Nick Wadhams

Appetite for Obstruction

One more on the pirates. As I mentioned in my last post, I think we can all agree that Maersk Line Limited is evil. Below is the photographic evidence.

Very briefly: As an esteemed member of the media, I have been corralled behind velvet ropes, behind cattle gates, behind the arms of ugly, unforgiving Secret Service agents. I had never been corralled behind a shipping container before.

That's what happened outside the Maersk Alabama. When we all showed up at Berth 11, where the Maersk was scheduled to dock, a big ship was getting ready to leave, and the area was unrestricted.

After the NYK line ship left, Maersk threw down a line of shipping containers along the dock to prevent reporters from getting too close to the ship. After the jump, take a look.

Maersk, U.S. Government = Evil, Evil

The Maersk Alabama story was a fun one to cover. I went down to Mombasa for People Magazine, which, to its credit, has no illusions about being anything other than People Magazine. Good news, or else.

Most of the reporting consisted of a classic media stakeout _ standing around for hours at Berth 11 of the Mombasa port a few feet from the ship, hoping that its crew would come out and say something marginally worth quoting. They did so on two occasions that I can recall.

Mostly it ended up being a colossal waste of time. I stood around that idiotic ship from about 10 am to 1 am for three days. The reason it was a huge waste was mostly because Maersk Line Limited is, I have concluded, evil. It was almost as if Maersk didn't want to give information to the media simply because it knew that the media wanted information. Maersk obstructed us for obstruction's sake, and steadfastly refused to give us even the most basic details. It's no wonder they hate the media so much: When you pointlessly withhold information, reporters become more dogged and more annoying.

The only entity any worse, of course, was the U.S. government. You've got to hand it to America. Our diplomats and government employees are just as well trained as the best Soviet bureaucrats to be slavishly obedient to pointless regulations. Yet our government has, by and large, managed to stamp out the corruption that allowed reporters to work around the system and get the information they needed.

Example 1: A few hours into the stakeout, as I stood by the gate leading to the ship with the Washington Post reporter, two guys walked up. They had FBI written all over them. Nice, color-coded shirts and slacks, matching ties, expensive sunglasses. No buzzcuts here: hair obviously maintained well and stylishly cut. They refused even to look at us, they were so scared of being talked to. It's funny to think that people see you that way. The Washington Post reporter went up, introduced herself and said she was with The Washington Post. One of the guys looked at her icily and said "I'm from Nobody." Jeesh.

Example 2: In my time in Nairobi, I have made the acquaintance of a young American consular official (I'll call him Leonard). We don't know each other well enough to be friends, but it's the kind of acquaintance that every reporter likes to have in his back pocket, just in case. At one point during the stakeout, when I'd become so bored that I'd begun humming the tune to Super Mario Bros., Leonard walked out of nowhere and approached the gate that led to the ship!

"Hey Leonard!" said I, thanking my stars. "What are you up to? Are you going on the ship?"

Leonard looked at me with an expression that indicated his sphincter had just seized up and was about to send him into frothy-mouthed shock. "Um... yeah, hey Nick. Yeah, I'm going to help debrief the crew."

This was gold, I thought. Maybe Leonard would give me an anonymous quote or two. Or at least some good detail on the crew. Or, failing that, a hint of a schedule so I could find out when the crew would go home so I could get back to my wife and kid in Nairobi.

"Cool. You mind if I ask you a couple questions? Just logistics and stuff?"

"Umm...." To his credit, Leonard managed to smile. "You know, Nick, five months of my foreign service training was spent on how to handle the media. I'm not supposed to make friends with the media." He smiled again.

(Five months? Not supposed to make friends? What the..?)

"Oh, OK." I said. "Can I at least have your mobile number if I need to call you?"

Leonard stalled. He actually wouldn't do it. Finally, I had to exploit his relative lack of experience and his refusal to be disobedient, and said curtly: "Give me your number." He recited it.

I knew that calling Leonard would be pointless, and I never did. I had heard it in his voice: They had already gotten to him. He'd been subjected to that strange mind-meld performed on every young American foreign service officer I've ever met. A refusal, perhaps born of terror, to play the information game. The conviction that their work is so important to the preservation of democracy and transparency that they must not behave democratically or transparently. The warped belief that telling a reporter in confidence when the crew is going home will bring a bunch of pirates, baying for American blood, to the tarmac and jeopardize national security to boot.

Hand it to Maersk, and hand it to America _ these guys are just too well trained!

Pirate Media Bias

The saga of the American ship, the Maersk Alabama, briefly held hostage by Somalia's pirates has nearly come to its conclusion with 19 of the 20 crewmen having returned home early this morning.

Much to reflect upon. One thing was the American media's rah-rah "We took those suckers out" boosterism of the U.S. Navy. Surely, the simultaneous sniper shots were an impressive feat, but it was hard to escape the feeling that the American media got a little too caught up in the narrative, what with its talk of "Three shots, three dead pirates," and "take-downs," and "high-seas drama," and forgot the fact that there were three poor kids who got bullets to the head. Whoever said the media doesn't like a good-news story was wrong.

Then again. While the American newspapers shook their pompoms, it was equally impossible not to detect the sour note that rang forth from the coverage by outlets such as the BBC, Reuters and AFP. Within minutes after Captain Richard Phillips had been freed, reports began debating the possibility that the U.S. operation would only encourage more attacks, or more violence by the pirates against their hostages. The suggestion was clear: The 200 or so hostages still being held off Somalia are in greater danger because of the American action (though French commando raids seemed to get less attention). Several quote-unquote pirates were interviewed saying how cruel the Americans were, and how they would strike back to avenge their fallen brothers. One Reuters report even mentioned how some Somalis were too scared to go to the latrine in the middle of the night because helicopters were flying over their heads. As if they didn't have more immediate things to be scared of _ like the pirates themselves.

It is sad that the standoff could be resolved no other way, but there is no equivalency. The way much of the media almost seems to be siding with the pirates _ "Hey, let the shipping companies just keep paying ransom, no one's getting hurt here" _ is seriously flawed logic. For one thing, you're taking hostages. That's bad. Sure, poverty may drive you to do it, but it's still bad. For another, and more importantly, the Maersk Alabama, like several other cargo ships hijacked by pirates, was delivering food aid meant for Somalia. Every day that food aid does not get to Somalia, more starving people die. So those pirates are holding their own people hostage just as much as they're holding a crew hostage. Giving any credence to claim that the American Navy somehow wronged Somalis by killing three pirates seems awfully disingenuous.

You're covered

Spotted in today's newspaper, a uniquely Kenyan insurance policy:

Growl

Politicians have as much right to a good chuckle as everyone else, but I still find something deeply irksome in this picture of President Obama clowning around with sleazeball Silvio Berlusconi and Putin-pawn Dmitri Medvedev.

Maybe it's the wholy clubby vibe of the thing or maybe it's the fact that Ethiopia's Meles Zenawi is looking on with amusement in the upper right corner. It would seem that a dash of gravity would be required on Obama's part when he's standing four feet from one of Africa's Grade-A human rights abusing dictators. Perhaps I'm just feeling grumpy.

Ah, the irony

As U.N. agencies go, it would be difficult to find one more useless than the U.N. Human Settlements Program, UNHABITAT, whose goal is "to promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all."

Forget that the world's slum population only continues to balloon, not least in Nairobi, where UNHABITAT is based. Now we learn that UNHABITAT, during the 22nd meeting of its governing council on Thursday, will host a news conference by Zimbabwe's minister for national housing and its ambassador to Kenya titled "Zimbabwe calls for re-engagement with the international community."

"In view of the recent development in the country, Zimbabwe feels strongly that the international community should re-engage with it in order to alleviate the suffering of the Zimbabwean people," says the UNHABITAT news release. "This can only be achieved if more attention is given to development support and humanitarian aid."

One might remember that it was President Mugabe's government which was responsible for "Operation Drive Out Trash," a unilateral slum-destruction program that was itself condemned by UNHABITAT.

Lion poisoning

The "60 Minutes" piece I helped research last year has aired at last. "Poisoning Takes Toll On Africa's Lions" tells the story of how farmers and Maasai pastoralists are using the insecticide Furadan to kill lions and other animals that prey on their livestock and crops.

It was a curious piece to work on. The most revealing part was how the Kenyan government investigated claims of lion poisonings with Furadan in the Maasai Mara. The laboratory of the Government Chemist reported traces of Furadan in lion samples sent to it. Displeaed with those results, the Pest Control Products Board, which regulates the licensing and sale of pesticides, launched a campaign to discredit the Government Chemist and then decided to test its own samples. Those samples were not from animals, but from soil which happened to have been collected long after the poisonings occurred, and in an area recently hit by heavy rains. And... voila! No Furadan.

Now I see that FMC, the maker of Furadan, which had initially argued it could not be held responsible for the misuse of its products, is no longer supplying Furadan to Kenya and will buy back what stocks remain.

Good news all around. The only depressing part is that Kenya is a tiny market for FMC. The move looks proactive, but it will cost FMC almost nothing.