Asalam alaykum my brothers and sisters. Pardon the pun, but I need to hear your various opinions on this piece... --- Somalia's rebirth calls for courage and resilience Daily Nation (Kenya) COMMENTARY Story by TOM MSHINDI Publication Date: 3/10/2007 Somalia’s top man in Kenya, Ambassador Mohamed al Nur, exudes confidence and optimism that his beleaguered country may at last have taken a decisive turn for the better. It is a confidence tempered with the reality that it is not the first time that hope has been stirred over Somalia for it to be very quickly extinguished. But circumstances this time seem to be somewhat different. At a well attended Press conference this week, he announced that the first batch of the multinational African Union troops that will be stationed in Somali arrived amid pomp and fanfare. Uganda is the first country to send in 1,500 troops of a targeted 8,000 personnel that the African Union (AU) hopes to instal in that country for six months to stabilise it before it is handed over to UN troops. HOPEFULLY, THE DECISION BY Uganda will be quickly followed by Nigeria, Ghana, Burundi and Malawi which, together with the Ugandan troops should bring the initial number to 4,000 troops. Diplomatic efforts are going on to have countries in the region pledge more troops so that the 8,000 figure can be achieved. The arrival of the Ugandan troops in Mogadishu in which the President, the Speaker and the Prime Minister now sit, heightens the sense of normalcy in a capital at the centre of guerrilla type-strikes since the beginning of the year after Ethiopian troops, with significant logistical assistance from the United States, routed the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) that had claimed to take over governance of the Somali republic. The full re-establishment of the government in Mogadishu now awaits the assent of Parliament that earlier had ruled that because of the insecurity in the capital, the government was to be set up temporarily in Baidoa. Mr Nur also announced that within Somalia itself, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) has initiated a community policing programme that has seen the integration of more than 8,000 former militias into the civilian police force. “The community police will work alongside youth groups that have volunteered to patrol crime prone areas with the police force,” he says. The TFG has also launched the National Reconciliation Congress that is aimed at discussing the way forward for Somalia and creating institutions of good governance. The process will be going on over the next 45 days and will culminate in a 3,000-people congress to be held on April 16, 2007. An upbeat Mr Nur says that all these have led governments to show interest in re-establishing diplomatic presence in Somalia. Yemen is already there and governments of Belgium, Ethiopia, Libya and Kenya are keen to finalise the establishment of missions based in Mogadishu. Listening to the Ambassador, one is persuaded that there may be a real chance for Somalia to rise from the depths of despair and anarchy and start the long journey of reclaiming its rightful place among other decently governed states regionally and internationally. Restoring the government to Mogadishu is only the first move. Keeping it there will be a much harder task. Of great significance will be the resources needed to keep the 8,000 AU troops in Mogadishu. The AU peace support operation division has sent out a desperate appeal to international agencies and governments interested in peace in the Horn of Africa to urgently contribute. It is expected that the US will lead with substantial support because stabilisation of Somalia is key to the success of the global US-led fight against terrorism. Equally important is the resolve of the countries in the Horn of Africa to stay the course in so far as Somalia is concerned. For far too long, these countries have looked on as the warring factions tore at each other and turned the whole region into an insecurity zone. IT HAD TO TAKE THE COURAGE of Ethiopia to move into Somalia to remove the ICU cells that the Ethiopian government correctly saw as a threat to its national interests and security. Kenya, Tanzania, Djibouti and indeed all the IGAD partner countries must invest materially, diplomatically and in every other way to ensure that Somalia survives the early turbulence of its rebirth. Sitting in his Nairobi office, Mr Nur is probably the busiest diplomat in the Somalia’s foreign service no doubt because Nairobi is currently the most important city to that country. In the coming days, his patience, negotiating skills and contact list will be used fully but he appears comfortable. It is a comfort that can only be sustained if all the many elements that will contribute to entrenching the early success come into play. Somalia peace deal will only succeed if the international and regional support continues flowing.

My sincere apologies for double-posting. I have therefore deleted the article from here.

Taliban, Thank you for your informative response. I do agree with a number of things you said, particularly that majority of Somalis both at home and in the diaspora, support the Islamic insurgency. The reason for this seems to be quite understandable. Meanwhile, what would you propose as the best way forward?

What are your thoughts on the following? --- Somalia peace deal must be inclusive Daily Nation, Kenya EDITORIALS Publication Date: 2/23/2007 The United Nations Security Council has this week given the green light for an African Union peacekeeping mission to be deployed to Somalia. The approval was granted on Tuesday, the same day 16 people were killed as mortar attacks and other violent incidents escalated in Mogadishu. The threat of even more violence reinforces the need for an urgent military intervention to help stabilise the troubled Horn of Africa country. Yet, ironically, it also makes the point that such intervention will not work if it is seen as merely designed to prop up a weak and ineffectual interim government. The internationally-recognised administration managed to instal itself in Mogadishu only after troops from neighbouring Ethiopia, with American air support, routed the radical Islamists, who controlled most of the country. The government continues to hold on to power only because of the protection provided by the Ethiopian forces. Thus, it is likely to be seen by the Somalis as a puppet regime serving Ethiopian and American interests. If the African Union forces go into Somalia in such an environment, then they, too, could be seen as interlopers, merely succeeding the Ethiopians as an occupying force. The same will apply if, as envisaged, United Nations forces go into Somali once the mandate of the AU force expires in six months. The peacekeeping operation has a noble motive — to provide peace and security, secure the infrastructure, provide humanitarian aid and security and to establish a truly national Somali military and police force. But none of that will be accomplished if the peacekeeping forces go in without the goodwill and support of the people of Somalia. That is why it is important that reasonable and moderate groupings among the defeated Islamists are brought fully on board. The important principle is that all interest groups must have a stake in the government, and thus be fully involved in efforts to stabilise the country. --- Uganda ready to help NEWS Story by Reuters Publication Date: 2/24/2007 Uganda said Friday it was ready to send 1,500 peacekeepers to Somalia as the vanguard of a planned African Union force, but was waiting to finalise its mandate and get air transport. Near-daily attacks by insurgents in Mogadishu have spurred calls for a speedy AU deployment to replace Ethiopian troops who helped Somalia’s interim government oust Islamist fighters in a December war -- but who are hated by many Somalis. Air transport “We will be leaving very soon,” State minister for Defence Ruth Nankabirwa told Reuters. “But it depends on procedures. We are waiting for Algeria, who promised to provide air transport.” Soldiers from Nigeria, Ghana, Burundi and Malawi are also expected to join the proposed 8,000-strong peacekeeping force, which was authorised by the UN Security Council on Tuesday. Ms Nankabirwa said Uganda also needed to sign a “status of forces” agreement with the African Union, which would give details of when and how the troops are allowed to use force and what their rights and responsibilities are. She did not say when this might happen. A Western diplomat told Reuters some Ugandan troops, including a junior mission commander, were already in Somalia. Commanders Somali government officials late on Thursday said the Ugandan’s Defence minister, Mr Crispus Kiyonga and other senior military commanders had visited the temporary capital, Baidoa.

You are more than welcome KEYNAN22. --- It is evident that there is something terribly amiss with the way business is being done in the world today, whereby a handful of people are literally "running the show"... The RICH really do own the WORLD The Globe and Mail (Canada), 5th December 2006 For those who aren’t wealthy, it seems blindingly obvious that the rich own the world. Now, in a first ever study of global wealth, it’s clear just how unequitably the riches are spread around. The richest 2 per cent of adults own more than half of global household wealth, and almost all of the well-heeled live in North America, Europe and the richest Asia-Pacific countries. While previous global surveys have studied income, this is the first wide-ranging analysis of the international distribution of wealth, defined as the value of physical and financial assets minus liabilities. “We find there’s a lot of unequality, which is what we expected and is not that surprising,” said University of Western Ontario economist James Davies, who was a coauthor of the study, conducted by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations. “But it turns out, the world distribution of wealth [assets minus debts] is more unequal than the world distribution of income.” The United States is the richest country, with a mean wealth in the year 2000 of $144,000 (U.S.) per person. Canada has a mean wealth of $89,000 per person. “Wealth in this sense represents the ownership of capital,” the study says. “While only one part of personal resources, capital is widely believed to have a disproportionate impact on household well-being and economic success, and more broadly on economic development and growth.” The study estimates that the richest 1 per cent of adults alone owned 40 per cent of global assets in 2000, and that the richest 10 per cent of adults accounted for 85 per cent of the world total. By contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1 per cent of global wealth. The research finds that assets of $2,200 per adult places a household in the top half of the world wealth distribution. To be among the richest 10 per cent of adults in the world required $61,000 in assets, and more than $500,000 was needed to belong to the richest 1 per cent. The latter figure, according to the study, is surprisingly high since it represents 37 million adults and is “therefore far from an exclusive club.” Not surprisingly given its massive economic surge and the size of its population, China is a rising star and accounts for 8.8 per cent of world household wealth. At the same time, the distribution of wealth within China is getting more unequal. “The growth of the Chinese economy, greater prosperity of people there, has got an equalizing impact on the world distribution of wealth, but there is increasing inequality within China,” Prof. Davies says According to the study authors, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than its data reveal for the year 2000, and membership of its super-rich seems set to rise quickly in the next decade. “Back in the year 2000, there were one or two billionaires in mainland China,” said Prof. Davies, citing a Forbes list of wealthiest people. “But the numbers have gone up to five or six by now, so it’s a period of rapid change.” A small number of countries account for most of the wealthiest 10 per cent in the world. One-quarter are Americans and another 20 per cent are Japanese, who tend to have a very strong preference for liquid savings, according to the research. The two countries feature even more strongly among the richest 1 per cent of individuals in the world, with 37 per cent living in the United States and 27 per cent in Japan. Prof. Davies said he was particularly struck by one result of the study, which undermines the notion that poor people in low-income countries are mired in debt. “It’s true that there are people heavily indebted in poor countries. But for a couple of reasons there is not that much use of debt and borrowing there as in high-income countries. “The other aspect is that a lot of people in poor countries are leading very precarious lives. One way to react to that is to try to build up your assets as a buffer against things that can go wrong,” he said, giving as an example the hoarding of small quantities of gold. Prof. Davies said the results of the research will provide a baseline for future studies on where the world is going. “The trend over the last 20 to 25 years has likely been more concentration of wealth, simply because that’s been observed for income…Where we’re going in the future depends on a lot of things, for example on what happens to major economies like China and the evolution of wealth in those countries.” --- Meanwhile; http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/africa/2005/1027disposs.htm

Africa set to strip Western giants of mining rights Nick Mathiason The Observer; Sunday, January 28, 2007 Business & Media http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2000151,00.html African governments are gearing up to seize back valuable mining concessions from the global extractive giants. Angry that at missing out on the unprecedented commodity boom, Tanzania is preparing to renegotiate gold mining concessions. The news will send a shiver down the collective spine of some of the world's biggest mining companies, whose profits and share prices have surged in the past five years. The warning comes from Dr Yash Tandon, executive director of the South Centre, the inter-governmental body representing 49 developing countries. Asked if African governments would follow the lead of Russia's President Vladimir Putin and appropriate valuable commodity assets, Tandon said: 'It's a matter of time...within the next five years or even earlier.' 'To some extent, African countries have been a victim of the myth that, if they don't open up their markets to investment, it won't come. They have been competing to give concessions to mining firms and banks. I don't believe the Tanzanians get more than 5 per cent of gold. The rest is externalised.' In an interview with The Observer at the World Social Forum in Nairobi, Tandon criticised the Make Poverty History campaign as little more than a 'PR exercise', saying: 'Gleneagles [the G8 summit] wrote off $40bn. At the time, debt was about $400bn for poor countries. You still have $350bn debt. Just the interest rate alone by now has brought that back to $400bn - so on debt relief it hasn't made much difference, because the underlying structure that creates debt is not settled, resolved or even addressed. 'If this becomes the last step, they will have indulged themselves in some kind of public relations exercise which gives the impression they've done their job.' He is advocating a debt audit to determine whether poor countries' debt relief had a 'meaningful impact', or whether money has been recycled. He suspects that lucrative infrastructure contracts have been linked to debt relief. Despite Tony Blair's optimism, Tandon believes WTO trade talks are 'more or less doomed'. He says EU pressure to seal an economic partnership agreement with African, Caribbean and Pacific nations by the year's end is 'unrealistic and unfair' because the original intention was to wait until two years after the conclusion of a WTO trade deal. --- Putin signals end to foreign ownership of Russian energy Subcontracting OK; Gazprom to take project from Shell By Carl Mortished The Times, London Foreign energy companies will be welcome in future as subcontractors, but not as owners in Russia’s energy industry, the Kremlin signaled yesterday as Gazprom moved closer toward wresting control of Sakhalin-2, the giant Siberian gas project, from Royal Dutch Shell. The Russian gas giant confirmed that Shell had made a new proposal in negotiations over Gazprom’s participation in Sakhalin Energy, the company building a $20-billion liquefied natural gas scheme in Eastern Siberia. The project has been beset by claims and threats of prosecution from Rosprirodnadzor, the Russian environmental control agency, a campaign that is seen by Moscow energy analysts as calculated to weaken Shell’s negotiating position. Sources within Moscow suggest that Gazprom will acquire 50 per cent plus one share of the Sakhalin Energy company, reducing Shell’s stake to 25 per cent from 55 per cent. Mitsui and Mitsubishi, the current minority investors, would see their stakes reduced further. Mounting pressure on Shell to cede control of Sakhalin Energy to Gazprom has coincided with nationalist sentiment. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for President Vladmir, said yesterday the environment had changed and Russian firms no longer needed foreign help. “Our companies have the opportunity to be owners by themselves, to attract finance and certain technologies. This changes the conditions for foreign investors. They won’t be so much owners, they will have opportunities as contractors and subcontractors,” Mr. Peskov said. “We understand that it is better to have a direct share, but you have to understand these are Russian resources. No country in the world would want to give up its natural resources to foreigners.” Existing agreements would be respected, he said, but he suggested that the contracts granting major concessions to companies, such as Shell, were a legacy of a past era. “In the 1990’s, our country was in a poor economic state, we couldn’t develop energy by ourselves. We had to attract investors with extremely favourable conditions. Now the situation has changed drastically,” Mr. Peskov said. Shell confirmed yesterday that its chief executive, Jereon van der Veer, had a meeting last week with Alexei Miller, Gazprom’s chief executive, at which “Sakhalin-related issues were discussed.” The meeting, which was attended by Viktor Khristenko, Russia’s energy minister, was described by a Shell spokesman as “positive”. In Moscow, Gazprom said Shell’s proposals were being analysed. “A decision will be taken in view of the existing problems at the Sakhalin-2 project, including ecological,” the Gazprom spokesman said. Shell’s relationship with the Kremlin has been chilly since it signed a draft asset swap agreement with Gazprom last year, under which the Russian utility was to acquire a quarter of Sakhalin Energy in exchange for half of Zapolyarnoye, a large Western Siberian gasfield. A week after the agreement, Shell disclosed that Sakhalin’s costs had doubled to $20 billion. --- And the following excerpt: “Too much capitalism has raised fears in China that its economy is sliding into the grip of powerful multinationals as lawmakers question the sales of state assets to foreigners…There is an economic nationalism emerging in China now and many experts…hold the same opinion…Strategic industries and leading companies in these industries, such as nuclear, aerospace and power industries and others must be restricted in the ratio of foreign capital and foreign ownership. Officials blame foreign corporations for unfair competition practices and for establishing dominant positions through mergers, brand management and abundant capital, saying more must be done to protect indigenous players. Foreign investment has helped China economy grow, but after establishing a secure foothold, it has now created many serious problems and risks…Foreign takeover bids for Chinese companies are also endangering Chinese national industries, robbing China of its capacity to maintain and grow its own technical research and management capabilities and potentially making it a permanent developing country” [Economic nationalization rises in China five years after WTO entry: Officials say more must be done to protect indigenous players – The Ottawa Citizen, 12th December 2006].

Just to concur: Oil, Not Terrorists, the Reason for US Attack On Somalia http://allafrica.com/stories/200701220368.html The Nation (Nairobi) OPINION January 22, 2007 Posted to the web January 22, 2007 Wanjohi Kabukuru Nairobi JUST WHY DID THE US ATTACK Somalia two weeks ago? Of course, the answer given for the US military intervention and the generally accepted notion is the hunt for terrorists. But is it? Are terrorists the only bone of contention the US has with Somalia? When the US military devised "Operation Restore Hope" in 1993 which was short-lived after they were whipsawed by rag-tag militia in and around Mogadishu, were they fighting the 'war on terror'? They couldn't have been because this war was to start much later. If anything it is a post-Sept 11 phenomenon. So then why did the US bomb ICU extremists in the name of Al Qaeda terrorists and not throughout last year when they occupied Mogadishu? Just why is Somalia so important to the US, and by extension the big boys of Europe and some Gulf states? A UN Somalia Monitoring Group report released in November 2005 reveals that a dozen countries, namely Yemen, Djibouti, Libya, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Uganda were all poking their noses into the Somalia pie. What the UN Somalia Monitoring Group didn't reveal, however, is that these were not the only countries which were interested in the country. The little known yet well-heeled contact group, consisting of Norway, the US, UK, France and Tanzania (just an appendage) are also deeply enmeshed in Somalia. While the terrorism theory holds some water, the reality of the factors contributing to the mess in Somalia is pegged on natural resources. Oil and gas are Somalia's Achilles heel. It is an open secret that four US oil giants are sitting pretty on money-spinning concessions expecting to reap huge windfalls from massive resources of both oil and gas in Somalia. The story of Somalia and oil goes back to the colonial period. British and Italian geologists first identified oil deposits during that period of imperialism. The first oil wells historically referred to as the Daga Shabell series were dug in the 1960s. Tiny gas discoveries adjacent to Socotra were also noted. The race for these precious natural resources took a new turn in 1988, when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank, with the support of the governments of Britain, France and Canada and backed by several Western oil companies financed a regional hydrocarbon study of the countries bordering the Red Sea and the Gulf of Eden. The countries were Somalia, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was later dropped, but not before it had been established that within the study area, massive deposits of oil and gas existed. The results of the findings were presented to a three-day American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Eastern Hemisphere group conference, in London in September, 1991. Is there oil in Somalia? Listen to the answer: "It's there. There's no doubt there's oil there," said geologist Thomas E. O'Connor, the World Bank's principal petroleum engineer, who steered the in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in Somalia's Gulf of Eden in the northern coastal region. The study was intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations. The conclusions of their findings are quite telling as the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers. While presenting their results during the conference, two geologists involved in the study (an American and an Egyptian) reported that the investigation of nine exploratory wells dug in Somalia pointed out that the region was "situated within the oil window, and thus (is) highly prospective for gas and oil." Geologist, Z. R. Beydoun, who was involved in the survey, noted that "the geological parameters conducive to the generation, expulsion and trapping of significant amounts of oil and gas" were within the offshore sites. Soon after a race for lucrative deals kicked off in earnest. Four US oil companies, namely Conoco, Chevron, Amoco and Philips have concessions in nearly two thirds of Somalia. This quartet of oil conglomerates was granted these contracts in the final days of Somalia's deposed dictator, Siad Barre. The US first military engagement in Somalia was fully supported by Conoco. Mr Kabukuru is a Nairobi-based freelance journalist

Salaam aleikum my dear brothers and sisters. I am from Kenya, but I wanted to contribute something to this discussion... Oil, Not Terrorists, the Reason for US Attack On Somalia http://allafrica.com/stories/200701220368.html The Nation (Nairobi) OPINION January 22, 2007 Posted to the web January 22, 2007 Wanjohi Kabukuru Nairobi JUST WHY DID THE US ATTACK Somalia two weeks ago? Of course, the answer given for the US military intervention and the generally accepted notion is the hunt for terrorists. But is it? Are terrorists the only bone of contention the US has with Somalia? When the US military devised "Operation Restore Hope" in 1993 which was short-lived after they were whipsawed by rag-tag militia in and around Mogadishu, were they fighting the 'war on terror'? They couldn't have been because this war was to start much later. If anything it is a post-Sept 11 phenomenon. So then why did the US bomb ICU extremists in the name of Al Qaeda terrorists and not throughout last year when they occupied Mogadishu? Just why is Somalia so important to the US, and by extension the big boys of Europe and some Gulf states? A UN Somalia Monitoring Group report released in November 2005 reveals that a dozen countries, namely Yemen, Djibouti, Libya, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Uganda were all poking their noses into the Somalia pie. What the UN Somalia Monitoring Group didn't reveal, however, is that these were not the only countries which were interested in the country. The little known yet well-heeled contact group, consisting of Norway, the US, UK, France and Tanzania (just an appendage) are also deeply enmeshed in Somalia. While the terrorism theory holds some water, the reality of the factors contributing to the mess in Somalia is pegged on natural resources. Oil and gas are Somalia's Achilles heel. It is an open secret that four US oil giants are sitting pretty on money-spinning concessions expecting to reap huge windfalls from massive resources of both oil and gas in Somalia. The story of Somalia and oil goes back to the colonial period. British and Italian geologists first identified oil deposits during that period of imperialism. The first oil wells historically referred to as the Daga Shabell series were dug in the 1960s. Tiny gas discoveries adjacent to Socotra were also noted. The race for these precious natural resources took a new turn in 1988, when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank, with the support of the governments of Britain, France and Canada and backed by several Western oil companies financed a regional hydrocarbon study of the countries bordering the Red Sea and the Gulf of Eden. The countries were Somalia, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was later dropped, but not before it had been established that within the study area, massive deposits of oil and gas existed. The results of the findings were presented to a three-day American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Eastern Hemisphere group conference, in London in September, 1991. Is there oil in Somalia? Listen to the answer: "It's there. There's no doubt there's oil there," said geologist Thomas E. O'Connor, the World Bank's principal petroleum engineer, who steered the in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in Somalia's Gulf of Eden in the northern coastal region. The study was intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations. The conclusions of their findings are quite telling as the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers. While presenting their results during the conference, two geologists involved in the study (an American and an Egyptian) reported that the investigation of nine exploratory wells dug in Somalia pointed out that the region was "situated within the oil window, and thus (is) highly prospective for gas and oil." Geologist, Z. R. Beydoun, who was involved in the survey, noted that "the geological parameters conducive to the generation, expulsion and trapping of significant amounts of oil and gas" were within the offshore sites. Soon after a race for lucrative deals kicked off in earnest. Four US oil companies, namely Conoco, Chevron, Amoco and Philips have concessions in nearly two thirds of Somalia. This quartet of oil conglomerates was granted these contracts in the final days of Somalia's deposed dictator, Siad Barre. The US first military engagement in Somalia was fully supported by Conoco. Mr Kabukuru is a Nairobi-based freelance journalist

Salaam aleikum my dear brothers and sisters. I am from Kenya, but I just wanted to contribute my 2 cents to this particular discussion... Oil, Not Terrorists, the Reason for US Attack On Somalia http://allafrica.com/stories/200701220368.html The Nation (Nairobi) OPINION January 22, 2007 Posted to the web January 22, 2007 Wanjohi Kabukuru Nairobi JUST WHY DID THE US ATTACK Somalia two weeks ago? Of course, the answer given for the US military intervention and the generally accepted notion is the hunt for terrorists. But is it? Are terrorists the only bone of contention the US has with Somalia? When the US military devised "Operation Restore Hope" in 1993 which was short-lived after they were whipsawed by rag-tag militia in and around Mogadishu, were they fighting the 'war on terror'? They couldn't have been because this war was to start much later. If anything it is a post-Sept 11 phenomenon. So then why did the US bomb ICU extremists in the name of Al Qaeda terrorists and not throughout last year when they occupied Mogadishu? Just why is Somalia so important to the US, and by extension the big boys of Europe and some Gulf states? A UN Somalia Monitoring Group report released in November 2005 reveals that a dozen countries, namely Yemen, Djibouti, Libya, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Uganda were all poking their noses into the Somalia pie. What the UN Somalia Monitoring Group didn't reveal, however, is that these were not the only countries which were interested in the country. The little known yet well-heeled contact group, consisting of Norway, the US, UK, France and Tanzania (just an appendage) are also deeply enmeshed in Somalia. While the terrorism theory holds some water, the reality of the factors contributing to the mess in Somalia is pegged on natural resources. Oil and gas are Somalia's Achilles heel. It is an open secret that four US oil giants are sitting pretty on money-spinning concessions expecting to reap huge windfalls from massive resources of both oil and gas in Somalia. The story of Somalia and oil goes back to the colonial period. British and Italian geologists first identified oil deposits during that period of imperialism. The first oil wells historically referred to as the Daga Shabell series were dug in the 1960s. Tiny gas discoveries adjacent to Socotra were also noted.. The race for these precious natural resources took a new turn in 1988, when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank, with the support of the governments of Britain, France and Canada and backed by several Western oil companies financed a regional hydrocarbon study of the countries bordering the Red Sea and the Gulf of Eden. The countries were Somalia, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was later dropped, but not before it had been established that within the study area, massive deposits of oil and gas existed. The results of the findings were presented to a three-day American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Eastern Hemisphere group conference, in London in September, 1991. Is there oil in Somalia? Listen to the answer: "It's there. There's no doubt there's oil there," said geologist Thomas E. O'Connor, the World Bank's principal petroleum engineer, who steered the in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in Somalia's Gulf of Eden in the northern coastal region. The study was intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations. The conclusions of their findings are quite telling as the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers. While presenting their results during the conference, two geologists involved in the study (an American and an Egyptian) reported that the investigation of nine exploratory wells dug in Somalia pointed out that the region was "situated within the oil window, and thus (is) highly prospective for gas and oil." Geologist, Z. R. Beydoun, who was involved in the survey, noted that "the geological parameters conducive to the generation, expulsion and trapping of significant amounts of oil and gas" were within the offshore sites. Soon after a race for lucrative deals kicked off in earnest. Four US oil companies, namely Conoco, Chevron, Amoco and Philips have concessions in nearly two thirds of Somalia. This quartet of oil conglomerates was granted these contracts in the final days of Somalia's deposed dictator, Siad Barre. The US first military engagement in Somalia was fully supported by Conoco. Mr Kabukuru is a Nairobi-based freelance journalist