Thus, in reading such headlines, one has to decipher which group now seeks to make claim on the assets of other countries to protect the shores and littorals and EEZ that a failed mess of a state cannot protect on its own. Let's look at the article
Somali officials said that NATO must do more to prevent the illegal fishing that sparked the latest pirate hijacking.So, not a Somali government official, but rather a Puntland official.
Some Somali fishermen, including ex-pirates, have complained of harassment by illegal foreign trawlers. Officials from Puntland have warned that more hijackings could occur if the problem isn't tackled.
"We requested NATO warships to tackle the illegal fishing, but they replied it was not their mandate," Abdihakim Abdullahi Omar, the vice president of Puntland, told reporters at Bosasso port where the crewmen were released.
"We told them that if they cannot take measures against the illegal fishing vessels who come under their cover and those who pour wastes into our waters, then their presence is a burden rather than a benefit."
And, one has to wonder how NATO ships impose any sort of burden on the Somalis, except those who are engaged in illegal activities, since I don't think there are many liberty ports in the failed state and I know Somalia or Puntland is paying one dime for the NATO forces. I guess just having them out there weighs heavy on the Somali minds.
Then there is this, which echoes what I have long said,
However, Joshua Tallis, a Research Analyst at CNA Corporation, a nonprofit research and analysis organization, told the Sri Lanka Guardian that fishing has not traditionally been a major part of Somali culture or economics, nor were most pirates former fishermen. "That does not excuse the devastation of toxic dumping and IUU fishing, only its ability to causally explain piracy," he said.
|Puntland Marine Police|