Considering that the BBC have been anti Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed since the creation of Puntland in 1998. The BBC have supported ARTA AND the Abdiqasin Sald (run out of time) goverment. Why this interview and why now? http://www.radiogalkayo.com/clips/bbc3.ram

I think it should stay in Mogadishu when all the dirt is cleaned and the millitias are disbanded Mogadishu will be a jewl once again. Garowe is a state capital PUNTLAND's and forever shall stay that way. The point about closeness to Ethiopia we have a border with Somali Ogaden Ethiopia remember. Socatra, that place is difficult to get to and I think it has a minority Somali group, but good Idea still LOL.

Somali National Reconciliation Conference Leaders Committe - Press Release.Ruunkinet 30/10/03 Ladies and gentleman, members of the media, It is a privilege for us to welcome you on behalf of the Leaders Committee and communicate the following statement as our reaction to the successful outcome of the IGAD Ministerial Facilitation Committee held yesterday, 28th October 2003 at Nairobi Safari Club ( Lilian Towers). On behalf of the Somali delegates participating at the ongoing National Reconciliation Conference at Mbagathi, Kenya. The Leaders Committee has the honour to register its profound gratitude and appreciation to the IGAD Ministerial Facilitation Committee for their thorough review of the progress made by the Conference and by providing the necessary support and direction for the timely and successful conclusion of the peace process. In this connection, we welcome wholeheartedly the Joint Communique issued by the IGAD Ministerial Facilitation Committee on the Somali Peace Process done at Nairobi, Kenya on 28th October, 2003 and pledge our commitment to all recommendation addressed to the Somali Leaders who are committed towards the Peace Process. The leaders Committee would also like to take this opportunity to thank the International Community and the African Union for their political, moral, technical and financial support to the Conference. We join the Ministers in urging IGAD members, IGAD Partners Forum, and the International Community to avail adequate and predictable funds to support the Somali Peace Process. Finally, the Leaders Committee informs all nationals of Somalia to support and pray for the success of the conference which remains by far the most inclusive peace process that can deliver the establishment of free, stable and democratic Somalia. The ongoing Somali National Reconciliation Conference at Mbagathi is determined to the most viable process towards the settlement of crisis and the restoration of peace in Somalia and the sub-region. All Somalis of goodwill are obliged to size this golden opportunity. Similarly, we encourage all regional and International stakeholders to continue their unwavering support towards the people of Somalia. Thank you. Done at KCCT, Mbagathi. 29th October.2003 SOMALI LEADERS COMMITTEE

A tad bit premature my old friends. Djabouti is a small insignificant city state run by a heriditry clan despot who has no clue how to govern a state and who's days of meddling in Somali politics are over, but hey thats my opinion. How ever I agree that if the conference fails then its the fault of Somali's and not no nations. Again it gets tiring when certain people become holier than though about warlords and civil societies and what not. We are a nation with nothing and we should be thinking hard how to build this state by any means necessary. Djabouti is back after all so there you go LOL

Interview with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi By Mahamud Shabele Posted to the web 30-10-2003, 11:11:47 ADDIS ABABA:- (IRIN) - During a tour of the Horn of Africa region, IRIN was granted an interview with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in which he discussed at length problems concerning the peace process with Eritrea. He also talked about Somalia and domestic issues. Here are the main points of the interview: QUESTION: The peace process with Eritrea is at a stalemate now. What is the way forward? ANSWER: The first thing that needs to be recognised is that the peace process is about the demarcation of the boundary, but it is not solely about the demarcation of the boundary. The Algiers Agreement is much wider in terms of scope. And so in my view the demarcation process has encountered some difficulties and to that extent the peace process has encoun-tered difficulties. As to the way forward, the only way is to talk and find ways and means of peacefully resolving the problems that have cropped up. Q: Eritrea has said categorically that it will not talk before demarcation. How do you think Eritrea can be persuaded to have a dialogue? A: They need to know that it is the only game in town because the only alternative to talking is shooting, and shooting is not a viable option. Q: So what you’re saying is that if Eritrea maintains its stand and won’t talk until after demar-cation, then war is inevitable? A: Well as far as we are concerned, war is not an option and as I have repeatedly indicated we are not going to initiate any conflict with anybody, let alone with Eritrea. If Eritrea does not want to talk, then either the stalemate will continue or possibly at some stage in the future it may decide to overcome the stalemate by force of arms, so if there is going to be a new con-flict it will be initiated by Eritrea. Q: At what level should that dialogue with Eritrea take place? Is it something you would con-duct yourself? A: That for me is purely a technical issue. The door should be open at all levels. Q: The Boundary Commission has issued a legal ruling stating that Badme – around which much of this impasse centres – is in Eritrea. If Eritrea wants to take possession of Badme, how would Ethiopia react? A: First of all we do not believe that the Boundary Commission decision is proper and legal. It is contrary to the mandate that they have been given. And the indications are that some in the Boundary Commission have become both plaintiffs and judges. And so the Boundary Commission is clearly part of the problem now. The boundary issue is to be settled peace-fully and the only way to settle the problem peacefully is through dialogue. As you know there is an Ethiopian army there [in Badme]. The only way it [taking possession] can be done is by removing the Ethiopian army and the Ethiopian administration. And if dia-logue is ruled out, the only way of doing that is by force of arms and if they do so they will have decided to initiate a conflict. It did not work last time around and it will not work this time. Q: But they are now legally entitled to Badme. A: They are not. The demarcation process has not started. And so the legal peaceful process has not been consummated. Nobody has the right to take a short cut. Q: You’ve called for an alternative mechanism to rule on contested parts of the border and you have said the Boundary Commission is null and void. What are you looking for? A: There are decisions that we have already accepted of the Boundary Commission. With regards to delimitation we have already accepted the decisions. [but] we have a different interpretation to that of the Boundary Commission of the decision of April. Secondly with re-gards to demarcation, we have indicated that there are certain parts of the boundary where we can go ahead. Thirdly we tried to resolve the problem of those problematic areas through the Boundary Commission. In the end, we began to feel that as time went by the Commis-sion became more and more part of the problem. We would have gone for dialogue as has been the case elsewhere in the continent, and in this regard the experience of the Nigerians and the Cameroonians is a case in point. In the case of the peace that has eluded us here, we sought the assistance of the Security Council - not because we believe the Security Council is the first port of call, but because we felt most of the other options appeared to be against it [a peaceful resolution]. The Security Council has a mandate to stop conflicts and prevent them before they erupt. There is a potential for conflict here and we feel that it is within the remit of the Security Council to have a look at it and see if they can find a way forward. Q: So what specifically would you like to see the Security Council do? A: Well we didn’t think it would be wise for us to dot all the i’s. We just said that there needs to be some alternative mechanism. We can come up with all sorts of alternatives. What we sought from the Security Council is a commitment to recognise that there is a threat to re-gional peace here, that the threat to regional peace emanates from the mismanagement of the demarcation process by the Boundary Commission and that an alternative mechanism of correcting - quote unquote - the anomalies, in which the Security Council provides the legal backing, would be a way forward. The Security Council can establish a technical committee to do so, the co-signatories of the agreement could establish a similar mechanism, I’m sure there are many alternatives that could be looked into. Q: When the border decision was announced in April 2002 Ethiopia was very quick to say it had got everything it wanted. Why are you rejecting parts of the agreement at this moment in time? A: They [boundary Commission] made their decision on the basis of the established practice of the parties. If they had followed the colonial treaty, Badme would have been say 40,50,60 km within the Ethiopian boundary. They issued map coordinates which they said are provi-sional and not final, and that they could be adjusted by checking the facts on the ground. We assumed that the map coordinates would be adjusted, so we said their decision is accept-able to us. But at some stage in the process this Boundary Commission said the coordinates are final, they are not going to be adjusted unless the Security Council says so or unless the parties give us a new mandate. That is changing the rules of the game in the midst of the game. And that’s what created the whole problem. They said they would base their decision not on colonial treaties, but on established practice. And we assumed that they would check what the established practice on the ground was before demarcating the final boundary. Q: Ethiopia is seen by some as the spoiler, that it’s stopping the peace process from moving forwards. Do you fear that your international credibility could be at stake? A: Well if international credibility is based on whimsical assumptions, that could be a prob-lem. In that case the problem is in the whimsical assumptions rather than with us. I can’t see how people could consider Ethiopia as the spoiler. We are saying publicly, repeatedly, we are not going to fire a single bullet at anybody. Fullstop. Q: Can you foresee any eventuality according to which Ethiopia accepts that Badme is in Eritrea? A: Had Badme legally been part of Eritrea I would have accepted it without any hesitation. But I know the place inside out, and so I know the established practice of the parties because I have been around that place for many years. And there is no way in hell that the decision on Badme which says it is part of Eritrea can be anything other than illegal and unjust. Q: But Eritrea will never accept that Badme is in Ethiopia. It seems an intractable situation. A: Well justice will have to prevail, fairness will have to prevail. When we were told Asmara is not Ethiopian, when we were told Assab is not Ethiopian we said - sure, if the Eritrean people think that Assab is Eritrea and not Ethiopia, that’s alright. And we went to Asmara and cele-brated with the Eritreans the independence of Eritrea. Badme is not bigger than Asmara. Badme is not more important than Assab by any stretch of the imagination. It is some godforsaken village. So it’s not about territory. According to the latest rendition of the Boundary Commission, Badme would be 800 metres inside Eritrea. What’s 800 metres in a country as big as Ethiopia? What’s 800 metres compared to what we willingly and happily gave up as Eritrea? It’s nothing. But it’s 800 metres which we are told is something it has never been, and something that it will never be. That’s the point. That’s the crux of the matter. Q: But in the interest of peace, as you say it’s a godforsaken place – isn’t it better to let it go and move on? A: Sure, if injustice was the mother of peace, we would do that. Q: So for Ethiopia, what’s the bottom line? A: The bottom line is peace, we don’t want any mess-ups here. We want to focus on our de-velopment efforts. We have no quarrel with the Eritrean people. We want to get on with our business and we hope the Eritrean people will also get on with their business. Some people have made the wrong decision, let’s not let that wrong decision mess up the peace here – that’s the bottom line. Q: The US envoy Mr Yamamoto was here, and he’s gone to Eritrea. Did he have any con-crete proposals for the two sides? A: No he didn’t have any specific thing in mind. What he had in mind was that this should not lead to war and we agreed on that. We agreed there should be some sort of dialogue. But at this stage it would be jumping the gun to talk about the specifics. But it is a first and crucial step [to moving the process along] and we are very pleased that the US administration has taken that initiative. Q: Turning to Somalia. You just came back from the IGAD summit in Kampala where the committee steering the peace process was enlarged to include all the IGAD members. Do you think it will have a positive effect on the peace process? A: Well, the idea was that some groups were uncomfortable with the frontline states in gen-eral, and Kenya and Ethiopia in particular. If the inclusion of the other IGAD states makes them comfortable, then so be it. As to whether it will change the substance of the matter, I have very serious doubts. If it’s a question of trust and confidence then we should do every-thing we can to increase that trust. If it’s about the substance, in the end that’s for the Soma-lis to work out. And whatever the Somalis work out, we will support. Q: Former Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi recently said the problem of peace in Somalia is due to regional neighbours who are afraid of the reconstitution of a strong and united So-malia. Is Ethiopia afraid of a united strong Somalia that may lay claims to parts of Ethiopia? A: Well Salad [TNG president Abdiqassim Salad Hassan] raised this thing in Kampala and I said that while we respect Moi as an elder statesman, he doesn’t speak for Ethiopia. If the Ethiopian Somalis want to secede they are free to do so any time of the day. That’s the con-stitution of Ethiopia. If the Somali people of Ethiopia wish to do so, that’s fine with me. That’s not an issue at all now. Q: Do you then support the reconstitution of a united Somalia? A: A disintegrated Somalia is the source of all sorts of trouble for everybody and particularly for Ethiopia. A reconstituted Somalia at the very least is a properly recognised destination. Even if there is no Somali state, it doesn’t mean that the unity of Ethiopia is guaranteed. Just as the unity of Ethiopia is not guaranteed in the case of Eritrea. The old unity is gone. Eritrea is an independent state. And we are not worried about it. It’s in our interests that we have a stable Somalia, that we have a united Somalia. But how the Somalis manage their affairs is their business. Q: You have just come up with a very ambitious plan to tackle food insecurity – the Coalition for Food Security. Some people have voiced concern that maybe it is too ambitious? A: It is ambitious. The question is, is it do-able? I believe it is do-able so long as we mobilise resources. And so long as we recognise that the main resource for food security is not that of the government, or of the donors. The main resource is that of the farmers - the labour re-sources and the land. If we can mobilise these resources effectively and supplement them with external resources, then I believe it is do-able. Q: Why is it different to anything you’ve done in the past? A: Oh it’s very different. On a number of fundamentals. First in the past the assumption was that development was something the government and NGOs would bring to the people. That the main resource for food security was external food assistance. The assumption now is that the overwhelming resource for food security does not come from outside the village. It comes from inside the village. And the central strategy now is to mobilise those resources within the village and utilise them effectively. That has implications for us as to how we use external resources. The whole philosophy has been stood on its head. That’s a fundamental change. Secondly and related to that, we are saying that the food aid we get should, in a properly designed manner, be phased out. There should be a shift from food aid to monetary assistance to those who are food insecure, so that those who produce surpluses can sell their products. And food aid should not be given free to anyone who does not have anything to eat. It should be used as a sort of social security whereby people are provided with some assistance to maintain their assets and livelihood, but they work for it if they are able to work. Q: One of the opposition parties has called for an independent national electoral board for the 2005 elections. Is that something we are likely to see? A: The head of the electoral commission is the president of the Supreme Court. So if they want to bring somebody more independent than the president of the Supreme Court to the board, then let them think of it. Q: Yes, but who names that board? A: It’s the parliament. Q: Which is controlled by the [ruling] EPRDF. A: All parliaments are controlled by the majority parties, in every parliamentary democracy that I know of. Q: And what are your future plans. How long do you see yourself as prime minister? A: Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. By IRIN

Interview with Djibouti President Ismail Omar Guelleh By Mahamud Shabele Posted to the web 30-10-2003, 11:29:55 DJIBOUTI:- (IRIN) During a tour of the Horn of Africa region, IRIN was granted an interview with Djibouti President Ismail Omar Guelleh. He discussed the internal situation in his country, regional issues and the Somali peace process. Here are the main points of the interview: QUESTION: What are the biggest problems faced by Djibouti? ANSWER: Djibouti has the same problems as all developing countries. Unemployment, malnutrition and so on. We also have a home-grown problem of drugs, immigrants – not just those who come to look for work but those who use Djibouti as a transit country. Every day, people die at sea – they come from Ethiopia and Somalia mainly, trying to board boats in Djibouti and leave Africa for what they think is a better life. Often they are thrown overboard – it’s a tragedy. We do all we can to stop those who want to profit from these people. We put them in jail, but there are still those who find clients – they give false hope to people ... There is of course of a problem with HIV/AIDS, because we are a transit point. Also as we are a Moslem state, it is difficult to educate people and encourage them to take precautions. We have signed a big programme with the World Bank, to the tune of US $ 12 million, aimed at controlling AIDS. Q: What are your requirements in terms of aid? A: We are not among the biggest beneficiaries of international aid. It does not correspond to what we would like to do. But we do get support – and we stay within the framework set by the IMF and the World Bank. We also have pretty good investment from the Arab financial institutions, particularly in terms of infrastructure. And the Americans are also our friends. The head of USAID is coming here for the first time ever. Q: So you have benefited from having the US military base in Djibouti? A: Well we didn’t put out any advertisements! But undoubtedly we have benefited from this. The USAID people are so rigorous, if they hadn’t approved of the situation in Djibouti, if they hadn’t found a favourable climate, a transparency - they would not be coming. They are particularly looking at the field of education, but also health issues. Q: You touched on security issues. Recently you expelled thousands of illegal immigrants ... A: No, we didn’t expel them. We invited them to leave and to return to their countries [mostly Somalia and Ethiopia] with all their possessions. I recently signed a decree amnestying those immigrants who are in our jails and they have gone home. Q: Well I guess they preferred that option! But what about those who weren’t in jail? A: Well they left of their own accord. But some remained, and they are currently staying at a camp in Djibouti while the eligibility commission assesses their cases for remaining in the country. They have to prove they are being persecuted at home and then they might have a case for refugee status. There are two classes of refugees. The rural refugees leave their country, not because they are persecuted but because they are fleeing conflict at home. But as soon as the situation normalises they can return home. So it’s more the urban refugees who may be persecuted. But there are very few of them here. Q: But these immigrants have been here for many years. Why have you decided to send them home now? A: Because we have gone beyond our tolerance threshold. There was not one street which was devoid of them. They were squatting everywhere, sleeping on pavements, taking all the small jobs – it became intolerable. There was a risk of the situation exploding. Particularly with the unemployment we have. Djiboutians were really fed up and we had to take measures to stop a potentially huge problem developing between our people and these illegal immigrants. Q: So your decision was not influenced by outside, by the Americans for example? A: Not at all. They protect themselves. They don’t need us to protect them. Q: They have their counter-terrorism base here. How does that work? A: They feel at ease here. They don’t disturb anybody and they are not disturbed. For example there are 1,200 km of coastline in Eritrea but they were not able to go there because the Ethiopians would not have been happy. They didn’t want to upset either side. Q: What effect has the American presence had on Djibouti? A: Substantial economic benefits. Over 1,000 people have found employment, local businesses are engaged, they are making some considerable investments – the port, the airport, they are building parking lots, taxi ranks and so on. And have you ever seen the dismantling of an American base – apart from the Philippines? So they will be here for a long time. It has definitely had a positive effect on Djibouti. Q: The American envoy Mr Yamamoto was visiting here recently. What did you discuss? A: Well it was this problem between Ethiopia and Eritrea. He wanted to get a regional perspective. But this issue of Badme now seems insoluble. Q: What role is Djibouti playing to try and resolve this problem? A: They are both very tough people. Those who give economic aid are the ones who could find a solution. We have done all we can, but we don’t want to damage the good relations we share with both countries. I’ve done what I had to do, I talked with the leaders of both countries. I didn’t try to mediate but I weighed up the effects of what it meant to each of them ... However I don’t think they will resort to war. Q: Isn’t there a sort of contradiction in your relations with Ethiopia? On the one hand you have good economic ties because Ethiopia relies heavily on the port of Djibouti, but politically you have very strong differences regarding the Somali issue? A: We have agreed not to make it an issue between ourselves. We avoid discussing it because we have very different points of view, but we do not want to negatively influence our bilateral relations. Our temperaments are very different and we react differently to problems. Q: Yes but it seems you have lost patience because your envoy has pulled out of the Somali peace talks [underway in Nairobi]. A: Yes, but that is not an issue with Ethiopia – it’s an issue with Kenya who thinks Djibouti is just a small country and that Ethiopia represents its interests. So it gave more importance to Ethiopia and ignored our point of view. We tried to tell them that the committee [of frontline states steering the talks] was purely technical and that the Somalis should run their own peace talks. But [bethwel] Kiplagat [Kenyan chairman of the talks] wanted to decide everything and did not create a situation favourable to handing back the conference to the Somalis. When the Somalis met here in Arta, it was they themselves who made their own decisions. We just facilitated the process. Kiplagat has badly managed the whole affair and we were obliged to pull out. Q: What is the future of the peace talks in Kenya? A: Well we’ll see. Discussions are underway, our envoy is still in Nairobi. But the illness has to be treated ... We are fed up of the Somali issue. You have a group of people who are holding their country hostage. They don’t want to move forward. They just defend their own interests. They don’t want to create the necessary conditions for the people to express themselves, and nobody can remove them. There are 800 people in Nairobi gorging themselves at the expense of the international community while the people back home are dying of hunger. They couldn’t care less about their people. How can you still give those people any importance? We are really in a corner ... It’s very discouraging. And at the end of the day, the real problem is the warlords. I’m not even sure an international tribunal is the answer. To want to continue to harm your people is a crime that can’t be judged except by God. I really don’t know what the solution is. Q: Do you think the technical committee should be enlarged, given the current difficulties? A: No, I don’t believe enlarging it and bringing more outsiders is going to increase the chances of success. I think the talks should be run by the Somalis, and outsiders should only have the role of facilitators. Q: How are your relations with the TNG? A: The error we made after the TNG president was elected in Arta [in 2000] was to think this was a normal situation in a normal country. We thought - there have been elections, he will form a government of 25 members and so on. But of course in reality it was a completely ruined country where militias and killers ruled the streets. If, at that moment, the president had said – I can’t go there unless I am accompanied by everyone including the international community and our first priority is to disarm the people - if he had said that perhaps we would not now have a government which is said to have failed, when in reality it hasn’t been allowed to carry out its mission. The renaissance of the police, administration etc became a source of corruption and the people were forgotten again. There is now a lassitude. Every time the people regain hope, they are knocked back again. Q: What about your relations with Somaliland which is your immediate neighbour? A: It is going the same way as the south – there are now fundamentalists who want to destabilise the situation. Unless the south is stable, Somaliland cannot be stable, contrary to what they think… And of course we support a united Somalia. We cannot allow ourselves to advocate secession, but if they come to some agreement then that’s fine with us. By IRIN

Djibouti's turn-around on Somali Peace Talks Standard Correspondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Djibouti has rescinded its decision to pull out of the Somali Peace Talks. Foreign Affairs Minister Kalonzo Musyoka hailed the move saying concerted efforts by all parties in the process would achieve the conference's goals. Signalling a change of mind was Djibouti's Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Abdi Farah, who turned up for a meeting of the facilitation committee held at a Nairobi hotel. Musyoka said a resolution at the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (Igad) summit in Kampala resolved that the facilitation committee be expanded to include Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda. Musyoka said: "His presence lends null and void earlier statements on his country's stand." However, Farah did not respond to Musyoka's statement. Announcing the decision to pull out of the Igad technical committee two weeks ago, the Djibouti ambassador, Mr Ismael Goulal accused Kenya and Ethiopia of high-handedness. Member states, he said, had failed to adhere to the objectives of the peace process. He added that his country would not recognise a Somali government that would result from the talks. Musyoka announced that the conference is faces a cash crisis. The peace conference was operating under a deficit because pledges for funding had not been met, Musyoka said. In Eldoret, where the conference started last year before being moved to Nairobi, the conference owed local businesses huge debts, he added. Musyoka appealed to the international community and countries, who made pledges to honour them, saying the conference was costly. The minister did not say how much was owed. The meeting had been convened to review the conference's progress.

IGAD Ministerial meeting final Communique JOINT COMMUNIQUE ISSUED BY THE IGAD MINISTERIAL FACILITATION COMMITTEE ON THE SOMALI PEACE PROCESS NAIROBI, KENYA TUESDAY, 28TH OCTOBER, 2003. 1. The meeting of the IGAD Ministerial Facilitation Committee on Somalia Peace Process was held pursuant to the decision of 10th IGAD Summit held in Kampala on the 24th and 25th October, 2003. The Summit directed the Facilitation Committee to meet in Nairobi on the 28th October, 2003, in order to review the status of the peace process and report to the Chairman of the Summit. 2. The meeting was attended by Hon. Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kenya, and Chairman of the IGAD Ministerial Facilitation Committee, Hon. Augustine Nshimye, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uganda, representing the Chairman of the IGAD Council of Ministers, H.E. Ali Abdi Farah, Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and In-charge of Parliamentary Relations, Republic of Djibouti, Hon. Ali Said Abdella, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the State of Eritrea. Ethiopia was represented by H.E. Ambassador Kongit Sinegiorgis, Director General African Affairs, Ambassador to AU and the UNECA. The African Union was represented by Ambassador M. A. Foum, Special Envoy to the Somali Peace Process. Dr. Attalla Hamad Bashir, Executive Secretary of IGAD also attended the meeting. 3. The following IGAD Development Partners also attended the meeting; Italy, United Kingdom, the United States of America, Sweden, Germany, Egypt, League of Arab States, the European Union and the United Nations. 4. The meeting received progress reports on the Somali National Reconciliation Conference and noted that substantial progress has been achieved. 5. The Ministers welcomed the Summit's decision to expand the IGAD Technical Committee, now renamed the Facilitation Committee, led by Kenya and to include Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda and hopefully the Sudan and the African Union. They noted that the establishment of the Facilitation Committee would give fresh impetus to the peace process. They urged the new Members to appoint their representatives as soon as possible. 6. The Ministers called on the Somali Leaders to remain focused on the peace process and embrace dialogue with a view to achieving lasting peace in their country. They further urged the Somali parties to put the wider interests of the Somali people at the forefront. 7. The Ministers agreed that all Somali leaders be invited to a Leaders Meeting on 20th November, 2003 for ten days, at a venue in Kenya to be decided on by the Facilitation Committee. The meeting will be attended by H.E. Mwai Kibaki , President of the Republic of Kenya H.E. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, President of the Republic of Uganda and Chairman of the Assembly IGAD Heads of State and Government, H. E. Joachim Chissano, Chairman of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union and H. E. Alpha Omar Konare, Chairman of the Commission of the African Union. 8. The Ministers stressed the importance of ensuring that the resolution of the Somali conflict should result in the formation of institutions that would enjoy the support of the Somali majority, and ensure lasting peace. 9. The Ministers noted the need to embark on preparations for post conflict Somalia. They called upon the African Union, United Nations and in particular, the United Nations Security Council to render support to the initiative. They reiterated the importance of Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration and Rehabilitation of Somalia as the main focus for all the stakeholders. 10. The Ministers called upon IGAD Member States, the IGAD Partners Forum and the International Community to avail adequate and predictable funds to support the peace process. The meeting noted that the Somali Peace Process is a costly initiative that requires necessary political, diplomatic and financial support. 11. The Ministers thanked members of the IGAD Partners Forum, in particular, the European Union for their relentless support to the peace process. 12. The Ministers agreed that whilst inter-clan consultations continue, the Conference will enter Phase III after the successful conclusion of the Leaders Meeting. 13. The Ministers agreed to hold their next meeting in Nairobi on 19th November, 2003. 14. The Ministers thanked the Government of the Republic of Kenya for hosting the Somali Peace Process and for convening the Ministerial Facilitation Committee Meeting. Done at Nairobi, Kenya. 28th October, 2003.

Arab League statement on Somalia. Statement from League of Arab States Secreatry General`s. Special Envoy for Somalia OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY- GENERAL`S SPECIAL ENVOY FOR SOMALIA LEAGUE OF ARAB STATES Date: 28/10/02 SUPPROTING THE REPUBLIC OF SOMALIA The League of Arab states Council/Summit Level DECIDES:Re- empasizes the unity and sovereignty of Somalia and its territorial integrity. Calls on all Somali factions to put their national interest on top of any other considerations, commit themselves to the cease-fire agreement, support the Somali Reconciliation process in Kenya and speed up a political settlement to the Somali crisis that would ensure unity and enable Somalis to reconstruct their country. Requests the Secretary General to continue contacts to form an international committee comprising all concerned states and international & regional organizations, with a view to prevent divergence and duality of the efforts and enable Somalis to fulfill their pledges and commitments towards settlement of the crisis. Calls on all concerned international and regional organizations to establish, in cooperation with the League of Arab States, an emergency program fro disarmament of the militias and their reintegration into the Somali State and social institutions, for the sake of security and stability. Calls on the member states to provide speedily humanitarian relief aid to Somalia all over the country to enable them face their hard living conditions. Extends thanks to the member states that provided direct financial aid to Somalia or to the Somali support account at the Arab League, and calls on the rest to speed up financial contributions to this account, in compliance with the Beirut summit (2002) resolution. Calls on the concerned Ministerial Committee to follow up situation in Somalia and the Secretary General to pursue his efforts to promote the National Reconciliation Process there so that unity and safety would prevail. Further calls on the Secretary General to table the issue for discussion in the upcoming session.

I agree with both of you. But if we have failed to make peace with each other then even our enemies must be comended for trying what ever their intention. How ever CANAD and other rich powers have ignored Somalia for so long why should they even have the right to criticise Ethiopia and Kenya for making a peace conference. It seems that some people want the status quo no matter what the truth. I for one suppoert the peace process, because the alternative is no hope.

Strewn with corpses, another refugee ship offloads its cargo By Peter Popham in Rome 21 October 2003 It was a scene from hell. When the Italian coastguards boarded the dilapidated wooden fishing boat in high seas on Sunday, flying no colours and with no name, they found 15 survivors and 13 corpses. They had been warned what to expect. The first craft on the scene, an Italian fishing boat, had spotted the living and the dead mixed up together. They had tossed bottles of water and bread across to the survivors, but the seas were too high for them to risk boarding. When the coastguards arrived, they found the deck littered with bodies, while those left alive were wailing for help. They were at their last gasp, human skeletons. The coastguards transferred the survivors to their boat and towed the fishing boat back to Lampedusa, arriving shortly before dawn yesterday. They began hauling away the corpses; trapped beneath them, they found a young woman, unconscious, barely breathing. She was sent by helicopter to hospital in Palermo, on the Sicilian mainland. So many flimsy boats crammed with illegal immigrants limp into the harbour of Lampedusa, the small Italian holiday island halfway to north Africa, that it's no longer news. When hundreds of the so-called clandestini drowned in June, Umberto Bossi, Italy's Minister of Reforms, dismissed it, saying: "They died while travelling, like many people on the roads." The endless flow of these sea-borne migrants has become a fact of Italian life: they arrive at the reception centre in Lampedusa, they are transferred to a larger holding camp on the mainland, and one by one they disappear. Italy, its birth rate dwindling, needs migrants to work in its fields and factories, and slowly it is beginning to accept the fact. In a surprising volte-face, the post-Fascist Alleanza Nazionale, part of the ruling coalition, recently proposed giving legally resident immigrants limited voting rights. Others in the centre-right have urged the quota on immigrants be abandoned. Only the xenophobic Mr Bossi - who has said the Italian Navy should fire on the migrant boats - holds out. But for now, this is the way the needed new arrivals turn up. In the first six months of this year Italy detected the arrival of 8,881 illegal immigrants. That's a drop of 40 per cent compared with last year - thanks to the government's joint patrols with Albania in the Adriatic. But across the Sicily Channel from north Africa the flow is practically continuous. And now summer is over. All the Milanese bourgeois families packing Lampedusa's small beaches are long gone. The sea chops and rolls and the wind whistles; and still the migrants roll up on Lampedusa's shore. Only now they roll up dead. The previous most recent disaster in the Sicily Channel, the one about which Umberto Bossi was so complacent, happened in June, when the seas were flat calm: more than 200 died when their grossly overloaded vessel sank. The latest tragedy looks smaller; but one of the survivors told a reporter that there were "a hundred" on board when they set sail, including seven children. The 70-odd of whom no trace remains were buried at sea. The disaster follows one that came to light on Friday after seven migrants died from cold and hunger en route to Lampedusa. Yesterday, Giuseppe Pisanu, Italy's Home Minister, told his European counterparts meeting in France that the latest incident was "a dreadful tragedy that weighs on the conscience of Europe". Hundreds of clandestine immigrants had died in the sea this year, he pointed out, and probably others had died attempting to cross the Sahara, en route to the north African coast. The latest event, he said, "is only the most recent of a huge and ignored tragedy that has been unfolding under the eyes of Europe" . Rejecting the notion that Italy had special responsibility for the crisis, he insisted that "the whole European Union must feel responsible, as well as the governments of African countries from which the migrants depart or through which they transit". Italy signed an agreement with the Libyan government in the summer, requiring Libya to tighten patrols in its ports. But according to a source in the Italian Home Ministry, "the patrols in the ports push those who want to leave to try their luck from the beaches" - only increasing the peril of the voyage. The spokesman at the ministry said: "We fear that in the high seas many other tragedies occur which no one ever learns anything about."

Migrant girl, 9, tells of planned exodus from Libyan camp By Peter Popham in Rome 23 October 2003 Italy is bracing for the arrival of another wave of illegal immigrants after a little girl who survived the journey from north Africa told her rescuers of a holding centre near Tripoli where "hundreds" of would-be migrants are waiting to sail. Identified only as Asma, the nine-year-old girl lost three of her siblings on the nightmarish journey during which about 80 Africans died from hunger, thirst and exposure. She said she had been kept in a holding centre near the Libyan capital with many people from other African countries. And an Italian diplomat in Tripoli reinforced fears of a mass exodus across the Mediterranean. "The situation in Libya is already close to collapse," he said. "Unless action is taken to block the land routes [to the coast], the number leaving [for Italy] will increase every day. There are thousands waiting to embark." Some in Italy point the finger of blame at the Libyan dictator, Muammar Gadaffi. At the beginning of July, following an earlier spate of deaths among illegals crossing from Africa, Italy signed an agreement with its former colony by which Libya pledged to patrol its coastline. But the radar and other technical items Libya demanded to beef up its coast patrols are banned under EU sanctions. So although the agreement is still in force, it is proving ineffective. Sergio Romano, a senior retired diplomat and author, says that is exactly how Colonel Gadaffi wants it - he is cynically using the desperation of the illegal immigrants to improve his bargaining power with the EU. Mr Romano wrote in Corriere della Sera yesterday: "After purchasing the lifting of sanctions at the United Nations, [Gadaffi] is using African clandestini as a barter for the technical collaboration (radars, sensors, naval equipment) that he needs (or so he claims) to patrol his coastline. Oil and clandestini are Gaddafi's preferred weapons against Italy." Only 15 people remained alive on the nameless fishing boat carrying Asma and her parents. There were 13 corpses on the boat; dozens more had been tossed overboard. At the reception centre in Lampedusa where the clandestini are being held, Asma spoke of the holding centre near Tripoli. "It was like a big shed, with a door but no windows," she explained through an interpreter. "There were hundreds of people ... They kept us indoors all the time, we were not allowed to go out. Children were allowed to play and grown-ups to watch television. "We were there for four days, others for 20 or more. Groups came in from different countries by lorry. We saw them arrive - always the same lorry, the same jeep, the same drivers." An adult among the group said that migrants from Somalia paid $400 (£240) for the trip across the desert to Tripoli and $800 for the sea crossing . The Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his Home Minister, Giuseppe Pisanu, strove to persuade Europe to take responsibility for the immigration crisis. At the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Mr Berlusconi spoke of the need for a new EU agency to bring about "concrete collaboration" to control Europe's frontiers. And in Rome, Mr Pisanu told Italy's parliament that Europe should set an EU-wide quota on new arrivals. .............................................................. Damn it makes you wana weep and weep for this is what our people have become.

The return of ARABOPHOBIA Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are only the latest in a long line of Arab bogeymen Neil Clark Monday October 20, 2003 The Guardian First, they tried to dismiss Iraqi resistance as the work of "Saddam loyalists". Then they sought to blame "outside forces". Now, as it becomes clear that Iraqis of all sects oppose the occupation, a third explanation has arisen. Terrorism, anarchy and criminality are prevalent in Iraq because ... er ... terrorism, anarchy and criminality are what Iraqis do. Arabophobia has been part of western culture since the Crusades, with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden only the latest in a long line of Arab bogeymen. For centuries the Arab has played the role of villain, seducer of our women, hustler and thief - the barbarian lurking at the gates of civilisation. In the 20th century new images emerged: the fanatical terrorist, the stone-thrower, the suicide bomber. Now, as the Project for a New American Century suffers its first major setback in the back streets of Baghdad and Basra, Arabophobia has been given a new lease of life. "I read TE Lawrence before I came here," a British officer was quoted in the Mail on Sunday. "A century ago he recognised dishonesty was inherent in Arab society. Today is the same. They do nothing for love and nothing at all if they can help it." The attitudes of the officer, shocking though they are, only mirror those of the people who sent him to war. Scratch a neo-con and you find an Arabophobe. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, has berated Arabs on the "need to change their behaviour". Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defence for policy, has talked of Israel's "moral superiority" over its neighbours. And the veteran foreign policy hawk Richard Perle, when asked about the fears Egyptians had of the Iraq war provoking an Arab backlash, replied: "Egyptians can barely govern their own country, we don't need advice on how to govern ours." For the first time, we have an American administration that talks of "de-Arabising" the Middle East - the ultimate Perleian dream of Arab nations governed by clones of Ahmed Chalabi, their bazaars buried under shopping malls and Arab hospitality (not good for business) replaced by western corporate ethics. It is not hard to find evidence of the increased pervasiveness of neo-con-induced Arabophobia in our media, whether intentional or not. Contrast Jeremy Paxman's handling of Ruth Wedgewood, an American neo-conservative, and Imad Moustapha, Syria's deputy ambassador to the US, on Newsnight recently. Professor Wedgewood was treated with a deference you would expect Paxman to reserve for his great aunt, Dr Moustapha with a withering contempt and studied condescension (why should we believe you, "old chap"?). But with respect, Jeremy, why should we not believe Dr Moustapha? Wedgewood was speaking for a nation that launched an illegal war of aggression on grounds which have proved to be false. Moustapha was the representative of a country which is in no breach of international law and has called for the removal of all WMD from the Middle East. Issues of mendacity have, of course, been a major theme in international events this year. The British public had to decide who was telling the truth: Tony Blair, with his claim that Iraq posed "a very real threat to Britain", or Saddam, with his repeated denials. The neo-cons knew that their case for war was painfully thin. But they banked on Arabophobia - stoked by their allies in the media - to do the rest: Tony, the white, middle-class churchgoer, or Saddam, the swarthy Arab? For many, there was no contest. Of course, Saddam couldn't possibly be telling the truth about not possessing WMD. He's an Arab. Arabs lie. We know this from TE Lawrence. Critical to the neo-con plan to obtain control of the resources of the Middle East is a need to portray Arabs not just as mendacious, but also as "barely capable" of running their own countries without benign outside interference. The neo-con notion that Arabs need "civilising" and "assistance" in shaping their future differs very little from the attitudes of the first British imperialists in Africa more than a century ago. The British and American officers who now talk of Iraqi "dishonesty", and seek to portray Iraq as a backward and savage land, would rather we forget that up until the imposition of sanctions by Britain and the US, independent Ba'athist Iraq, although a dictatorship, had the most developed infrastructure, the best healthcare and the best universities of any country in the Middle East. "Iraqis are the world's best dodgers and thieves - they are descended from a direct line of Ali Babas," says Corporal Kevin Harnley of the Royal Engineers, bemoaning the black market in British-issue police uniforms. The irony, that he himself has been an accomplice to one of the most audacious smash-and-grab enterprises in the history of thievery, seems to have been lost on him. · Neil Clark is a writer and journalist specialising in Middle Eastern and Balkan affairs ngc66798@hotmail.com

Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar, LOL well done indeed. Its like the pot calling the kettle black, I think brothers from Somaliland need to stop linking insulting Xmar as part of their recognition. Somaliland is no more than Burco-Hargaysa-Berbera triangle. So Ibtillo learn son insulting a Somali city will not get you a seat in the UN and even if this happened you wont be more than what you are today. LOL

Salif, Brother I think you have come a bit late to the debate, if you need an update read the former posts which have been posted. Abdiqasin was elected for a 3 year term that has now expired it ended on August the 13. So it is a lie when he says he is still President. Further more what does he control if he does not control Bali Dogle airport? With regards to the "Moriyaan" coment I think thats quite wrong to use such clanish comments when fabricating statements. I believe its not in your interest or ours to come down to that level. Different between Musa and Yusuf, well one is the leader of 40% of Somalia that other controls Balcad and parts of Mogadishu I think thats the difference. As it stands Abdullahi is the most powerful southern leader, like it or not only Riyale Kahin is close in comparison forget Abdiqasin. I know you wont like these coments but thats life right.

Much respect to you my brother, its healthy to let things out I believe. Keep hope alive. As I once said before no hard feelings.

This is another internet post with another good analysis of what the secessionist camp are up to. Hargeysa vs Nairobi Somalia and its collection of clans is well studied; and the Somali clan affiliations and territories are unmistakable, and so are the northern Somali Dir clans. From a historical clan perspective, the Dir clan (north and south) had almost always their fair share allotted to them by other Somali clans; and of course from a clan perspective, they expected a fair share from others. However, for the first time in Somali clan history, without the presence of the northern Dir clans (mainly the ***** ) and authorities, other Somali clans are plotting the future of Somalia. With the leadership of some prominent individuals, in a gathering of ***** elders in Burco, Hargeysa and in Ceerigavo, the elders came to the conclusion to attend the Somali conference and get their fair share as allotted to them by their Dir brethren. While the conference leadership recognized the existence of the Hargeysa administration, and Somaliland as part of federal Somalia, a new dilemma is being created by the expected arrival in Nairobi of a large delegation consisting of prominent ***** elders. The elders, it is reported, will not claim to represent the Hargeysa administration, but as ***** elders will oversee their allotted share of ***** delegates by their Dir kinsman. The question is: will Mr. Dahir Rayaale, the ruling elite and Hargeysa secessionist watch their power evaporate? Or with the help of their clan elders, will they readily accept reality and wait the successful conclusion of the conference? With current realities in mind, and as the Somali experience teaches us, there is no better alternative than peace and stability. Indeed the Hargeysa administration has shown signs of maintaining the peace, and improving representation, however one-sided; but recent signs coming out of Hargeysa leave a less to be desired, for Hargeysa and for Somali peace in general. We hope Somalis have learned by now that a clan alliance between Hargeysa and Mogadishu (or a renewal of old allegiances) will not bring much to the regional stability, but will only destroy what little economic development the Somalis have achieved over the last ten years. It is our hope that former Siad Barre military intelligence officials, including President Rayaale and Mr. Faysal Ali Waraabe, who are accused of taking part the 1980s atrocities of the Siad Barre regime and committing other countless crimes against their own sub-clans, will not be party to renewed crimes against the defenseless and war weary Somalis. Mbagathi, Nairobi In conclusion, with so many enemies of peace and stability in Somalia on the loose, as always, we put our faith in God Almighty. We also hope that Ambassador Kiplagat and the IGAD Technical Committee will keep providing a helping hand for the Somali leaders, but will not dictate to them; it has never worked, and if tried, it will not this time. As to the IPF, we hope Dr. Walid Muse and associates will not hijack the intentions of great nations; and we hope the USA and UK will not entrust their role and political interests to hired hands and the likes of Dr. Walid Musa. As for Italy, even though they have so far sided with the losers, they could still set the record straight, and for once, just for once, let the suffering Somalis pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And finally, as for the Somali leaders and clan elders, this is your moment to shine; do your best, be your best, and bring back your dignity! Please help Somalia achieve peace and unity. Please support freedom and federalism. SHASNA* Editorial Board cc: Members _______________________________________________ *SHASNA is a worldwide advocacy group. We stand for the unity and peaceful coexistence of the Somali people. We support the creation of a federal system of governance to safeguard the security, tenuous peace, and emerging free markets of Somalia. We support the promotion of good governance, grassroots advocacy, accountability and the continuos search for development and democratic values. SHASNA encourages corporate and individual investments in Somalia, in areas of health, education, information technology and media. _______________________________________________ Prior Reports:

Mujahid, With all due respect its not a figment of our “southern Imagination” that Somaliland is starting to meddle in Southern Politics. Contrary to what you have stated it was Faisal Cali Warabe leader of the third largest party in the secessionist entity who publicly proposed even writing letters and giving interviews to certain Mogadishu radio stations that he with agreement of all other parties would seek to make peace between the Mogadishu tribe. This you cannot just shove aside and he [ Warrabe] went on to state that it was because this would ensure the demise of the Nairobi conference. Also Mujahid there has been a consistent media attack on the Puntland state from all the parties and so called elders which resulted in the setting up of a committee headed by the Vice president to get back Sool and Sanag, this we consider interference, my poor friend. Also previously there was the attempt by the former NSS colonel Riyale to arm the Gen Cade Musa faction which he based in Ceel Afweyn this also failed to the dismay of the Hargaysa government. So in conclusion your leaders are meddling and have done so in the past but meddling in other peoples affairs is an art which Egal lacked led alone Kahin. Anyhow poor friend lets watch and see shall we.

Horn, Now you are supporting Abdiqasin for his positive outlooks, which are? It seems that your anger is misplaced you shouldn’t be angry at me because I showed that your little clique or TNG have failed. What pitiful babble about you not being a clan supremacist because you are a fan of Abdiqasin instead of Abdirahman Jama Barre , you must be believing your own lies. Dear boy as you know the clan of Siyad and those who where close to the fallen leader have been a backbone and gave tremendous material and moral support to Abdiqasin as you know who himself was one of the numerous protégés of Father Siyad. So Horn you are following the clan line, no different to the JVA and Ghani and others who support Abdiqasin because he is a remnant of the dictatorship. Apart from his own sub clan it’s the SNF who have come second in backing Abdiqasin out of all of Somali’s clan groupings that’s why Abdiqasin can count on only occupied Kismayu and parts of South Mogadishu. Am I inventing that the invaders of Kismayu are known as the “lions from Galgadud” or the “Galgadud twins” why is that Horn? The TNG/ Arta crew logic goes like this; the national army of Somalia are these two clans from Dhusa Mareb defending Kismayu from the Ethiopians, hell I haven’t laughed so much. Well Horn take it as you want my son but you cant hide behind simplified arguments of warlords and defending Somalia, as you know the Ethiopians don’t differentiate between Somali clans. And about me supporting my clan, I support them to keep the peace and to build institutions that will benefit all of Somalia I don’t and will never support my clan subjugating other people and looting their homes in the guise of nation hood and fake patriotism. But alas those who fed on Somalia’s carcass under Afweyn will never know what nationhood is.

Brilliant post again from Samuria Warrior, I believe the writer was fair and analysed the situation in a mature maner. Mujahid, Respect to you for at least reading the full texts. How ever you seem to be attacking the messinger more than the message, there are problems with Somaliland today and Faisal Warrabe and others seem nervous, we are trying to understand why. Yasima, Sis there is no need to start personal attacks on individuals, rather lets get your view on the post. Peace people

Horn dear brother, I attack Abdiqasin because he is an obsticle to Somali peace, he is more than a fool he is a fool with millions of dollars and over 50 battle wagons. He wasted 3 years already and wants to waste more. He is a fool who is being pushed by Ghadafi of Libiya and who is interested more in money than peace for the poor Somali's. Also I have not invented any of the stories about Abdiqasin, all I have done is analyse them and go beyound the hype that is being fed to us by his supporters such as you dear Horn. Tell me again why you support him apart from him reminding you of the good old Afweyne times, oh was that below the belt? My educated brother Horn, why must you blind yourself of the truth? This thread was about Abdiqasin why did you try to hide his faults and attack others notably Abdullahi Yusuf, see I dont care about Abdullahi I care about the Somali republic and its people sharing power through a federal system. However your whole political outlook is pretend to be a nationalist defend the relics of the past failures. Attack Ethipia and cover the home grown ills by calling everyone "warlord". It hasent rained must be those warlords, the TNG stole some money must be the "warlords". Hargaysa was bombarded in the 1980's must be the "warlords". Who has attacked the Somali peace conference more than Abdiqasin? And why did he? Answer these two simple questions Mr International Law

Sorry to intrude, but Horn bro you still talking? Oh no you didnt Know you saying that the Puntland forces are Ethiopians, come on Horn clan haterd should never drive one to that extreme. Any how some interesting news about the TNG President, How many air strips are there in Mogadishu, the answer many, how many does Abdiqasin control? The answer one thats Bali Dogle. Wonders never sees to amaze. War Deg Deh Ah: C/qaasim Salaad Oo Maanta Balidoogle Lagu Rasaaseeyey Waxa maanta lagu rasaaseeyay garoonka Ballidoogle C/qaasim Salaad Xassan oo doonayay in uu kadhoofo garoonka. Israsaaseyntan dhexmartay ilaalada C/qaasim Salaad iyo malliishiyadii fadhigeedu ahaa garoonka Ballidoogle ee duleedka magaalada Muqdisho ayaa ku khasabtay C/qaasim iyo wafdgii las ocday in ay dib ku soo labtan magaalada kana baqsadaan safarkii dibadda oo ay maanta ahayd in ay u ambaxaan . Ilaa iyo haatan waxa ay sheegayaan wararku in wafdigii c/qaasim iyo isaga laf ahaantiisaba aysan wax dhibaata ah soo gaarinm marka laga reebo ka baaqashada safarka. Maleeshiyada garoonka gacanta ku haysa ayey beel ahaan C/qaasim isku jufo yihii . Wararku waxa ay sheegayaan in ay haatan socdaan dhaqdhaqaaqyo xoogan oo lagu baarayo sidii ay wax u dhaceen, wixii ku soo kordho wararkan dib ayaad ka heli doontaan. C/laahi Khadar, goobjoog, Muqdisho

Rokko pardon me, but are you and Horn the same person. That comment was for Horn Afrique. Abdullahi is a man and you can wish for him what you want. Thanks for your support to Puntland and the way you can differentiate between the state and the man.

well done to the coast guards, now its for every area to establish a simmilar forces we have a long coastline and it needs to be defended.

Answers please, Mr Bush Michael Moore fired his opening salvo against George Bush and his rightwing cronies with his bestseller ****** White Men. Now the president is in his sights again. In this second extract from his new book he asks his old enemy seven awkward questions Monday October 6, 2003 The Guardian Buy Dude, Where's My Country? at Amazon.co.uk I have seven questions for you, Mr Bush. I ask them on behalf of the 3,000 who died that September day, and I ask them on behalf of the American people. We seek no revenge against you. We want only to know what happened, and what can be done to bring the murderers to justice, so we can prevent any future attacks on our citizens. Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden - Osama's brother - first started coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield. The Bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Their huge construction firm virtually built the country, from the roads and power plants to the skyscrapers and government buildings. They built some of the airstrips America used in your dad's Gulf war. Billionaires many times over, they soon began investing in other ventures around the world, including the US. They have extensive business dealings with Citigroup, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the Fremont Group. According to the New Yorker, the bin Laden family also owns a part of Microsoft and the airline and defence giant Boeing. They have donated $2m to your alma mater, Harvard University, and tens of thousands to the Middle East Policy Council, a think-tank headed by a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman. In addition to the property they own in Texas, they also have real estate in Florida and Massachusetts. In short, they have their hands deep in our pants. Unfortunately, as you know, Mr Bush, Salem bin Laden died in a plane crash in Texas in 1988. Salem's brothers - there are around 50 of them, including Osama - continued to run the family companies and investments. After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defence contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group. After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens. And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded. You've gotten a free ride from the media, though they know everything I have just written to be the truth. They seem unwilling or afraid to ask you a simple question, Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? In case you don't understand just how bizarre the media's silence is regarding the Bush-Bin Laden connections, let me draw an analogy to how the press or Congress might have handled something like this if the same shoe had been on the Clinton foot. If, after the terrorist attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it had been revealed that President Bill Clinton and his family had financial dealings with Timothy McVeigh's family, what do you think your Republican party and the media would have done with that one? Do you think at least a couple of questions might have been asked, such as, "What is that all about?" Be honest, you know the answer. They would have asked more than a couple of questions. They would have skinned Clinton alive and thrown what was left of his carcass in Guantanamo Bay. 2. What is the 'special relationship' between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family? Mr Bush, the Bin Ladens are not the only Saudis with whom you and your family have a close personal relationship. The entire royal family seems to be indebted to you - or is it the other way round? The number one supplier of oil to the US is the nation of Saudi Arabia, possessor of the largest known reserves of oil in the world. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, it was really the Saudis next door who felt threatened, and it was your father, George Bush I, who came to their rescue. The Saudis have never forgotten this. Haifa, wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US, says that your mother and father "are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them". A major chunk of the American economy is built on Saudi money. They have a trillion dollars invested in our stock market and another trillion dollars in our banks. If they chose suddenly to remove that money, our corporations and financial institutions would be sent into a tailspin, causing an economic crisis the likes of which has never been seen. Couple that with the fact that the 1.5m barrels of oil we need daily from the Saudis could also vanish on a mere royal whim, and we begin to see how not only you, but all of us, are dependent on the House of Saud. George, is this good for our national security, our homeland security? Who is it good for? You? Pops? After meeting with the Saudi crown prince in April 2002, you happily told us that the two of you had "established a strong personal bond" and that you "spent a lot of time alone". Were you trying to reassure us? Or just flaunt your friendship with a group of rulers who rival the Taliban in their suppression of human rights? Why the double standard? 3. Who attacked the US on September 11 - a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friend, Saudi Arabia? I'm sorry, Mr Bush, but something doesn't make sense. You got us all repeating by rote that it was Osama bin Laden who was responsible for the attack on the United States on September 11. Even I was doing it. But then I started hearing strange stories about Osama's kidneys. Suddenly, I don't know who or what to trust. How could a guy sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, hooked up to dialysis, have directed and overseen the actions of 19 terrorists for two years in the US then plotted so perfectly the hijacking of four planes and then guaranteed that three of them would end up precisely on their targets? How did he organise, communicate, control and supervise this kind of massive attack? With two cans and a string? The headlines blared it the first day and they blare it the same way now two years later: "Terrorists Attack United States." Terrorists. I have wondered about this word for some time, so, George, let me ask you a question: if 15 of the 19 hijackers had been North Korean, rather than Saudi, and they had killed 3,000 people, do you think the headline the next day might have read, "NORTH KOREA ATTACKS UNITED STATES"? Of course it would. Or if it had been 15 Iranians or 15 Libyans or 15 Cubans, I think the conventional wisdom would have been, "IRAN [or LIBYA or CUBA] ATTACKS AMERICA!" Yet, when it comes to September 11, have you ever seen the headline, have you ever heard a newscaster, has one of your appointees ever uttered these words: "Saudi Arabia attacked the United States"? Of course you haven't. And so the question must - must - be asked: why not? Why, when Congress released its own investigation into September 11, did you, Mr Bush, censor out 28 pages that deal with the Saudis' role in the attack? I would like to throw out a possibility here: what if September 11 was not a "terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the United States? George, apparently you were a pilot once - how hard is it to hit a five-storey building at more than 500 miles an hour? The Pentagon is only five stories high. At 500 miles an hour, had the pilots been off by just a hair, they'd have been in the river. You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly jumbo jets by being taught on a video game machine at some dipshit flight training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's air force. The Saudi air force? What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family? The House of Saud, according to Robert Baer's book Sleeping With the Devil, is full of them. So, did certain factions within the Saudi royal family execute the attack on September 11? Were these pilots trained by the Saudis? Why are you so busy protecting the Saudis when you should be protecting us? 4. Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the Bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI? Private jets, under the supervision of the Saudi government - and with your approval - were allowed to fly around the skies of America, when travelling by air was forbidden, and pick up 24 members of the Bin Laden family and take them first to a "secret assembly point in Texas". They then flew to Washington DC, and then on to Boston. Finally, on September 18, they were all flown to Paris, out of the reach of any US officials. They never went through any serious interrogation. This is mind-boggling. Might it have been possible that at least one of the 24 Bin Ladens would have possibly known something? While thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in US history, you got a free trip to gay Paree! Why, Mr Bush, was this allowed to happen? 5. Why are you protecting the Second Amendment rights of potential terrorists? Mr Bush, in the days after September 11, the FBI began running a check to see if any of the 186 "suspects" the feds had rounded up in the first five days after the attack had purchased any guns in the months leading up to September 11 (two of them had). When your attorney general, John Ashcroft, heard about this, he immediately shut down the search. He told the FBI that the background check files could not be used for such a search and these files were only to be used at the time of a purchase of a gun. Mr Bush, you can't be serious! Is your administration really so gun nutty and so deep in the pocket of the National Rifle Association? I truly love how you have rounded up hundreds of people, grabbing them off the streets without notice, throwing them in prison cells, unable to contact lawyers or family, and then, for the most part, shipped them out of the country on mere immigration charges. You can waive their Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure, their Sixth Amendment rights to an open trial by a jury of their peers and the right to counsel, and their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, dissent and practise their religion. You believe you have the right to just trash all these rights, but when it comes to the Second Amendment right to own an AK-47 - oh no! That right they can have - and you will defend their right to have it. Who, Mr Bush, is really aiding the terrorists here? 6. Were you aware that, while you were governor of Texas, the Taliban travelled to Texas to meet with your oil and gas company friends? According to the BBC, the Taliban came to Texas while you were governor to meet with Unocal, the huge oil and energy giant, to discuss Unocal's desire to build a natural-gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan through Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and into Pakistan. Mr Bush, what was this all about? "Houston, we have a problem," apparently never crossed your mind, even though the Taliban were perhaps the most repressive fundamentalist regime on the planet. What role exactly did you play in the Unocal meetings with the Taliban? According to various reports, representatives of your administration met with the Taliban or conveyed messages to them during the summer of 2001. What were those messages, Mr Bush? Were you discussing their offer to hand over Bin Laden? Were you threatening them with use of force? Were you talking to them about a pipeline? 7. What exactly was that look on your face in the Florida classroom on the morning of September 11 when your chief of staff told you, 'America is under attack'? On the morning of September 11, you took a jog on a golf course and then headed to Booker elementary school in Florida to read to little children. You arrived at the school after the first plane had hit the north tower in New York City. You entered the classroom around 9am and the second plane hit the south tower at 9.03am. Just a few minutes later, as you were sitting in front of the class of kids, your chief of staff, Andrew Card, entered the room and whispered in your ear. Card was apparently telling you about the second plane and about us being "under attack". And it was at that very moment that your face went into a distant glaze, not quite a blank look, but one that seemed partially paralysed. No emotion was shown. And then ... you just sat there. You sat there for another seven minutes or so doing nothing. George, what were you thinking? What did that look on your face mean? Were you thinking you should have taken reports the CIA had given you the month before more seriously? You had been told al-Qaida was planning attacks in the United States and that planes would possibly be used. Or were you just scared shitless? Or maybe you were just thinking, "I did not want this job in the first place! This was supposed to be Jeb's job; he was the chosen one! Why me? Why me, daddy?" Or ... maybe, just maybe, you were sitting there in that classroom chair thinking about your Saudi friends - both the royals and the Bin Ladens. People you knew all too well that might have been up to no good. Would questions be asked? Would suspicions arise? Would the Democrats have the guts to dig into your family's past with these people (no, don't worry, never a chance of that!)? Would the truth ever come out? And while I'm at it ... Danger - multi-millionaires at large I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not? Osama bin Laden has assets totalling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich **** who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!" Keeping America safe The US Patriot Act and the enemy combatant designation are just a hint of what Bush has in store for us. Consider a brainchild of Admiral John Poindexter, an Iran-contra perp, and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa): the "policy analysis market", which the government was to put up on a website. Apparently, Poindexter reasoned that commodity futures markets worked so well for Bush's buddies at Enron that he could adapt it to predicting terrorism. Individuals would be able to invest in hypothetical futures contracts involving the likelihood of such events as "an assassination of Yasser Arafat" or "the overthrow of Jordan's King Abdullah II". Other futures would be available based on the economic health, civil stability and military involvement in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey. All oil-related countries. The proposed market lasted about one day after it was revealed to the Senate. Senators Wyden and Dorgan protested the Pentagon's $8m request, and Wyden said, "Make-believe markets trading in possibilities that turn the stomach hardly seem like a sensible next step to take with taxpayers money in the war on terror." As a result of the uproar over this, Poindexter was asked to step down. Giving Saddam the key to Detroit In Las Vegas, an armoured fighting vehicle was used to crush French yogurt, French bread, bottles of French wine, Perrier, Grey Goose vodka, photos of Chirac, a guide to Paris and, best of all, photocopies of the French flag. France was the perfect country to pick on. If you're a cable news company, why spend priceless reporting time on investigating whether Iraq really does have weapons of mass destruction when you can do a story about how rotten the French are? Fox News led the charge of pinning Chirac to Saddam Hussein, showing old footage of the two men together. It didn't matter that the meeting had taken place in the 1970s. The media didn't bother to run (over and over again) the footage from when Saddam was presented with a key to the city of Detroit, or the film from the early 1980s of Donald Rumsfeld visiting Saddam in Baghdad to discuss the progress of the Iran-Iraq war. The footage of Rumsfeld embracing Saddam apparently wasn't worth running on a continuous loop. Or even once. OK, maybe once. On Oprah.