't just there as per governmental statements for the existence of Africom, but is there other reasons why.

To participate in and ensure an image of global chaos ( one of those chaos' being pirates or even militancy in the Niger Delta).

Which subsequently brings about the energy security issue ( Niger Delta and rise of militancy and US oil dependency or even the potential oil reserves of the Somalian coast or even fishing opportunities by fishing companies from Japan as an example ) as well as economic security (fishing can be construed as an economic staple being part and parcel of an economy of a country.
Japan is a good example. ).

Which subsequently ensures the free flow of corporate money ( Chinese, Indian, US, and other nation's oil companies both in Niger Delta and Somalia as well as international fishing companies doing business of the African coast near Somalia ).

Which of/c brings about the need for navies ( Somalian coast / pirates as an example), military bases ( energy security for Niger Delta as an example), and the like in the African region which of/c, IMO, explains the dismissal for Somalian complaint's of those same fishing companies competing for and reducing what-ever scraps are left for Somalian fisherman, who don't really have a beef with cargo vessels and tourist boats, but more so with large fishing company's ships.

IT's just this false image being brought about by organizations such as the International Maritime Bureau who are in concert with big international fishing companies from Japan, China and Western Europe and are making their home in the Gulf of Aden their playground.

...They ( the trawlers from Japan, Europe, China, and others ) came with huge trawlers, dug deep and took as much of the livelihood of these poor Somali fishermen and destroyed what they couldn't take with them. And because there was no government in power with a national coast guard, the situation went on for more than a decade when fishermen decided to take the law into their own hands

Link: Somali fisherman

[slikrapid]

That orientation is, IMO, under the guise of diplomatic and humanitarian relief.
This might very well be correct, I believe and may have truthful intentions.
But the Global Research article also makes mention of diplomatic and humanitarian reliefs taking it's directives from the defense department from the US.

I would question why would humanitarian relief takes directives from a defense department. Unless of course, relief is delivered of by soldiers, for example.
This I can believe b/c it does happen that relief does and can come from a military organization to a foreign outpost.

i'd say it sounds truthful to the public and the majority of the low level humanitarian personnel are genuinely interested in helping those in need, but there are a few core problems, like, individuals who run the operations have different agendas running in the background, for example, getting rid of old & possibly outdated medical supplies, testing of new vaccinations on people inside refugee camps, dumping old food supplies, possibly chemically dangerous utensils/toys/bottles/... unacceptable by western standards, and naturally observing & recording the outcome for testing/research purposes

then there is the constant 'demand' or encouraging people in developed countries to financially support the humanitarian efforts (remember bush saying something like: we don't need your blankets, we need your money), even though transparency is almost an unknown practice, and then when the money 'disappears', they can conveniently blame some greedy local warlord

not to mention that probably none of the big humanitarian campaigns have ever changed the local situation for the suffering population, hence the term: over-aided (with no significant results)

as for the DoD giving directives, it likely means that they are the ones who decide where (location) the aid is going and if it can go at all, showing whose interests come first, so if one is in a location with no or low military/corporate importance, he can kiss the aid goodbye since no one will be coming

So it is there in support of US foreign policy.

but seriously, virtually the whole world is of strategic importance to the usa, so they had to divide it into large sectors, i mean, talk about insatiable ambitions, its just beyond sanity - it shows how that country is being used as the tool to reach global presence/overview/control through military deployment, multinational company expansions and so on

IMO, some of the world's conflicts are genuine and not orchestrated by such elite groups.
That's just my opinion.
I'd say that the major one's are.

they might just as well be omnipresent through proxies, as the only way to truly control the game is to have all the bases covered and backup plans for every scenario - even if they don't steer the local conflicts, there is always a bigger player nearby, thinking about how to exploit happenings in his backyard, which conflicting side may be the most suitable for supporting it and getting something in return

The United States...... would find itself in an extremely vulnerable position
Here's why:
Not only does the American economy rely on access to vast amounts of cheap oil, but the American military—heavily mechanized and tactically dependent on air power—literally runs on oil

imo this is only partially true, they do need a lot of oil for their war machine, but its not like they depend on foreign sources that much that a temporary crisis in foreign oil supply would leave them with 'no' fuel to use - during past decades usa has created multiple backups of possible oil sources outside its country, meaning they could easily just switch to another source (of course, in public they would play the game of a concerned superpower, without actually being in any serious shortage), not to mention their activities back home where there were reports of old unused mine shafts being pumped full with oil as to increase the reserves in case of a major foreign shortage - sure, the citizens would have to pay a higher price, just as the perceived world supply situation demands, but rest assured, their military will still get it cheap as expected (and, ultimately, who can dare to increase oil prices to the usa military, without a justified fear of retaliation anyway)