Saturday, March 9, 2013

Pirates In Global Waters: In Somalia, Has The Business Model Fallen Flat For Criminals On The Oceans? Is High Sea Piracy Unprofitable?




It’s a tight squeeze for commercial vessels trying to move their goods between Europe and Asian markets -- but not as tight as it used to be.

Beginning in the Mediterranean Sea, ships have to pass through the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea. Then they navigate the narrow Bab-el-Mandeb -- Arabic for the “Strait of Grief” -- between the sandy coastlines of Yemen and Djibouti. Next comes the Gulf of Aden, which borders northern Somalia and opens up to the Arabian Sea.
Photo: Reuters/Sgt. Mats Nystrom/Combat Camera Swedish Armed Forces/Scanpix
A soldier aboard the Swedish corvette HMS Malmo aims his machine gun at a boat carrying suspected pirates in the Gulf of Aden on May 26, 2009.
Tens of thousands of ships pass through the Gulf of Aden annually, as do tens of billions of dollars in cargo, and about 4 percent of the world’s oil supply.

That's a rich bounty for criminals, and so in recent years, piracy -- an old scourge -- has exploded onto the scene with new intensity.

Since 2008, pirates based in the East African country of Somalia have launched hundreds of attacks against passing ships and held thousands of hostages. It’s ransom they’re after: On a good day, just one seizure can yield millions of dollars in profit.

But times aren’t what they used to be for these maritime criminals. The business of piracy has taken a nosedive in Somalia, and now lucrative old networks are falling apart at the seams.

Data compiled by the International Maritime Bureau, or IMB, show that piracy hit a five-year low in 2012. Only 28 ships were successfully hijacked. A total of 297 were attacked, down from 439 the year before and 445 the year before that. Those figures are global: In the areas surrounding Somalia, only 75 ships reported attacks last year, with 14 of them hijacked.

Tipping The Scales

As with all shady enterprises, the costs and revenue associated with piracy are difficult to pin down. One 2012 report by researchers at the London School of Economics and Political Science and the Institut d’Analisi Economica in Barcelona, Spain, estimated that during piracy’s golden years, its total gross revenue from ransom amounted to $200 million a year. Accounting for presumed operating costs leaves a net profit of around $120 million.


Even shared among thousands of pirates, criminal financiers, and go-betweens, that’s a big chunk of change for citizens of a country among the world's poorest, with no functioning government and nearly one-half the people living below the poverty line, and where society is in such turmoil that even the World Bank has no current estimate for its gross domestic product per capita.

But the gains of Somali pirates are a pittance compared with the costs they force on the global economy. According to an Oceans Beyond Piracy report, the combined costs of increased security, insurance, rescue efforts, lost business, and ransoms amounted to between $6.6 billion and $6.9 billion in 2011. At least 80 percent of those costs are incurred by the shipping industry alone.

Human costs are also high. Another Oceans Beyond Piracy report tallied up the deaths and found that 35 hostages lost their lives as a result of pirate captivity in 2011. These tragedies result from attacks, malnutrition, or simply getting caught in the crossfire. In total, 1,206 people were held hostage by pirates that year, and 57 percent of them reported mistreatment, including abuse and employment as human shields. Also during that year, 111 Somali pirates died in clashes.

Despite all this, the hijackers don’t see themselves as bad guys, or so they say. Many argue their original goal was to stop foreign vessels from invading their waters and fishing in their territories.




Illegal fishing is indeed a problem for many African countries. Foreign trawlers regularly invade the nautical territories of poverty-stricken nations that lack defense resources. The crews use irresponsible and wasteful fishing methods, harming marine life and ultimately depleting supplies for communities that rely on fish for sustenance and commerce.

But Somalia’s case is a difficult one to judge. Although the country has the longest coastline in Africa, its main export is livestock, not fish. In terms of data, Somalia is one of the most obscure places on earth, making it difficult to tell just how much of the country is dependent on fish for food or income.

Furthermore, Somalia has never officially laid claim to its own Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ.

“Legally, every nation has jurisdiction up to 12 nautical miles from the coast,” explained Cyrus Mody, assistant director of the IMB. Everything beyond that, up to 200 nautical miles from land, has to be declared. Somalia has not done that. If the country has not declared an EEZ, then, arguably, those waters are international.”

Mody added that, given the human-rights abuses committed by pirates, their claims of morality are hard to swallow. “You could say they’re trying to legitimize what they’re doing. But they are treating crews in captivity in an inhumane manner,” he said.

Keeping It Local

Most of Somalia’s piracy is based in the northern, semiautonomous region of Puntland, with some spillover farther south into Galmadug and central Somalia.

The criminals had their heyday between 2008 and 2011. Kingpins enjoyed lavish lifestyles, complete with fancy cars, showy villas, and, most important, lots of khat -- a bitter leaf that, when chewed, acts as a stimulant and plays a role similar to that of espresso in Western countries. But even the high rollers have lately seen their incomes dwindle and their creditors come calling.

Canadian journalist and author Jay Bahadur spent a total of three months living among Somali pirates in 2009. A connection to the son of Abdirahman Farole -- who was elected Puntland’s president on Jan. 8 of that year -- helped him to stay out of danger, and Bahadur got a rare glimpse of the pirate lifestyle during its peak.

As it turned out, 2009 was the beginning of the end for pirates in Puntland. Farole put anti-piracy initiatives high on his political agenda, and his administration proved more successful than its predecessors.

“One of the things the new government was able to do was go into Eyl [a coastal town and piracy hub] and secure it, and this was in part because the president was from the same clan as many of the people there. The previous administration’s clan hadn’t been able to do it,” Bahadur said.

Although they were helped by international naval patrols at sea, these local efforts played a significant role in hampering pirates’ activities on land.

Puntland was able to pursue its anti-piracy campaign with a high degree of autonomy. It essentially functions as a nation-state, since a kaleidoscope of militant gangs farther south have made Somalia’s capital city of Mogadishu too weak to assert its power.

That may be precisely why piracy was able to thrive in Puntland.

“For pirates, Puntland had a perfect blend of security and insecurity,” Bahadur said. There werent other armed gangs to interfere with pirates activities, but at the same time security was just lax enough for them to operate.” 

The situation has grown more complicated over the past year, with Somalia taking baby steps to cobble together a new government after two decades of failed statehood. A new administration was put in place in September. It was not popularly elected; that would be a logistical nightmare at this point.

Already, the young government is plagued by corruption. But President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud has been welcomed into the international community. Aid flows into the poverty-stricken country are increasing, and, just this week, the United Nations Security Council voted to partially lift an arms embargo against Somalia for a trial period of one year. Restrictions on heavy weaponry are still in place.

Mogadishu’s law-enforcement capabilities -- especially on the high seas -- remain light. But Mohamoud has taken a symbolic step to combat the piracy problem. In late February, he released a statement suggesting amnesty for younger pirates to draw new recruits away from a life of crime.

“It’s kind of symbolic,” Bahadur said. But pirates are willing to do it because they have nothing else to gain. When you’re a pirate making calculations, the fact that piracy is less profitable has to factor in.”

Walking The Plank

Piracy was once an attractive option for young Somalis looking for a quick shilling, but it has increasingly lost its luster.

Commercial ships passing through the Bab-el-Mandeb and Gulf of Aden have responded to increased risks by beefing up their own security. It’s a simple solution, though not a cheap one. Armed guards were usually effective deterrents for Somali pirates, who could wait for more vulnerable prey given the high volume of ships passing through these waters.

But as more vessels began armoring up, the pickings grew slim.

“Because the commercial vessels started arming themselves so well, the types of vessels these pirates could get their hands on in late 2011 and 2012 did not belong to owners who were able to afford multimillion-dollar ransoms,” Mody said. The catch was not as rewarding.”

To add insult to injury, commercial vessels are longer going it alone. Keen to protect the valuable exports and imports passing around the Horn of Africa, various navies -- representing European Union nations, NATO countries, and independent states -- swooped in to offer another level of protection.

Personnel on these ships can be more proactive than crews on commercial vessels. In international waters, naval forces from around the world can pursue suspicious skiffs, arrest crew members, and seize equipment.

Feeling more and more tightly squeezed, Somali pirates realized their market was shrinking, so they decided to raise their prices in compensation. Scoring millions of dollars, rather than hundreds of thousands, became the ideal. But that backfired, since demanding higher ransom only drags out the negotiation process. Pirates thereby incurred extra costs, since they had to keep seized vessels running and feed their hostages. Profit margins continued to shrink.

“It has become more difficult for pirates to successfully hijack ships, and the financiers who put money into these ventures are coming back with a loss,” Mody said. That has contributed to a rethink on the part of the pirates as to whether this business model, which used to be extremely lucrative in the initial years, is not that lucrative anymore.”

Although Somali piracy is on the decline, it’s not over yet. Incidents are still occurring in the Horn of Africa and around the world: So far this year, 44 attacks are on record with the IMB. There are seven vessels and 113 hostages currently in captivity.

“We’re not there yet,” Mody said. We are still advising extreme caution while going through these areas because there are still sporadic incidents occurring.”

In Somalia, a long-term solution will depend on peace and progress. The establishment of a new government marks just one more in a long line of attempts to establish order in Mogadishu, and it could take years before the country even has the resources to arrange something as basic as a general election.

But some areas within Somalia, such as Puntland, offer signs of hope. Farole, whose familiarity with clan-based politicking has been a major boon to his administration, has proven his efficacy in tackling the piracy problem. Under his administration, the Puntland Maritime Police Force, or PMPF, was deployed in early 2012. While international navies did their part at sea, PMPF dismantled piracy strongholds on land.

The PMPF, mainly funded by the United Arab Emirates, was frowned upon by the U.N. due to concerns about a lack of oversight, a risk of destabilization, and violations of Somalia's arms embargo. Moving forward, it seems that a Mogadishu-based approach will do more to lend legitimacy to domestic anti-piracy efforts.

Meanwhile, disillusionment may already be changing attitudes on the grassroots level.

"“There have been independent efforts in communities along the Gulf of Aden," Bahadur said. "The local people chased the pirates out. I think these communities got a bit irritated about pirates driving up prices and corrupting local economies, corrupting women and youth, and bringing in drugs and alcohol."

The scourge won't end soon, but it's headed in the right direction for now.

These are times of great potential and enormous challenge for Somalia, which sits at the crossroads of commerce but comes from 20 years of chaos and failed statehood. Mogadishu is making its way, with help from the international community, toward a time when growth can begin and a long-divided country can come together. And that, something all Somalis can take part in, would be the real buried treasure.

Kenyatta wins presidency by slim margin in Kenyan election

Uhuru Kenyatta
NAIROBI -Reuters - Uhuru Kenyatta, the son of Kenya's founding president, won the presidential election by the slimmest of margins with 50.03 percent, provisional results showed, just enough to avoid a run-off after a race that has divided the nation along tribal lines.

Kenyatta faces trial for crimes against humanity. If he is declared president-elect by the election commission, which has still to announce the official result, Kenya will become the second African country after Sudan to have a sitting president indicted by the International Criminal Court.

In the early hours of Saturday joyous supporters of Kenyatta thronged the streets in his tribal strongholds, lighting fluorescent flares and waving tree branches and chanting "Uhuru, Uhuru," television pictures showed.


Kenyatta's main rival, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, trailed with 43.28 percent of the vote. A close adviser to Odinga said he would not concede the election and would launch a legal challenge if Kenyatta was officially declared the victor.

"He is not conceding the election. If Uhuru Kenyatta is announced president-elect then he will move to the courts immediately," Salim Lone told Reuters, speaking on behalf of the prime minister.

Odinga's camp had said during tallying that the ballot count was deeply flawed and had called for it to be halted.

To secure an outright win a candidate needed more than 50 percent of the votes. Kenyatta, the deputy prime minister, achieved that but with a margin of just 4,100 of the more than 12.3 million votes cast.

The first-round win, which must be officially confirmed by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), means Kenyans who waited five days for the vote result will not now face a second round that would have prolonged uncertainty.

The winner also needs to get at least 25 percent of the votes in 24 counties out of 47. This is expected to be confirmed by the electoral commission. The IEBC is due to announce the official result on Saturday at 11 a.m. (8 a.m. British time).

Odinga also lost in a disputed vote in 2007 that led to weeks of tribal killings. His camp has said any challenge will follow the rule of law and Kenyans generally have greater trust in the judiciary now than they did five years ago after reforms.

WESTERN TIES

John Githongo, a former senior government official-turned-whistleblower, urged the rival coalitions, Odinga's CORD and Kenyatta's Jubilee, to ensure calm. "Jubilee and CORD, what you and your supporters say now determines continued peace and stability in Kenya. We are watching you!" he said on Twitter.

International observers broadly said the vote and count had been transparent so far and the electoral commission, which replaced an old, discredited body, promised a credible vote.

Provisional figures displayed by the electoral commission showed Kenyatta won 6,173,433 votes out of a total of 12,338,667 ballots cast. Odinga secured 5,340,546 votes.

The result will pose a dilemma for Kenya's big Western donors, with Kenyatta due to go on trial in The Hague accused of orchestrating the tribal violence five years ago.

The United States and other Western states warned before the vote that diplomatic ties would be complicated with a win by Kenyatta, whose running mate William Ruto has also been indicted by the International Criminal Court.

How Western capitals would deal with Kenya under Kenyatta and the extent to which they would be ready to deal with his government will depend heavily on whether Kenyatta and Ruto cooperate with the tribunal.

"It won't be a headache as long as he cooperates with the ICC," said one Western diplomat. "We respect the decision of the majority of the Kenyan voters."

Both Kenyatta and Ruto deny the charges and have said they will cooperate to clear their names, though Kenyatta had to fend of jibes during the campaign by Odinga that he would have to run government by Skype from The Hague.

Kenyans hope this vote, which has until now passed off with only pockets of unrest on voting day, would restore their nation's reputation as one of Africa's most stable democracies after mayhem last time.

"FORGET THE PRESIDENCY"

The city of Kisumu, the biggest in Odinga's tribal heartland and a flashpoint in the violence five years ago, was calm early on Saturday and there appeared little appetite for unrest, even if some believed the poll was flawed.

"I urge our candidate to forget the presidency and let the will of God prevail," said cloth vendor Diana Ndonga.

As businesses in Kisumu began opening, Erick Odhiambo, another Odinga supporter said, "The vote was rigged and I'm not happy. Raila (Odinga) should battle it out in court."

The test will be whether any challenges to the outcome are worked out in the courts, and do not spill into the streets.

Odinga's camp had said even before the result that they were considering legal action, but said they would pursue it through the courts and the newly reformed judiciary.

That is a change from 2007, when Odinga said he could not trust the judiciary at the time to treat the case fairly.

Kenyatta's camp had also complained about delays in counting and other aspects of the process. But many Kenyans said this race was more transparent than previous votes.

Turnout reached 86 percent of the 14.3 million eligible voters, in a nation where tribal loyalties largely trump ideology at the ballot box.

(Writing by Richard Lough and Edmund Blair; Editing by Todd Eastham and Lisa Shumaker)

In U.S. court, Bin Laden kin pleads not guilty to 9/11 charges

The case against Sulaiman abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, reignites political debate about whether terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian court in the United States.

Osama bin Laden's son-in-law Sulaiman abu Ghaith is depicted listening as his court-appointed attorney, Philip Weinstein, speaks in federal court in Manhattan on Friday. Abu Ghaith, an Al Qaeda spokesman, pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to kill Americans in the Sept. 11 attacks. (Associated Press, Elizabeth Williams / March 8, 2013)




By Richard A. Serrano and Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times

March 8, 2013, 9:52 p.m.

NEW YORK — In jailhouse blues, hands cuffed behind his back, the son-in-law of Osama bin Laden pleaded not guilty in Manhattan on Friday to a federal charge of conspiring to murder Americans — reigniting the debate over where alleged terrorists should be prosecuted.

Sulaiman abu Ghaith, a 47-year-old senior Al Qaeda leader who for the last decade had been hiding in Iran, now may become the first defendant to be tried in a U.S. civilian court on charges related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, just blocks from where the World Trade Center towers were destroyed.

Abu Ghaith is also part of a broader political drama that once again pits the Obama administration, which eventually wants to close the prison for terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, against Republicans demanding its continued use.

Three years ago, the administration attempted to have five alleged Sept. 11 plotters tried in New York as well, only to be blocked by congressional legislation prohibiting any Guantanamo prisoners from being transferred to civilian courts.

Abu Ghaith was seized in Turkey recently and flown to the U.S.

"We're putting the administration on notice," warned Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "We think that sneaking this guy into the country, clearly going around the intent of Congress when it comes to enemy combatants, will be challenged."

But sources in the Department of Justice said they were confident the case against Abu Ghaith would pass muster in federal court. They said they reviewed classified information related to the case to ensure it could be properly handled.

They also alerted New York officials that the case was pending, hoping to avert the backlash that erupted in 2010 when Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. tried to get alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others moved from Guantanamo to the same courthouse in New York.

"There was a lot of due diligence done here," said one source close to the case.

Much of it appeared to have paid off.

"It's the federal government's choice," said New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, speaking to New Yorkers in his weekly radio interview.

He rejected any large security concerns, as were voiced the last time, saying, "If you are in federal court here in New York, you go from the holding pen to the courtroom underground."

Jim Riches, a former deputy New York fire chief whose police officer son died in the 2001 attacks, said it was equally important that Sept. 11 survivors and relatives of the dead finally get a local trial.

"The families haven't had any justice for years," he said. "We were promised justice. It's been anything but. It's just been a political fight."

Other Sept. 11 families agreed with Republicans in Washington that Abu Ghaith should not be tried in New York.

Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles was the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, said Holder had provided a platform for Abu Ghaith to espouse his views.

"He's going to make maximum use of that stage a few blocks from ground zero," she said. Of Holder, she said, he "has really made a hash of this."

Tim Sumner, whose brother-in-law, firefighter Joseph Leavey, was killed at the World Trade Center, warned that this "will come back to bite America."

In court, Abu Ghaith appeared thinner and older than he did in the videos and photographs that emerged through the years, which showed him espousing Al Qaeda propaganda through a microphone, often with a rifle nearby, and sitting beside Bin Laden. The turban he once wore was gone, revealing a balding head. The thick, black beard had gone gray. The flowing tunics were replaced by a prison jumpsuit.

He sat quietly beside his court-appointed attorney, Philip Weinstein, as U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan repeated some of Abu Ghaith's words from the videos back to him.

He is accused of swearing allegiance to Bin Laden and asking others to do so, and, on the morning after Sept. 11, appearing in a video with Bin Laden calling on the "Nation of Islam" to battle "the Jews, the Christians and the Americans."

During the arraignment, Assistant U.S. Atty. John P. Cronan announced the defendant had given a 22-page "extensive post-arrest statement" to authorities. He did not reveal the contents.

Graham and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said a full interrogation of Abu Ghaith at Guantanamo would be more valuable than bringing him to justice in a U.S. court. Otherwise, Ayotte said, "we lose valuable intelligence that can be used to prevent future attacks — can be used to understand further who also is involved in Al Qaeda and what they're planning against our country."

Republicans also questioned whether the overarching conspiracy charge against Abu Ghaith was brought to keep the case out of Guantanamo. Stand-alone conspiracy cases are not considered war crimes and are not permitted in military tribunals.

Wells C. Bennett, a Brookings Institution expert in national security law, said the restrictions Congress passed after the Mohammed controversy "in no way prohibited" the administration from bringing Abu Ghaith directly to trial in the U.S. The law "explicitly left open the option of civilian trials for foreign terrorists apprehended abroad," he said.

The Obama administration has not moved any new prisoners to Guantanamo since the president took office in January 2009.

During that time, Abu Ghaith is only the second Al Qaeda militant captured overseas and brought to the U.S. Thousands more purported militants have been killed in drone strikes.

And with the slow pace of cases at Guantanamo, going there was clearly "an extremely unattractive option for the administration," Bennett said.

The charges against Abu Ghaith at this point portray him as a spokesman for Al Qaeda who after the Sept. 11 attacks warned in the videos of a "storm" of planes to follow. He also encouraged Muslims and anti-Americans not to board planes or live in high-rise buildings. As a close relative to Bin Laden, he is said to have "assisted" the Al Qaeda leader, who was killed in a U.S. raid in Pakistan in 2011.

In 2002, after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, Abu Ghaith smuggled himself into Iran and, according to U.S. intelligence officials, hid there until recently, when he showed up in Turkey. He was held briefly, and then taken into custody by U.S. officials.

richard.serrano@latimes.com

tina.susman@latimes.com

Serrano reported from Washington and Susman from New York.
 

International Women's day: 3 challenges women face around the world

It’s not always used as a platform to spread awareness about gender equality – Kazakhstan is known to have beauty pageants on International Women's Day, while Russian women get flowers that may be poor compensation for inequalities they habitually face. But International Women’s Day, March 8, is generally a moment to celebrate the kaleidoscope of roles that half the world’s population takes on every day.

Much of the news is good: Women continue to push into the higher echelons of the working world and get stronger legal protections, such as the just-renewed US Violence Against Women Act. But issues such as violence, inequality at work, and traditional expectations and cultural practices, such as child marriage, confront women on every continent around the world. Here is a sampling of challenges women faced this year:

Violence

In this undated file photo, Malala Yousufzai, the 15-year-old girl who was shot at close range in the head by a Taliban gunman in Pakistan, reads a book as she continues her recovery at the hospital in a Britain hospital. (Queen Elizabeth Hospital/AP/File)
The UN declares an International Women's Day theme each year. This year’s focus? “A promise is a promise: Time for action to end violence against women.”

The story of Malala Yousufzai, the schoolgirl shot in the head by the Pakistani Taliban for advocating education for girls, reminded the world that the promise of girls’ education and safety in rural Pakistan - among other places - has not been met.

The Monitor’s Ben Quinn wrote that when Malala was transferred to a hospital in Britain for treatment, for some of the diaspora in the UK, the attack “struck a chord in parts of society where traditional attitudes, in particular those carried over from rural northern Pakistan, still manifest themselves through resistance – in a minority of families – toward education of girls.”
Not long after the world caught its breath from the Malala incident, gruesome news from India energized the international dialogue on violence against women:
 
The case of a young woman brutally gang raped on a bus and left for dead in New Delhi, brought the issue to the forefront in a way that may yet be a game changer for India and other countries.

In India, thousands of people protested and pressured the police and government to speed up the sluggish judicial system process in cases for rape, known to drag on for years. It also may have helped spur a movement in Indonesia – though still small – to take to the streets to protest offensive remarks from an Indonesian high court judge who “joked” that women might enjoy rape.

Much has been made in the past couple of years of the important role women can play in revolution. But there has been a dark side of that participation: In Egypt, women who dare to go out to protest the government, as the Monitor’s Kristen Chick reports, have faced profound threats to their safety:
Tahrir square has become a terrifying place for women as sexual assault becomes more common and violent. But fed up, civilians are making it their job to prevent it and rescue women from attacks.
Several groups have formed, organizing to prevent such attacks, rescue women who are attacked, and raise awareness about an issue that is not often openly addressed.
And encouragingly, hundreds of volunteers created an organized effort to respond to the escalation of assaults against women in Tahrir.
As women battle such violence across the world, what motivates change?
In Latin America, a region where emerging economies are increasingly paying attention to GDP output, Sara Miller Llana looks at whether a first-of-its-kind study that quantifies the intergenerational price tag of domestic violence could motivate policy-makers, where other efforts have failed.

Women in business

Women are breaking taboos and boundaries globally by forming businesses in the face of significant cultural resistance.

Female entrepreneurs like Myassar Issa in Ramallah, West Bank, are gaining a new sense of independence as the family breadwinner. Her husband has two other wives and can't provide for her and her three sons, reports the Monitor’s Christa Case Bryant.

Since Mrs. Issa’s shop opened with a microfinance loan of $1,400 two years ago, she has repaid that loan and gotten another, doubled her merchandise, and is saving money for her sons to get married.
Statistics of female participation in business are hard to come by, but estimates that women entrepreneurs are increasing in number and today represent 5 to 10 percent of business owners in the formal sector and 30 percent in the informal sector.
Still, they have a long way yet to go. The issue of equal pay for equal work, especially among educated women in the workforce, is a common battle:
Colombia-based Monitor correspondent Sibylla Brodzinsky reports:
Even with an educational advantage, women are still mostly employed in lower-paid occupations in Latin America such as teaching, healthcare, or the service sector, like restaurants. Comparing men and women of the same age and educational level, [an Inter-American Development Bank] study found that men earn 17 percent more than women do in Latin America. That number is actually down from 25 percent in 1992, but the pace at which the gap is narrowing remains slow.
When it comes to the higher-paying fields such as law, architecture, and engineering – where women hold just a third of the jobs – the gender gap widens to 58 percent.
Part of the problem is that the majority of the better-paying jobs available for high-school graduates in the region are culturally associated with men, says Isabel Londoño, an education and gender issues specialist in Bogota, Colombia.

In Europe, Italian women are more likely to get a temporary contract than a male with the same education level, reports the Monitor’s Giulia Lasagni, And since women are overrepresented in temporary jobs, which were the first to be slashed during Europe’s recession, they typically have suffered more.

Entrenched perceptions

Despite significant progress, selling social reform to large segments of the population can be a major problem in many countries. In Afghanistan, even after 10 years of various education and political efforts as well as investing millions of dollars into the country to sell social reform, the status of women remains low.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a call for change with a report in 2012 that highlighted the ongoing issue of women who are arrested and imprisoned for fleeing abusive family situations.
The authors advocated that the Afghan government stop imprisoning such women. Putting women in jail for this is not supported by the Afghan penal code or Islamic law, HRW officials argued at a press conference for mostly Afghan journalists. The threat of imprisonment also discourages women from reporting abuse or trying to leave dangerous situations.
That human rights officials were met by a few concerning responses from journalists, considered to be among the most educated in the country, highlighted just how high the hurdles may be, Tom Peter reports:
One local reporter asked, “If this is not considered a crime and it becomes rampant in the society and everyone does it, don’t you think that in a society like Afghanistan it will lead to a kind of anarchism here and everything will get out of control? What will be the consequences?”
And still, women and advocates for women’s rights press on, lead by example, and win small victories, even in very traditional societies. In Nepal, for example, the custom of chaupadi forces menstruating women to sleep outside of their homes:
For generations here, menstruating women have slept outside of their homes, in small sheds or in the family stable. They are considered impure and untouchable, so they cannot enter the house or touch communal water or food. The activist, Dhurbar Sunar, is not having it: “I think this is a social crime in terms of women’s rights,” he says.
Mr. Sunar is the Project Coordinator at Samabikas, a local organization pushing to abolish chaupadi here in Achham district and elevate women’s status. They work village by village, declaring them “chaupadi free” as they go.
Another small victory, reports Christa Case Bryant from Saudi Arabia, is the effect of sports on girls in the very traditional country. Though girls are not permitted to play in the presence of men, and it’s still very much kept quiet:
"Sport is ... a small window [into change]," says businesswoman Lamya Al Abdulkarim, who recently helped launch a new girls' soccer program in Saudi Arabia.
The official and societal resistance stem from concerns that female participation in sports will erode Saudi norms, including modest dress and segregation of the sexes.
...
The skills the girls are learning on the field have translated into bigger wins: One player has been recruited by a female investment fund manager, who says that the strategy, tactics, and quickness honed on the soccer field would be key assets in reading the stock market.
And it’s a broad shift in attitude that is being cited as one of the keys to a quietly promising drop in the rate of violence against women in the US. The rate of partner-to-partner violence dropped 64 percent between 1994 and 2010, according to a US Justice Department report, The Monitor’s Whitney Eulich reports:
“Many in the field cite a broad shift in attitudes that began in the 1980s and '90s, crediting public awareness campaigns, national legislation protecting victims, and subsequent training of police and prosecutors to recognize intimate partner violence as a crime, rather than as a private matter.

Read here an In-depth Facts & VIDEO: US COURT Case AGAINST Somali Dictator General Mohamed Ali Samantar

In a landmark victory, CJA litigated the first case to consider the “common law immunity” of foreign officials to a decision that both denies absolute deference to the executive branch and denies immunity for human rights abuses like torture and extrajudicial killing. On November 2, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit once again sided with our clients against former Somali General Mohamed Ali Samantar.

The long and thoughtful opinion rejects absolute deference to the executive branch in determining immunity for “official acts.” Even more powerfully, the opinion holds that egregious human rights abuses cannot be considered “official acts” shielded by immunity: “Under international and domestic law, officials from other countries are not entitled to foreign official immunity for jus cogens violations, even if the acts were performed in the defendant’s official capacity.”

In other words, immunity for “official acts” cannot extend to torture, extrajudicial killing, or any other universally recognized human rights violation because no foreign official has the authority to commit these international crimes.

The Fourth Circuit’s decision marks a crucial step forward in the fight against impunity. On August 28, 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema awarded $21 million in compensatory and punitive damages against former Somali General Mohamed Ali Samantar. In a hearing before Judge Brinkema on February 23, 2012, General Samantar had accepted liability and responsibility for damages for torture, extrajudicial killing, war crimes and other human rights abuses committed against the civilian population of Somalia during the brutal Siad Barre regime, the military dictatorship that ruled that country from 1969 to 1991.

This judgment marks the first time that anyone has been held to account anywhere in the world for atrocities committed by General Samantar and the military dictatorship that ruled Somalia for over 20 years. BACKGROUND During the 1980s, General Samantar presided over an increasingly repressive military that committed horrific atrocities with particular harshness in the northern part of Somalia, and particularly against people who were of Isaaq heritage. In response to this brutality, a pro-democracy resistance movement emerged, calling itself the Somali National Movement, or the SNM. The SNM drew its strength from the Issaq. Though the SNM also committed human rights violations, the overwhelming number of atrocities were committed by Somali government soldiers. As the SNM’s strength grew, the Somalia Armed Forces retaliated with increasing brutality against unarmed civilians.

The Somali Armed Forces killed and looted livestock, blew up water reservoirs, destroyed homes, and tortured, imprisoned and summarily executed civilians accused of supporting the SNM, including businessmen, teachers, high school students and nomads simply tending their herds


During this time, defendant Mohamed Ali Samantar served as Vice President and Minister of Defense (1980-1986) and Prime Minister of Somalia (1987-1990).  In June 1988,  the Somali government's brutal counterinsurgency war against the SNM culminated in an indiscriminate aerial and ground assault on Hargeisa, the nation's second largest city.  The attack struck civilian neighborhoods the hardest and leveled most of the city; over 5,000 residents were killed.  In an interview with the BBC in 1989, Samantar admitted to giving the final order approving these operations.  Listen to that interview here or read the transcript here.

The plaintiffs are survivors of these widespread human rights violations:

In the early 1980s,  Bashe Abdi Yousuf was a young businessman in the northern Somali city of Hargeisa.  He volunteered his time and donated money to improve education and health care.  In November 1981, he was abducted by government agents, accused of being part of a subversive organization, taken to a detention center, and tortured repeatedly over a period of several months.  Among other things, Yousuf was subjected to electroshock treatment and a stress-position torture called “the MIG,” in which Yousuf ’s hands and feet were tightly bound together behind his back so that his body was pulled into a U-shape with his limbs high in the air.  The torturers then placed a heavy rock onto his back, producing excruciating pain and causing the ropes to cut deeply into Yousuf’s arms and legs.  Yousuf was interrogated about his friends, alleged to be the members of his “organization” and told that the torture would end if he falsely confessed to anti-government crimes.  Over the course of several months, Yousuf was interrogated numerous times and subjected to torture including water-boarding.  Eventually convicted of membership in an illegal organization in a trial that lacked basic due process, Yousuf spent the next six years of his life in prison, almost entirely in solitary confinement.  Fleeing Somalia after his release, Yousuf arrived in the United States in 1991, and later became a naturalized United States citizen.

In 1984, Buralle Salah Mahamoud and his brothers were arbitrarily detained by Somali government forces and convicted without due process of collaborating with the Somaliland National Movement.  Sentenced to death, he managed to escape with his life, but his brothers were killed in a mass execution with approximately 40 other Isaaq  men.

In June 1988, during the Somali Armed Forces’ attack on the city of Hargeisa, a group of government soldiers entered Aziz Mohamed Deria’s childhood home and abducted his father, brother, and cousin at gunpoint.  The soldiers threatened that they going to kill their detainees.  After their disappearance at the hands of government forces, Mr. Deria and his family never saw them again.  Mr. Deria later heard from released detainees that the three men were executed.

In June 1988, Ahmed Jama Gulaid,  then a non-commissioned officer in the Somali National Army,  was arrested along with other Isaaq soldiers and transported to an execution site.  John Doe II was shot by a firing squad in a mass execution and dumped in a mass grave.  His wounds were not fatal, and he managed to crawl out from beneath a pile of bodies and escape to safety. 

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Complaint

CJA filed the complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on November 10, 2004.  Samantar—who now lives in Fairfax, Virginia—was served at his home.  Brought under the ATS and the TVPA, the suit alleges that Samantar had command responsibility for extrajudicial killing; arbitrary detention; torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; crimes against humanity and war crimes carried out by his subordinates during this period.  In response, Samantar claimed head-of-state immunity.

Solicitation of the State Department’s Opinion

In January 2005 the court stayed the proceedings in order to give the State Department an opportunity to weigh in on the question of immunity.  The court requested that Samantar provide regular updates on the State Department’s position.  For two years, Samantar reported each month that the request was “under consideration.”

State Department Refuses to Comply with Subpoena

Despite the stay, District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema allowed the plaintiffs to subpoena documents from the U.S. Government. CJA served a subpoena on the State Department that requested documents relating to human rights and military issues in Somalia.  The Bush administration objected to all attempts to enforce the subpoena, arguing that the government is not bound by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which governs the enforcement of subpoenas, because it is not a "person" under the rule.  CJA filed a motion to compel the State Department to comply with the subpoena, but the District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the U.S. government position, holding that the subpoena was invalid.
Appeal of Lower Court’s Subpoena Ruling

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the District Court’s decision on June 15, 2006. The appeals Court held that the U.S. Government is required to comply with subpoenas for documents in private lawsuits, even when the Government is not directly involved in the case.  The appeals Court sent the case back to the District Court to enforce the subpoena against the State Department.

Case Dismissed on Statutory Immunity Grounds

After receiving no Statement of Interest from the State Department, the Court reinstated the case on January 22, 2007. Shortly thereafter, Samantar filed another motion to dismiss, arguing that he was shielded from civil liability by  the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). On April 27, 2007, the District Court granted Samantar’s motion.  The Court held that the FSIA provides immunity from civil lawsuits to foreign states and to their agencies and instrumentalities.  Judge Brinkema wrote that, although the FSIA makes no direct mention of individual officials, individuals acting in an official capacity should be treated as an agency or instrumentality and should likewise benefit from immunity.  Thus, the plaintiffs were barred from bringing suit against Samantar.
Appeal to the Fourth Circuit

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that:
  • the FSIA does not apply to individual officials, only to foreign states or their agencies or instrumentalities;
  • even if the FSIA did apply to individuals, such persons would only be immune if they were agents or officials at the time of the filing of the suit;
  • in any case, FSIA immunity cannot possibly attach to illegal acts such as torture, which are outside the scope of authority of foreign officials;
  • furthermore, at the time of the filing, there no longer was a “state of Somalia” that could qualify as a foreign state under the FSIA.

Two amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiffs' appeal.  One brief was prepared by the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School and submitted on behalf of Dolly Filártiga, Sister Dianna Ortiz, and a diverse group of religious groups, human rights organizations, and non-profits providing health and social services to torture survivors.  A second brief, focusing on congressional intent, was prepared by the Human rights Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law and was signed by UVA professors and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

Fourth Circuit Overturns the Dismissal

On January 8, 2009, the Fourth Circuit reinstated the case against Samantar. The Fourth Circuit panel held that (1) the FSIA does not confer jurisdictional immunity on individual foreign government officials and (2) even if the FSIA did apply to individuals, it would only apply if they were officials at the time of the filing of the suit. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. Samantar petitioned for rehearing en banc by the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, on February 2, 2009, the Fourth Circuit denied Samantar's petition.

Supreme Court Grants Cert Petition

In June 2009, Samantar filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit's decision rejecting his claim of immunity under the FSIA.  On September 30, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the Fourth Circuit's decision. The key issues under review will be (1) whether the immunity from civil suits applicable to foreign states extends to individual foreign officials and (2) if so, whether this immunity extends to former officials, like Samantar, who no longer hold office at the time of suit.
Briefing and Oral Arguments

On November 39, 2009, Samantar filed his merits brief.  On January 20, CJA filed a brief for the Respondents. On January 27, 2010 a broad array of supporters filed amicus curiae briefs in support of respondents, including the U.S. government, Members of Congress, former U.S. diplomats, former U.S. military professionals, Holocaust survivors and groups doing anti-genocide work, human rights and religious organizations, experts on Somali history, the Foreign Minister of Somaliland, and highly respected law professors.

Oral argument was heard on March 3, 2010, with U.S. based clients, Aziz Deria and Bashe Yousuf, in attendance.

Samantar chiefly contended that because a state acts through its individual officials, those officials should enjoy the same immunity that the FSIA provides for the state itself. A suit against an official, he contended, is merely a suit against the state under a different label.

In response, CJA and Supreme Court counsel Patricia Millet argued that the Fourth Circuit correctly interpreted the FSIA to apply only to states and their agencies and instrumentalities--legal categories which, under standard rules of construction, do not include individual officials. Any possible immunities for individual officials would be governed by common law principles, which were not superseded by the FSIA. Moreover, even if Samantar were correct that a suit against the official is a suit against state, Samantar would no longer be shielded since he, as a former official of a defunct political entity, is no longer ‘the state.'

And crucially, immunity cannot shield those responsible for torture and extrajudicial killing, because under international law, no official has the lawful authority to violate these universal human rights norms. Torture and crimes against humanity are not privileged official acts, meriting the protection of the courts.
  
Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Immunity for Samantar
By a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision that Samantar is not shielded from suit by the FSIA, holding that the FSIA does not immunize individual officials. The Court did note that common law immunities may still apply and remanded the case for proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

CJA and our clients would like to thank the many people and organizations who helped make this victory a reality.  In particular, we would also like to thank our Supreme Court counsel Patricia Millett of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP and co-counsel Cooley Godward & Kronish, LLP.

Further Proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

With the case remanded to the District Court, Samantar filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in November 2010, arguing that he was entitled to common law immunity and head of state immunity.  He also argued that the case was barred by the political question doctrine, the statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs had not stated enough facts in the complaint to support the claims against him.  We opposed the motion to dismiss and the Samantar filed a reply.  The court initially set a hearing date of January 14, 2011.

On January 6, 2011, the U.S., on behalf of the State Department, filed a Notice of Potential Participation stating that it was considering the immunity issue and asking the court to give it until January 31 to render a decision.  The court agreed to continue the case to give the government time to state its position.  On February 14, 2011, the U.S. filed a Statement of Interest stating that Samantar was not entitled to immunity in the case.  The filing is significant because the U.S. rarely intervenes in litigation where it is not a party, and it is extremely uncommon for the government to intervene to state that a defendant is not entitled to immunity.  Based on the State Department’s filing, the very next day, the court ruled that the Defendant’s common law immunity claim is not viable. 

Following oral argument on the remaining issues in the motion to dismiss on April 1, 2011, the Court denied Samantar's motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered full discovery.  Significantly, this means that Plaintiffs will be able to take Samantar's deposition and ask him why he directed a systematic attack on unarmed Somali civilians, including torture, rape and mass executions of countless victims.  The Court also denied Samantar's motion for reconsideration of his common law immunity claim.  On April 29, 2011, Samantar filed a notice of interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit of his claim of common law immunity.  Judge Brinkema issued a scheduling order on May 3 and denied Samantar's motion to stay the scheduling order on May 18, certifying his interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit as frivolous.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on November 21, 2011 which the court denied in December.

Trial was scheduled to begin February 21, 2012.  After filing and losing two more motions to stay the proceedings (one at the trial court level and one at the 4th Circuit), on the evening of February 19, Samantar filed for bankruptcy, which by operation of statute deprived the trial court of jurisdiction and imposed an immediate stay of the proceedings.  Attorneys from CJA and Akin Gump flew into action, filing and winning an emergency motion to lift that stay on February 21, and securing a new trial date of February 23.

On the morning of February 23, Samantar personally appeared in court to enter his default, conceding both liability and damages.  Significantly, Judge Brinkema questioned Samantar directly regarding his entry of default on all of the claims against him.  Read the transcript here.  After finding Samantar liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries, Judge Brinkema proceeded with a hearing on damages. CJA and Akin Gump attorneys presented the testimony of all our plaintiffs and several other key witnesses, as well as documentary evidence in support of compensatory and punitive damages.  Read transcripts of the damages trial here [vol. 1] and here [vol. 2].  Read the Court's judgment and $21 million damages award here.

 Fourth Circuit Denies Immunity Again

After losing his bid for immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act at the U.S. Supreme Court, Samantar had filed and lost another motion to dismiss the case, arguing that he was entitled to common law and head of state immunity.  Samantar appealed this decision to the Fourth Circuit, but after the U.S. Department of State yet again weighed in on the Plaintiffs’ side, the trial court certified the appeal as frivolous, allowing the case to move forward to trial in February 2012.  Oral argument before the Fourth Circuit was heard May 16, 2012. 

On November 2, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit once again sided with our clients against former Somali General Mohamed Ali Samantar.  In this landmark victory, CJA litigated the first case to consider the “common law immunity” of foreign officials to a decision that both denies absolute deference to the executive branch and denies immunity for human rights abuses like torture and extrajudicial killing. The Fourth Circuit’s decision marks a crucial step forward in the fight against impunity.