Good News from Northwestern Somalia.

Good News from Northwestern Somalia.

Where is Viking? His well-balanced contribution has been missed? Meiji, the abduction of religious pundits has been reported throughout the Islamic world: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq etc. Recall the Extraordinary Rendition.

Turki, in this situation, has no minor role to play other than being a duped figure and tool used to advance the clan interest of Guri'el folks. He is the epitome of Omar Jess.

I agree with his last point. A true statement that exposes the double-edged sword of Aid and Assistance. Services rendered by NGOs and affiliated UN agencies have been a booming business. They have now evolved as the de facto governors of Somalia though the observable conditions that give rise to their hegemonic position in Somalia are hard to ignore; it's also unlikely for now to reverse their decentralized administration of Aid and development channeled through local NGOs, local admins like PL and SL, and independent contractors. Thus far, strong and accountable central government is still an illusion for them to phase out the essential services they provide to the needy. Until then, they will be running a desperate nation that is forever fragmented and suspicious of their innate capacity to lead themselves. Neither the extremists nor the moderates has any alternative solution for the hapless people caught in the midst of their political stalemate and power struggle.

Originally posted by Hassan6734: The fact is no one knows who really controls al-shabaab. Aweys is just jealous of shariff, once shariff goes Al-shabaab would turn on Aweys himself and disarm hizbul Islam. These people do not want peace, they do not want sharia Government. They do not care abt the peoople but themselves. This war is going to now continue for many years. People will die for nothing,only the enemies of somalia will benefit from this. Only the somali people would lose out. [/QB] Excellent point Hassan. Meiji, I like your points of "swift justice"

Press Release: UN Security Council Must Reconsider its Stance By Ministry of Foreign AffairsMay 14, 2009, 13:36 *The United Nations Security Council continues to doggedly condone ephemeral trends in Somalia as given and legitimate; and, to endorse illicit and externally imposed "transitional governments" that do not represent neighborhoods in Mogadiscio let alone the entire Somali people. The UN Security Council has further condoned acts of external invasion against Somalia. It is clear that these misguided positions contravene the independence, sovereignty as well as unity of Somalia and constitute a grave breach of the Charter of the United Nations and international law., * These illegal and unconstructive positions of the Security Council have exacerbated the political vacuum that has enveloped Somalia; aggravated piracy and lawlessness; and, compounded the suffering of the Somali people. These acts have further accentuated the prevalent instability in the Horn of Africa., * In the event, the Government of Eritrea urges the UN Security Council to take remedial action by taking stock of these violations and the deleterious consequences that they have entailed., * , * Ministry of Foreign Affairs Asmara 14 May 2009, Shabait.com

Well the South is the bread basket of Somalia. It's more strategic and more populated than the whole North. Resource wars coupled with regional and international meddling contribute to its instability and choas. Resilient and progressive people if you solve the choas variable!

I give Aweis his credit for outplaying Mr. Abdalla. He understood the neutral role of the Special Representative and therefore urged him to refrain from taking one side of the conflict. MMA, you have a point saxib here but the Shariif and his Government are equally culpable if not worse. Several MPs have already called for his resignation.

Mintid, The author's underlying assumption is that where there is a modicum of stability and progress, the inhabitants are superior, which means his folks are also superior. His is the route of Newtonian physics based on the constrained view of the world in which all events happen in A-->B-->C sequence--a myopic and outdated assumption of reality.

In response to Abdalla's remarks, Aweis had this to day: "It is a surprise to see Ould-Abdallah destroying Somalia when he, as a Muslim, has an obligation of being honest of what he has to do for Somalis," Aweys said. "He consistently defends the government policies as if he is the president of this country, and he is not playing his role of engaging every side of the conflict." Aweis: 2 Abdalla: 0 Lol

Che, why don't you summarize your posts for convenience. They are quite weak, afraid, disorganized, and ill-trained. I wonder if Al-Shababs can expand beyond their current bases.

Indeed it's a great News.

Al-Shabab's narrow strategy of this conflict has always been the indiscriminate shelling of civilians or population centers and then accuse others of committing the massacre. You will hardly see them challenging the military installations in a direct confrontation or far away from Residences. No wonder no single Amisom troop has died in this raging battle. Except for the ones ambushed by suicide bombers, the AMISOM troops have deterred the Al-shabaab insurgency from direct engagement. Hence with more mandated UN trooops, I think the Government can recoup its power and reassert it over the capital.

The Somali author Hassan provides an erudite, clear, engaging and almost comprehensive account of the origin of Federalism and Islamic Governance, early civilizations and the multifaceted process that make up regional and global phenomena of social and political integration. The author argues federalism has its roots in Islam and that all other civilizations' previous form of leadership and administration were structured around a central authority. It is a very interesting piece and the beautiful academic language with which it is conveyed, i.e. the mother tongue, makes it exquisite and enjoyable read. It even helps those with a shallow understanding of the concepts of Federalism and Confederalism. PART I PART II

Originally posted by J.a.c.a.y.l.b.a.r.o: a handful of countries including the United States. It has a president and a bicameral legislature, as well as feisty opposition parties. It issues its own currency — crisp bills printed in the United Kingdom — and its own passports and visas. It can't make deals with other countries for development projects, though, and no international banks have opened here. The economy remains mostly pre-modern and farm-based. By Shashank Bengali | McClatchy Newspapers [/QB] Jacaylbaro, the Pre-Modern period is (3,500 Bce - 1500 CE) You need to read the history of Mesopatamia, Central China and Egypt and see if there are similarities.

Why is this term "western backed" used by the media all the time. What about other countries that recognize the TFG and promised to extend their help. I think the oft-repeated use of this term induces hostility and division, and it is an ammunition for the insurgents to keep the war and perpetuate the appalling conditions of Somalia's conflict. Today, because of its neoliberal economic policies derived from the principles of the "Washimgton Consensus" devised and codified by John Williamson, the West today is associated with exploitation and backers of authoritarian political leaders. The term doesn't help because it excludes other key international stakeholders. The Government must be portrayed in light of its juridical membership of the International Community.

Eritrean President Says Iran Has No Military Bases in His Country Al-Alam TelevisionFriday, May 8, 2009 Tehran Al-Alam Television in Arabic at 1805 GMT on 7 May carried its regular "With the Event" program in which Eritrean President Isayas Afewerki is interviewed. He answers a number of questions on relations with Israel, the Palestinians, relations with Arab and Muslim states, the US strategy, as well as Iran`s policy in the region. He was asked several questions about Iran.Presenter Husayn Murtada asked: "Your excellency the president! In a number of interviews you have pointed out the US strategy. Let us now deal with the US strategy in the region. Who is also trying to incite sedition among the peoples and states of the region? There is talk, perhaps, about Iranian or Israeli danger? What is your comment? "President Isayas Afewerki replied: "The question is composed of two parts. In my view, the US strategy was clear from the end of World War II to the end of the Cold War. This is a great power which emerged to dominate the entire world and to dominate the resources of parts of the world through military might. This is a clear strategy. There was competition between the former Soviet Union and the US strategy during the Cold War. The main change in the US strategy following the collapse of the Soviet Union -- despite the fact that there was no change in its content -- is that the so-called US Neo-Conservatives have changed their strategy. They adopted the strategy of domination and absorption as well as management of the affairs of regions through a concept that there would be no domination: Domination through creating problems and crisis; domination through military and technological superiority; domination through inciting sedition among peoples and states in given regions. This is the general picture of the US strategy."These are basic facts. There is a theory which says that if Arabs and the region are left alone it would be possible to find solutions to the region`s problems, even if there are differences. The US strategy is to create a situation that would strengthen the US influence in this region by provoking crises which did not exist. "Murtada then said: "Let`s deal with the second part of the question! Perhaps the conflict is among Muslims, among the states in the region. Sedition! "Afewerki said: "Sedition is being fomented among Muslims, between Muslims and Christians and among ethnicities and tribes. One of the political means of the strategy is to incite sedition. For instance, if a country has tribal, ethnic or sectarian problems the objective is to inflame these problems and to take advantage of the weaknesses in a given country. For instance, establishing the so-called democracy, a democracy which is not in the interest of everyone or of the majority, but a democracy which aims to divide societies and incite sedition; inciting sedition which would lead to confrontation among states and governments in a given region. Military presence strengthens this strategy. There are different political systems, republics, kingdoms, and others. They may be differences in their orientations and in the way they manage their political systems, but there is no justification for conflicts because common interests are achieved through cooperation and co-existence in a given region. If somebody says there is a conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, these are fabrications. If you follow (celebrated Egyptian journalist) Muhammad Hasanin Haykal`s statements on satellite TVs he speaks about the history of the Arab-Iranian relations, or relations between the Shah and governments in the Arab world! At the time there was no Shiite-Sunni conflict in this region. So where are these conflicts coming from? There may be doctrinal, historical or philosophical differences with regard to this issue, but this existed in the past. "Murtada asked: "The mistake, as your excellency pointed out, is the danger of the Sunni-Shiite sedition. Who is flirting with this danger in your view? "Afewerki said: "It is the Americans, their allies or the US strategy in the region who are flirting with this danger. If the objective is to create and manage crises in this region, what are the factors for creating such crises? We have seen that the justifications which led to intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan have now been proven wrong. Now the only pretext used by the Americans is the danger coming from Iran. Simply, we may not be able to understand complicated issues, but what is the danger represented by Iran in the region? Is there any country which represents a danger to another in this region? What are the causes of such a danger? Is it Iran`s nuclear program? All countries want to have a nuclear program for peaceful purposes for technical and practical reasons. It is the right of any country to look for possibilities to find resources and to rely on a peaceful nuclear energy. Is there a belief that a given state would use nuclear weapons? I can say that this would not happen and it is not realistic. Israel may have nuclear weapons, Iran has a peaceful nuclear program and Arab states -- including Egypt and Gulf states -- want to have nuclear programs, and they cooperate with European states on these programs. The talk about the possibility to use nuclear technology for political and military objectives is a deliberate propaganda which aims to instil fear and heighten tension in the region and to divert attention from the main issues. This is a secondary issue. If there are nuclear dangers and problems why they cannot be solved within the region, among the countries which feel the danger and the concerned party, if Iran has such intentions? They can be solved with other means without resorting to propagating this idea and creating a political problem by instilling fear about Shiite invasion of the region from the Gulf to the Maghreb? How can one believe this? The behavior of some individuals or parties in spreading a specific ideology or religion is unacceptable because it creates instability and incites sedition. "Murtada then asked about relations with Iran: "There is no difference in one religion, there is no difference between Shiites and Sunnis, so why talk about differences? Since you touched on the issue of Iran, let us deal with relations between Tehran and Asmara. What is the nature of these relations? We began to hear that there are Iranian missiles in Eritrea, there are members of the Iranian Revolution Guards in Eritrea, there are Iranian (military) bases in Eritrea? "Afewerki said: "This is a paradox! Some would wonder whether this is a joke or true! How come they say the conflict in the region is between Israel and Iran? According to Israel, the main danger in the region is Iran. How is it possible for both Israel and Iran to have military bases in Eritrea? How can anybody believe this paradox? These are all fabrications. They speak about things that cannot be believed by anybody. I believe that relations between Iran and Eritrea are relatively new. In my opinion relations between the two countries are constructive. However, to speak about these relations as being part of the Iranian danger in the region is a paradox, as I said, based on Israeli-Iranian cooperation for influence in this region through Eritrea. I can tell you that this is part of a strategy and a propaganda to serve this strategy and to incite sedition through fear about a danger coming from somewhere in the region! "Murtada asked: "Your excellency, there is talk that Iranian missiles are probably transferred through Eritrea or Sudan to Palestinians! Also in the beginning Eritrea was mentioned in the issue of the so-called Hezbollah cell in Egypt! What can you say about all of this? "Afewerki replied: "This kind of talk has been circulating for more than a year. Arms from Iran or the Comoro Islands, for instance, through the Red Sea, to Eritrea, from Eritrea to Sudan and from Sudan to Egypt and then through Rafah to the Gaza Strip! How can the Sudanese or Egyptian governments allow weapons to go through their countries? How can Iran send weapons to Gaza through all these territories? In addition, the paradox is that Egypt, with its political stance, strongly opposes the use of its territories as a transit! How did Egypt allow weapons to go through its territory? These are fabrications which aim to tarnish the image and to incite sedition among states by giving the impression that Iran is penetrating the region. That Iran is working to destabilize countries of the region!." (Description of Source: Tehran Al-Alam Television in Arabic -- IRIB`s 24-hour Arabic news channel, targetting a pan-Arab audience)

A recent article on the Lucrative Banana Industry in post-anarchic Somalia. New Agriculturist 2009-1: Focus on... A ripe time for Somali bananas? January 2009 http://www.new- ag.info/09/01/ focuson/focuson4.php "The onset of civil war in the early 1990s saw banana production decline although the export sector was partially revived between 1993-97.......In sharing the report findings and through its attempts to identify private sector operators capable of reviving Somali exports, SAMSAM succeeded in catching the attention of Mehrdad Radseresht. Son of an Iranian diplomat, ex-managing director for Dole Foods in Somalia and involved in the export sector up until 1997, Mehrdad has retained his faith in the potential for Somalia to export bananas...... The first step in providing more support to farmers is just one shipment away. A cargo ship loaded with fertilisers, packaging cartons and tools destined for Mogadishu is, at the time of writing, docked in the Middle East. Whilst the ship has been delayed due to fears of running the gauntlet with Somali pirates, in the meantime, farmers are being made aware of the impending arrival of inputs and tools. Once the ship has unloaded in Mogadishu, it will continue to sail between Mombasa in neighbouring Kenya, and Mogadishu, ferrying food aid, and commodities such as sesame and fish, until the first bananas are ready for export to the Middle East later in 2009.

The following article explores the possible linkage between resource scarcity in Somalia and armed conflict. According to the author, there is little evidence that prolonged civil conflicts in Africa are caused by environmental scarcity or clan feuds. War over resources, evidence from Somalia

What are your thoughts about the control of strategic resource infrastructures, ports, the Banana industry, the freedom of no taxation, and foreign entities that benefit from Somalia'a anarchy? Please don't steer this topic into the familiar but narrow Clan Perspective. Very relevant article. NO END IN SIGHT TO BANANA WAR By Moyiga Nduru Apr. 24, 1996 A banana war between two of Somalia's main warlords is underway over the control of the lucrative banana export trade to Europe.The forces of Gen. Mohamed Farah Aideed, the self-proclaimed president of Somalia, are pitted against the militiamen of his former financier-turned-foe , Ali Hassan Osman "Atto", and the fighting has been fierce. Aideed needs the revenues, estimated at around $ 800,000 a month, to pay his soldiers as he tries to establish his control in the Bay and Bakol regions and take on the Rahenweyne clan. Atto, in a lose alliance with another self-proclaimed president, Ali Mahdi Mohammed based in northern Mogadishu, wants to deny him that control. Renewed clashes beginning last month leaving scores of people dead, including Atto's son shot by a sniper, as business leaders and elders attempt to negotiate a truce."We are doing our best to stop the fighting. People phone me every day from Mogadishu that they are working very hard to stop the carnage," Hussein Ali Dualleh of the Nairobi-based Somali Affairs Monitoring Committee told IPS. "What's happening in Mogadishu is not a political war. It's purely an economic war. A war sparked by an attempt to control the port of Merca and Somalia's lucrative banana trade. That's why the fighting is not being joined by other Somali factions," says the former Somali ambassador to Kenya. Merca, a small and ancient port some 90 kms south of Mogadishu, is Aideed's economic lifeline. "The port was renovated by two tiny foreign firms -- an Italian company called Somali Fruit and an American company called Sombana -- when the main port of Mogadishu was closed by Ali Mahdi following a quarrel over the banana trade last year," Dualleh explained." The two companies renovated Merca and pay Aideed for every carton they export 20 cents. That comes roughly to about $ 800,000 a month during the peak season from April to August," he says. Additional levies bring in an additional $ 200,000 to Aideed's coffers each month. Atto and Ali Mahdi blocked Aideed from using Mogadishu port last October. Fighting again flared in March when Atto demanded that the warlord either share the revenues from Merca or see that port closed. In the battle that followed, Aideed's forces were overrun. A full-scale war was averted after elders of the Habir Gedir clan, to which the two warlords belong, persuaded Atto's militia to withdraw. As they pulled back to Mogadishu, Atto's militia felt "humiliated and bitter", according to a Somali elder here who wanted to remain anonymous, "and they immediately attacked Aideed's forces. That's the origin of the present conflict. "Before Somalia collapsed into the anarchy of warlord politics with the overthrow of former dictator Siad Barre in 1991, the country was earning some $ 20 million annually from banana exports. That represented around 15 per cent of the country's total export earnings. The money now goes to whoever can control the fertile Lower Shabelle region and a port. Fearing that he may lose out on the banana trade, Ali Mahdi has built his own port of Al Eel Maan, 30 kms north of Mogadishu.The current round of fighting comes at a time when the majority of Somalis struggle to survive. With the withdrawal of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in 1995 and the sharp drop in the number of foreign aid agencies willing to risk operating in Somalia, jobs are scarce. A recent report by the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization warned that poor harvests due to drought and insecurity in parts of the country have led to sharp rises in the cost of food and, with the low purchasing power of most Somalis, has also caused pockets of malnutrition.Between 1991 and 1992, some 300,000 people died of starvation and famine-related diseases as a result of the civil strife, prompting the ill-fated $ 4 billion U.S. and U.N. intervention. Aideed, whose armed opposition to the mission led to its demise, last June declared himself president of Somalia. He has appointed a government, announced a budget, tried to collect taxes and enforce his authority from his south Mogadishu headquarters. However, only Libya has recognized him. He is resisted by the other warlords, not least Ali Mahdi and his Abgal clan, which retains control of the northern half of a divided Mogadishu. In other parts of the country, clan-based statelets have emerged and, since 1991, the north-western region has proclaimed itself independent as Somaliland. Last week, several small Somali political parties formed a consultation group here to seek a peaceful solution to their country's agony after the failure of repeated attempts brokered by neighboring Ethiopia and the Organization of African Unity. But the meeting was not attended by Aideed, Ali Mahdi or Atto. "I think the conference was just a political gimmick to show the world that they were still alive and kicking," says Dualleh. "A conference to bring peace in Somalia should not be held in a hotel in Nairobi. It should be held in Somalia and the deliberations should take at least three months, not four days." However, the spokesman for the group, Mohamed Awale, justified the peace initiative. "The people of Somalia are suffering simply because there is no government in their country and their leaders cannot agree to produce one," he stressed

dad waxaa u wacanoo, Hanuuniye.

No wonder these rogue Arab states are perfect choices for America's once export of its own torture. How many a men went through this type of torture that leads to an organ failure and removal in these places. These rogue states in the Middle East are definately well-known for their ruthless and savage methods of torture. I watched from a documentary that by just mentioning these places is enough to rouse loathsome fear in the detainees' hearts. Can the this savage be braught to justice by an international criminal court?

Originally posted by King_Sasa: [QB] Well said, Nassir, well presented argument, Thanks King.

April 23, 2009 Source: DW- World UN SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN KI-MOON ISSUED AN APPEAL FOR FUNDS TO HELP SOMALIA AS A DONORS' CONFERENCE GOT UNDERWAY IN BRUSSELS. THE SUBJECT OF PIRACY THREATENED TO DOMINATE PROCEEDINGS. As international donors gathered at a conference to help bring stability to Somalia, it seemed rampant piracy in busy shipping lanes off the Somali coast - a subject that has topped international news bulletins for months - was likely to dominate the talks. The one-day conference in Brussels aims to raise at least 128 million euros ($166 million) to finance African peacekeepers and support Somalia's fledgling police and security forces. But European Commission President Jose Manuel Barrosso said ahead of the talks that he was worried that the piracy problem might divert resources in the lawless nation. Piracy a 'symptom', Ban says "If we only treat the symptoms, piracy at sea, but not its root causes -- the decay of the state and poverty -- we will fail," Barroso said ahead of the meeting. For his part, Ban said international funding for Somalia's new government and African Union peacekeepers is vital to help stabilize the lawless nation, a prerequisite for stopping the persistent pirate attacks. At a news conference, Ban told reporteres that piracy is a symptom of anarchy and insecurity on the ground. He said international help would enable the new government to establish authority and ensure reconstruction. No plans for peace force Ban reiterated that he had no intention of sending a UN force to Somalia any time soon, saying a peacekeeping operation would go only when "circumstances and conditions are appropriate." Organisers of the meeting, which is being chaired by the UN and the African Union, say more than $250 million is needed for next year to improve security in a state that has functioned without a central government since 1991 and is mired in conflict. Also due to attend was Somali President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, a former Islamist rebel leader elected in January at UN-brokered talks and widely seen as the best hope for restoring stability.