Earlier this year, the Senate passed a resolution endorsing and supporting efforts by the Obama Administration to improve maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea.  The resolution could not be more timely, as pirate attacks off the coast of West Africa have increased in the first first months of 2014, prompting the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Maritime Bureau to warn ships transiting the region to be extra vigilant.  The resolution underscores the importance of regional cooperation and collective action to address this growing problem of interest to many U.S. companies, particularly those in the oil and gas industry.  While incidents of piracy off the coast of Somalia have decreased recently due to greater international cooperation on counter-piracy operations, the number of attacks in the Gulf of Guinea has increased, disrupting shipping, raising insurance costs, and denying African states badly needed tax revenue.

The Senate resolution, which was introduced by Senator Flake (R-AZ), emphasizes the importance of security in the Gulf of Guinea both for the United States and for African states in the region.  The United States in 2012 imported more than 315 million barrels of oil through the region, where U.S. business also have extensive fixed investments.  In addition, trade through the Gulf of Guinea is an important source of tax revenue and economic activity that can help spur badly needed growth and development for African states.  Therefore, the resolution encourages the President to continue to provide support and assistance to affected African countries “within resource constraints.”

The resolution also correctly underscores the importance of regional cooperation and collective action.  For both legal and practical reasons, the Gulf of Guinea presents a more challenging problem compared to the Gulf of Aden, where international efforts including a European Union naval force have curtailed attacks.  First, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, “piracy” can technically occur only on the “high seas,” or outside any state’s territorial sea, which extends 12 miles from the shore.  On the high seas, piracy is a crime erga omnes (“against all”) and therefore any state may claim jurisdiction to intercept and prosecute pirates.  But inside the territorial sea, maritime attacks are criminal matters within the domestic jurisdiction of the state.  Unlike the Gulf of Aden, where pirate attacks are concentrated off the coasts of Somalia and Yemen, the Gulf of Guinea includes territorial waters belonging to as many as 13 states.  For this reason, a conference held at Chatham House last year concluded that ensuring security in the Gulf of Guinea is beyond the capacity of not just any one state, but also of any one regional body acting alone.

There have been encouraging steps toward greater cooperation.  In 2011, Benin and Nigeria established a joint maritime patrol mechanism that succeeded in reducing the number of attacks off their coasts, though attacks off the coast of neighboring Togo increased.  And last year the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) agreed to work toward multilateral agreements for regional cooperation.  Nevertheless, the continued rise in the number and severity of attacks suggests that even greater regional cooperation and support from the United States and the international community will be necessary.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jonathan Wakely Jonathan Wakely

Jonathan Wakely practices at the intersection of national security and the private sector, advising clients on a range of significant cross-border investment, national security, cybersecurity, supply chain security, and public policy matters. He has particular expertise representing leading global investors and U.S. companies…

Jonathan Wakely practices at the intersection of national security and the private sector, advising clients on a range of significant cross-border investment, national security, cybersecurity, supply chain security, and public policy matters. He has particular expertise representing leading global investors and U.S. companies in securing U.S. national security-related regulatory approvals for foreign investments, and has advised on transactions with a combined value of over $250 billion.

Jonathan regularly represents clients before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (better known as “Team Telecom”), and the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) in proceedings related to the mitigation of foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI). Clients regard Jonathan as “fantastic and a rising star,” commenting that he’s “an excellent lawyer” and applauding his “great understanding of CFIUS work” (Chambers USA).

Jonathan has represented clients on national security reviews in virtually all sectors, including semiconductors, telecommunications, financial services, software, IT services, energy, and real estate. His representations include, for example, the landmark CFIUS-based defense of Qualcomm against the attempted hostile takeover by Broadcom; representing Ford Motor Company before CFIUS in multiple strategic transactions, including the $2.6 billion investment by Volkswagen in Ford’s autonomous driving subsidiary, Argo AI; and securing approval from Team Telecom for Univision’s $4.8 billion merger with Televisa. He has also negotiated and advised companies on compliance with many of the most significant, complex, and sensitive national security agreements of the past decade.

Clients also turn to Jonathan for advice on strategic business and policy matters related to U.S.-China competition. He is regularly engaged by multinational businesses—including some of the world’s leading technology companies—to assist in developing legal and business strategies related to positioning with respect to China. He has recently advised clients on implementation of the CHIPS Act, the potential for regulation of outbound investment, and other economic “de-coupling” measures.

Jonathan has been recognized by various publications for his work on national security matters, including as one of the world’s leading foreign investment lawyers under 40 by Global Competition Review, as a “DC Rising Star” by The National Law Journal, as a “Rising Star” by Law360, and as a leading CFIUS expert by Chambers USA.

In addition to his legal practice, he is an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches a course on national security and the private sector. Jonathan has also published extensively on matters related to the regulation of foreign investment; his articles have appeared in the Harvard National Security Journal, The International Lawyer, and the Global Trade and Customs Journal.

Before joining Covington, he served as a political analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), where he provided strategic analysis to the President and other senior policymakers.