Ever Heard of Somaliland, the Peaceful and Democratic Neighbor of Somalia?

Somaliland's flag

Contrary to the piracy and kidnappings which the media tends to focus on positive things are happening in parts of the Horn of Africa.

Somaliland is one such example. President Ahmed Mohamoud Silyano describes his people's quest for international recognition here.

Here's the BBC's profile of Somaliland.

Though not internationally recognised, Somaliland has a working political system, government institutions, a police force and its own currency. The territory has lobbied hard to win support for its claim to be a sovereign state. 

The former British protectorate has also escaped much of the chaos and violence that plague Somalia, although attacks on Western aid workers in 2003 raised fears that Islamic militants in the territory were targeting foreigners. 

Although there is a thriving private business sector, poverty and unemployment are widespread. The economy is highly dependent on money sent home by members of the diaspora. Duties from Berbera, a port used by landlocked Ethiopia, and livestock exports are important sources of revenue.

Information about traveling in Somaliland, including guidance on safety, can be read about here.

South Sudan: A How-to Guide on Setting Up a New Country

Tea Partyers, Seasteaders, the mapmaking industry, and all others pushing for more independent sovereigns are taking notes on how the world's newest nation, South Sudan, just came into existence.

There is quite a long to-do list that comes with starting a new country, including:

• Minting coin and printing currency (South Sudan Pound)
• Writing a national anthem
• Determining citizenship
• Securing a seat at the United Nations
• Designing a flag (pictured above)
• Picking a capital city (Juba)
• Securing your country internet domain name
• Creating a postal system and printing stamps
• And, the perhaps the all important selection of a national football (soccer) team

More on what all is needed to get South Sudan up and running over at the BBC and CNN.

Above the Law? All Quiet in the U.S.-U.N. Spy Scandal

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and Hillary Clinton

Some time has passed since the disclosure that U.S. Sate department diplomats apparently engaged in illegal spying on U.N. officials. I say 'apparently' because it does not appear that any further investigation or legal charges are forthcoming.

To recap, State Department Secretaries Hillary Clinton (Democrat) and Condoleeza Rice (Republican) both instructed U.S. foreign service personnel and diplomats to obtain a wide variety of information about U.N. officials, including the following:

• DNA
• Fingerprints
• Iris scans
• Computer passwords
• Credit card numbers
• Personal encryption keys

What Precisely Constitutes 'Spying'?

While I'm not a legal expert on what constitutes 'spying' (which is banned from being performed against the U.N. under international treaty and law), the above laundry list (which once collected by State's 'diplomats' was handed over to the CIA's HUMINT department) sounds an awfully lot like 'spying' to me.

The Formers: U.S. and U.N. Secretaries Rice & Annan

Clinton and Rice signed off on orders instructing diplomats to obtain this type on information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders".

Another angle here is that the U.N. human data collection project, rather than having been carried out by CIA clandestine ops, appears to have been performed by State's foreign service officers and other diplomatic personnel. One of the purported goals of U.S. diplomats is to build relations and trust among foreign nations. What impact has the disclosure that these individuals are engaged in the gathering of the DNA samples of foreign diplomats had on this important function?

Where's the Followup?

I've been waiting to hear an announcement of an investigation, or perhaps at least rumors of an internal State department review. But so far there has not been one peep of anything like this.

Is it possible that the reason behind why no further investigation is that international treaty only outlaws spying agains the U.N. and its officials on U.N. premises? In other words, all U.S. State department spying on U.N. officials took place offsite?

Or, in a perhaps somewhat more conspiratorial vein, is the lack of follow-up due to the fact that the source of the spying information is WikiLeaks? One way to limit the credence of all WikiLeaks disclosures and move the leaks out of the headlines is to not pursue any of the potentially illegal activity disclosed by WikiLeaks. This may also serve as a disincentive to future prospective leakers.

One of the most interesting elements of the the recent WikiLeaks disclosures was the near uniform international condemnation of WikiLeaks and, as far as I could tell, almost complete lack of criticism directed at the U.S. by foreign sovereigns. Perhaps this is simply a case of the pot not wanting to call the kettle black; I have little doubt that Putin's Russia, for example, engages in similar espionage.

Walking the Rule of Law Talk

There are many unanswered questions, but the bottom line for me is this: if the U.S. wants to lay claim to the moral high ground or simply preach the importance of the rule of law to countries such as Russia, China, Iran, etc., then the U.S. needs to 'walk the talk'. 

Keeping mum about whether illegal spying on U.N. officials occurred only hurts the U.S.'s international standing and credibility. Instead there should be some type of investigation so that U.S. citizens, and the world at large, can be confident that U.S. leaders and diplomatic staff respect and uphold agreed upon laws.