Originally posted by AYOUB: Caamir You've doctored the article to spread anti-Somaliland propaganda not to highlight the plight of the suffering people of Og*den. There's no "somaliland" in the article before your special nip n tuck job. Shameless opportunism indeed! I am not the only one who is speaking out of this reckless disregard of human rights. An Abominable Act by the Secessionist Enclave Ali Geeleh Monday, October 22, 2007 Once again, the secessionist enclave based in Hargeisa has gone out of their way to show their total contempt for Somalis other than those who belong to the heartland of the secessionist administered area. This time, they have shamelessly traded in kidnapped innocent Somalis from the ****** in order to endear themselves to their Ethiopian masters. For them, scoring points against their equally servile competitors in Somalia and Puntland and winning Ethiopia’s favours is worth any price including human trade. These hapless Somalis were in Hargeisa believing they were safe in a Somali territory which, notwithstanding its declared secession from Somalia, would nonetheless be true to core Somali and Islamic values and which could never go so low and embark on such unspeakable act. It does not require much imagination to contemplate their fate in the hands of their Ethiopian enemy. Even if innocent, they will be meted out all the same the usual cruel and barbaric treatments for which Ethiopia’s prisons are famous. Sadly, their deaths in detention are distinct possibilities. If that happens, those in Hargeisa who sanctioned this treacherous act will have blood on their hands. They would be liable to tried for treason by a future Somali government that has control over the whole country and can impose its writ everywhere unlike the current toothless TFG. More than anything else, what the secessionists have done this time exposes as sham their much-vaunted claim of practising democracy, maintaining peace, observing the rule of law and respecting fundamental human rights. This hogwash was always meant for the consumption of the outside world as good selling points for promoting Somaliland’s recognition. As it is, violations of basic human rights, entailing arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions without trail and a supine judiciary system, had been the hallmark of the administration. This revolting action by the Somaliland adminstration brings back memories of similar shocking cases. The barbaric and inhuman treatment a teenage girl named Samsam has left an indelible blot on Somaliland’s image. Her misfortune was to lose her way and find herself near the residence of the “Vice President”, something bizarrely considered a crime and meriting her immediate imprisonment as a suspected spy and her subjection to gang rape by the very people who were the custodians of the rule of law- law enforcement officers. An administration that would not spare an innocent little girl is less likely to care about anyone else considered alien and deemed defenceless. But the list of wronged people goes on. While equality before the law is fundamental universal human rights standard, in the case of Somaliland, those who belong to dominant secessionist clans are more equal than those who hail from minority groups who are treated as second class citizens. Visiting Somali travellers or those in transit en route for other destinations are subjected to immediate detentions or on the spot deportations for being illegally what every other Somali and the international community recognise as their own territory. But it is the ******s who are singled out as fair game and sacrificial lamps to be fed to Ethiopia or regularly detained in order to gain points with the USA in the war on terror. Not surprisingly, these grave and rampant human rights violations and abuses had drawn the stinging rebuke of the Representative for Somalia of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights The Somaliland government did not even bother to go through the sham motions of bringing those kidnapped people before a court of law to face the charges against them. But that did not happen for the obvious reason that they had no case against them. As the secessionist supporting website, Somaliland.org, has reported, these men were innocent. This heinous crime could have serious consequences and may rekindle clan hostilities not to mention reprisals by the ONLF “Somalilanders” may be secessionists/Somalideed, but there are undoubtedly many decent people amongst them who would draw the line at not tolerating crimes by their administration against ordinary innocent Somalis, especially guests in their midst. It behoves them more than ever to raise their voice against this crime. Otherwise, silence can only be taken as condoning it. Ali Geeleh Email: Aligeeleh@yahoo.co.uk

Tahliil, read my signature and see if the country is in occupation and ease on the personal attacks.

Thanks Hunguri for the info.

Jacaylbaro, are you saying the U.N office in Nairobi has not issued statement condemning Somaliland's adventures creating this huge instability. As Oodweyne admits, the U.N recognized the jurisdictional claim of Las Anod by Puntland. Las Anod had been ruled by Puntland and was stable until this war, thereby forcing many families to flee and putting those in the city at a risky situation--revenge because of their committed support for Puntland. What are the consequences of Somaliland's unwarranted attacks??

Why is it misleading news. It is all over the news. Check Aminarts AminArts dated October 16 2007 as well as this News Originally posted by Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar: The other puppet entity, and which you fondly support, does it worse. Dear Macruuf, you probably see the TFG case as either black or white. In 1996, the U.N adopted a resolution that created IGAD mainly to reverse the deteriorating condition of Somalia's ethnic war. Ethiopia is member of IGAD. IGAD was open to bring together warlords, elders, scholars, and community leaders in Eldoret which led to the formation of the TFG with a readiness and desire to stop the conflict in Somalia in good faith. Some of the pre-requisites adopted as resolution in the Eldoret conference had several elements that were successful: Respect for each others' concerns and fears This means putting the past differences aside. creation of working relations and identifying the needs, expectations and what is acceptable. Although IGAD used shuttle diplomacy to coordinate and facilitate the Reconciliation conference, the final decision was based on the will of all the parties involved. Prior to the TFG’s official take over of Mogadsiho, warlords were in the business of handing over suspected individuals to the CIA which financed them. The United States considers Pre-TFG Somalia as an ungoverned space, such actions of kidnapping and handing over innocent but suspected individuals thus served the interest of U.S’s foreign policy. Ethiopian and Egypt receive the bulk of Congressional Appropriations in the fight against terror. Since TFG assumed control of Mogadisho, reports of kidnapping have significantly become minimal and the U.N would not allow this to happen. The era of warlords’ hegemony has been substantially reduced, but if you equate the TFG with another warlord entity, then it means the United States and whole world, not to mention majority of Somalis, are supporting a warlord entity. “Somaliland” is another building block that proved itself its susceptibility to chronic corruption and human rights abuse that is why I raised this topic. On the other hand, TFG has its faults. I have exposed its faults several times in the forum and offered my citizen’s advice. Somalia’s conflict is now an internationalized conflict. The world is concerned of its steady continuation and wants to end it. Ethiopia’s intervention and its political factor can have several reasons. It might be for tit for tat or ending our protracted conflict that is destabilizing the region. I am optimistic and I had chosen the latter. Old Comment I made

"Correspondents say the arrest may be linked to the power struggle between the president and his prime minister." There is a mediation going on between the two leaders and It will be resolved. This is just a minor issue compared to the carefully planed assasinations of elected mayors and district commissioners by the tribal-based insurgents despite the genuine efforts of the international community to return peace and security in Somalia.

By Peter Heinlein Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 17 October 2007 Addis Ababa (VOA) A group concerned with human rights in Ethiopia's eastern ****** region says refugees fleeing to neighboring Somalia are being rounded up by Somali authorities and handed over to Ethiopian troops. VOA's Peter Heinlein in Addis Ababa reports Ethiopia's government rejects the allegation. A news release received at the VOA bureau in Nairobi says ethnic Somalis escaping an Ethiopian government crackdown in ****** face arrest and deportation. The release, issued by the ****** Human Rights Committee, alleges that Somali authorities are trading captured refugees in return for ammunition and materials or simply to prove loyalty and friendship to Ethiopia. Senior Ethiopian government official Bereket Simon denied the allegation in a VOA telephone interview. Bereket says those arrested were terrorists. "We have detained terrorists. We have detained members of terrorist groups. That is normal," he said. "And, we will do it again if we get the chance. I do not think we should be denied the right to defend ourselves. That is what we have been doing and if anybody translates this into human rights abuse, that is his problem, not ours." Conflict has been raging in the eastern region of Ethiopia since April, when fighters of the ****** National Liberation Front attacked a Chinese-run oil exploration team. Seventy-four people were reported killed in the attack. The impoverished region had been virtually closed to foreigners, including journalists and aid agencies, for months. But aid officials told VOA this week that food shipments have resumed and that fresh supplies are enough to feed needy people in the region for six months. The cutoff of supplies had prompted human rights and aid groups to accuse the government of creating a humanitarian crisis. But Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi defended the action. Meles described the ONLF rebels as "cold-blooded murderers" bankrolled by neighboring Eritrea, and vows they will be crushed. The ONLF says it is fighting for greater autonomy for the mostly ethnic Somali people of the region. The ****** region is considered the poorest in Ethiopia. It is home mostly to Somali nomads. The predominantly Muslim area has kept its own distinctive identity, doing most of its trading with Somalia and the Middle East, rather than with the rest of Ethiopia. Source: VOA, October 17, 2007

Armchair, the purpose of the United Nation is both humantarian intervention and the maintainance of peace and security. This global institution's agenda is not restricted to one purpose alone. Juje, I didn't make up the title. Afrique/"]http://www.afriquenligne.fr/news/daily-news/un-warns-somali's-self%11declared-republic-over-border-row-200709289588]Afrique/ . It appears that you and Oodweyne have missed the point. The U.N has taken a legitimate position and sees the Sool conflict situations as a naked aggression by the Somaliland authorities using local men as the supply side of its precarious adventures to maim and kill innocent civilians. The network the Somaliland/SNM troops has in the region is not patchy and we are not to anticipate the establishment of a rule of law or respect for human righs . Only the locals can have the primary responsibility to take due account of the sad state of nature they find themselves in at the moment so that they can influence and change the conditions under which they live through self-organization and then possibly overcome the dispotism of or the arbitrary power exericised by Somaliland/SNM troops. [ October 18, 2007, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Caamir ]

Nairobi, Kenya - The United Nations has urged the self- declared republic of Somaliland and the autonomous region of Puntland to exercise restraint over claims to their disputed border region of Sool. In a statement obtained here Friday, the Coordination of International Support to Somalis (CISS) expressed concern over the increasing tensions and mobilisation of forces in Sool region and the potential of humanitarian consequences of further violent conflict in the disputed area. The statement, which was signed by UN Resident Coordinator for Somalia, Eric Loroche and World Bank country director for Somalia and Eritrea, Chris Lovelace, urged them to seek a solution through political dialogue. "We call on all parties to withdraw their forces from the area immediately and to return to the path of dialogue for the benefit of the communities involved," the statement said. Tensions between Puntland, in northeast and Somaliland in northwest have been growing in recent weeks, with both claiming the same territory. The regions of Sool and Sanag, in northern Somalia, geographically fall within the borders of pre-independence British Somaliland, but most of the area's inhabitants, the Warsangeli and *********** communities, who are members of the larger ***** clan, are associated with residents of Puntland. Scores of families fled their homes last week following a clash between forces from the self-declared republic of Somaliland and the autonomous region of Puntland. "We urge the leadership of both Puntland and Somaliland to exercise maximum restraint and to give their full support to peaceful approaches for resolution of any disputes," the statement said. "Violent conflict can only undermine opportunities for rehabilitation and development in the area and disappoint the expectations of the communities for peace and stability," the statement said. Conflict and the collapse of many institutions over the past decade have compounded the shortage of basic services all over Somalia, according to the World Bank and the UN. Tension between the two sides had been simmering since Puntland troops took total control of Las Anod in December 2003. Before then, both sides had official representation in the town. Nairobi - 28/09/2007 Source: Afrique Info

Originally posted by SheekhaJacaylka: Thanks to the Somaliland army skills. It won't last long.

Putin stands by Iran The Russian supports Tehran on nuclear and defense issues. Caspian Sea nations at the talks agree to not let their land be used for attacks on one another. By Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer October 17, 2007 TEHRAN -- Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, appearing side by side with his Iranian counterpart at a five-nation summit here Tuesday, made a powerful show of support for America's regional archenemy, drawing the line against any attack on Iran and reaffirming Tehran's right to a civilian nuclear program. At the same time, Putin stopped short of unconditional support for the Iranian regime, although the tenor of his remarks appeared at odds with earlier suggestions from the Bush administration that Putin might take a more pro-Western stance. Officials in Washington did not express disappointment about Putin's visit or his comments, but face a growing challenge in dealing with the Russian leader's maverick, frequently anti-U.S. public statements. The image of Putin smiling in appearances with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as the leaders of three other nations served to highlight the differences between the Russian and American relationships with Iran, which Washington views as a threat to peace but Moscow considers a valuable ally and trading partner. Days after having publicly dismissed U.S. plans for a missile defense system, Putin arrived in the Iranian capital in a painstakingly scrutinized visit that was the first here by a Kremlin leader since Josef Stalin mapped out World War II strategy with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in 1943. Despite continuing threats from the West against Iran's nuclear ambitions, Putin told reporters that Tehran had the right to continued civilian nuclear enrichment. "Russia is the only country that has assisted Iran in implementing its peaceful nuclear program," Putin said. "We believe all countries have the right to a peaceful nuclear energy program." The Russian president also warned the other Caspian Sea nations present not to allow their countries to be used for military assaults against Iran, a clear message to Washington, which has refused to rule out an attack to halt or slow the Iranian nuclear program it believes is ultimately aimed at building nuclear weapons. "We are saying that no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third powers for use of force or military aggression against any Caspian state," Putin told reporters. Washington maintains strong military ties with the Caspian Sea nation of Azerbaijan, and has been wooing Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan for flyover privileges and intelligence sharing. The three nations, all formerly part of the Soviet Union, retain authoritarian leadership and have become political battlegrounds between the U.S. and Russia. At the summit session, the five nations issued a declaration saying they would not allow their territories to be used for military strikes against any of the others. Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman, said the U.S. did not object to Putin's appearance with Ahmadinejad, and said the administration still believed that Moscow agreed with U.S. and European aims concerning Iran's nuclear program. "The Russian government position on this hasn't changed," Casey said. "I don't think the Russian government has been, in any way, shape or form, trying to encourage Iran's nuclear developments. In fact, they've been very concerned about it." However, senior U.S. officials earlier had expressed optimism that the Russian president would demonstrate greater public cooperation with American and Western European goals on Iran. The U.S. officials included Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who met with Putin in Moscow on Friday. Tight security was the watchword for the summit, with black-clad Iranian security forces gripping submachine guns lining the upscale streets near the Sadabad Palace, a 19th century compound in north Tehran. Putin came ostensibly to discuss energy, security and environmental policy with his regional counterparts, and international analysts say he would have attended the summit regardless of the heightened international tension over Iran's nuclear program. "In case you haven't noticed, Russia doesn't have a lot of friends," said Dimitri K. Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a Washington think tank, and a Russia expert. "Putin is looking for friends and strategic alliances where he can find them." The U.S. and Western European powers believe Iran is cloaking an effort to build nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists that it is seeking to produce only energy for civilian use. Washington and Paris hope to slap Iran with a third round of international sanctions, which Russia and China oppose. Moscow and Beijing appear more willing than the U.S. to tolerate Iran enriching its own uranium so long as it clears up lingering doubts about the peaceful intent of its past nuclear research. To the long-standing dismay of Washington, Russia is also building a light-water nuclear power plant in the southern Iranian city of Bushehr and annually conducts $2 billion in trade with Iran. Despite Putin's rhetorical support, analysts say Moscow harbors misgivings about Iran. The Kremlin deplores Ahmadinejad's belligerent talk, including his questioning of the Holocaust, and Iran's defiant tone on its nuclear program. Russia fears that its association with Iran could damage its carefully cultivated relations with Israel and Europe, especially Germany. Although he condemned any possible U.S. attack, Putin did not vow to stand up for Iran in case of one. And although the Russian president's presence at the summit might have lowered the Iranian government's sense of isolation, Putin left Tehran without granting Iran any of the concessions it had hoped for, including a timetable for the completion of the Russian-built nuclear plant in Bushehr or a deal on divvying up Caspian Sea energy reserves. Putin's visit also signaled Russia's claim to a large share of the oil- and gas-rich Caspian Basin, believed to hold the world's third-largest energy reserves. Russia and Iran are united in opposition to U.S. plans for building pipelines that draw petroleum and natural gas out of the region without passing through either country. Though Iran borders less than 15% of the Caspian, it insists on a fifth of its resources, a demand the other countries reject. Ahmadinejad walked away from the meeting with no clear gains on the Caspian. But Putin's visit itself might mark a milestone for Ahmadinejad, regardless of any tangible outcome. The Russian is considered the first leader of a world power to visit Iran during Ahmadinejad's presidency, which has been criticized at home for tarnishing relations with Persian Gulf countries and Europe and isolating Tehran diplomatically. "His popularity at home has taken a serious fall since the imposition of a fuel-rationing program and failing economic policies which have caused an increase in inflation and unemployment," said Meir Javedanfar, an Israel-based Iran expert. "Ahmadinejad and other pro-nuclear program people in Iran can [now] claim that [the nuclear] issue is putting Iran on the map as a serious regional player." Putin's raising the specter of war, just after meeting with U.S. officials in Moscow, could be interpreted as a subtle warning to the Iranians that the Bush administration could attack from the north as well as from warships in the Persian Gulf. "There's a lot of symbolism involved because Putin is the only high-level leader from a significant country who is personally engaged on the nuclear issue," said a European oil executive based in Tehran, speaking on condition of anonymity. It has become a pattern for U.S. officials to offer muted reaction to Putin's high-profile public criticisms. American officials have repeatedly explained that Putin has been more conciliatory in private meetings than in public statements. Carlos Pascual, a longtime former U.S. official and expert on Russia, said the White House has been mistaken to take Putin's private assurances at face value. He said the friendly face Putin presents behind closed doors is a case of "managing his client," a talent acquired during his years as a KGB officer. "Believe the bluster and don't believe what's said in private," said Pascual, who served as ambassador to Ukraine under Bush and headed Russian affairs at the National Security Council during the Clinton administration. "We have it backwards." daragahi@latimes.com

Jacaylbaro, I wish I was there. Thanks Paragon for posting it.

It was/is Kosovo that Russia frustrated the west. Now it is Iran. Good job Mr. Putin. Russia rebuffs U.S. antimissile plan Latimes.com MOSCOW -- Top Russian officials on Friday publicly rejected a new proposal personally presented by two senior U.S. Cabinet secretaries aimed at persuading Moscow to withdraw its objections to a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Moscow's rebuff was made in substance and tone, with President Vladimir V. Putin coming close to openly ridiculing the antimissile system and the Russian foreign minister saying the U.S. had failed to make a case that Europe faces a long-range missile threat from Iran. Putin, speaking at the start of a meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at his dacha on the outskirts of Moscow, warned the Bush administration against attempting to assert its influence over Eastern Europe, saying it could irreparably harm U.S.-Russian relations. "We can sometime in the future decide that some antimissile system should be established somewhere on the moon, but before we reach such arrangements, we will lose the opportunity of fixing" other bilateral disagreements, Putin said. Putin's spokesman later said the Russian president had not intended to be confrontational, and U.S. officials briefed on the Putin meeting insisted it was cordial. But the high-level summit appeared rife with diplomatic slights. Putin moved the meeting to his dacha from the Kremlin just hours before it was to be held. It was then formally convened more than 40 minutes after Gates and Rice arrived at the originally appointed time, a delay Putin ascribed to an emergency phone call. Once the meeting began, Putin unexpectedly lectured Gates and Rice for several minutes in the presence of dozens of local and foreign reporters. Despite the visible tensions, U.S. officials said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov had welcomed their proposal, which included an invitation for Moscow to directly participate in parts of the antimissile system's operations. Lavrov also sought further discussions between U.S. and Russian experts on whether the proposal met Moscow's concerns about the antimissile system, which the Pentagon is proposing to build in the former Warsaw Pact countries of Poland and the Czech Republic. "I think it's clear that the Russians are thinking very hard now about what our side brought to the table," said a senior State Department official involved in the talks. Rice sought to portray the unusually high-profile talks between the two defense chiefs and two foreign ministers as constructive, and the first in a series intended to narrow the divide between the countries. Despite Russian demands, however, she flatly asserted that the Bush administration would not freeze its ongoing talks with Poland and the Czech Republic on construction of the missile defense sites. The Pentagon plan would put a missile-tracking radar in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. Although she acknowledged that Russia had serious objections to the plan, including fears it could be aimed at Russian missiles, Rice said she thought they could be overcome. "We believe we can address those concerns, and we intend to do it," she said. The centerpiece of the new U.S. proposal is a program that would greatly expand the planned American system by linking it directly with current Russian radars and, potentially, Moscow's existing missile defense system, which centers on protecting the country's capital. Although U.S. negotiators declined to give specific details, a senior Pentagon official involved in the talks said the plan included allowing both Russian and U.S. personnel to staff the system's major components to give the Russian military assurance that it could not be converted to shoot down Russian nuclear missiles. Russia has rejected similar data-sharing and joint-headquarters proposals in the past, but U.S. officials insisted that the new plan went beyond what had been previously offered. "We put forward some thoughts about the presence of individuals from both sides at sites so that there was complete transparency, both perhaps at the [European] site but also in the United States, and if there are radars at other facilities here in Russia, that there would be a presence there too," Gates said. Lavrov said Russian officials would examine the proposal, but said it failed to address one of Moscow's primary contentions: that Iran does not present a missile threat to Europe or the U.S., making the program unnecessary. The disagreements over Iranian missile capabilities center on intelligence gathered by the U.S. and presented to Russia over the last four months. The U.S. believes it shows Iran will be able to develop a long-range nuclear missile by 2015, but Moscow disputes those findings. Some critics have accused Russia of caving into Iran because of the countries' economic ties. The U.S and Russian defense chiefs and foreign ministers will meet again in Washington in six months. And while they insisted that progress was made, there was evidence of deterioration in the increasingly frosty bilateral relationship. In his remarks while meeting with Rice and Gates, Putin raised the prospect of Russia's withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a Gorbachev-era pact preventingthe U.S. and Russia from deploying short- and medium-range offensive missiles. Although Putin has raised the issue in the past, the timing and high-profile setting of his warning were symbolic; the INF treaty was not supposed to be on the summit's agenda. Putin said Russian withdrawal from INF could come if some of its neighbors, who are developing short-range missiles, are not brought into the treaty's fold. The INF pact is a signature Cold War-era agreement that, if abrogated, could further spook voters in Poland and the Czech Republic, both of which could face shifts of Russian forces beyond their eastern borders if Moscow withdrew from the treaty. Voters in both countries already overwhelmingly oppose the missile defense system, according to recent public opinion polling.

A troubled past can't be waved away Simon Tisdall Wednesday October 17, 2007 The Guardian In typical he-man style, Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, ignored an alleged assassination plot and went ahead with a visit to Tehran yesterday. Iran says the plot story was black propaganda fabricated by its enemies, which may well be true. Historically speaking, Russians need no outside help doing away with their leaders. They manage perfectly well by themselves. It is also true though that, over the centuries, Persian-Russian relations have been spattered with the blood of eminent men. During the Napoleonic wars, Iran turned to France, and then Britain, for help in fending off imperial Russia. But it was let down by both and in 1813, the Treaty of Golestan effectively confirmed Russia's seizure of its Caucasus territories. Moscow's problems in Muslim Chechnya and Dagestan date from that period. In 1826 the two countries went to war again, with Britain once more refusing to assist Iran. This unequal contest ended two years later with the humiliating Treaty of Turkmenchai. Iran was forced to cede further territory and pay 20m roubles in reparations - a crippling sum. According to Ali Ansari in his recent book, Confronting Iran, Iran's betrayal and domination by the great powers of that time helps to explain its present-day distrust of their successors. Russian bullying continued into the modern era. In 1945, when the US and Britain agreed to end their wartime occupation of Iran, the Soviet Union refused to withdraw its troops. Joseph Stalin sought instead to partition the country - until US pressure dissuaded him. Even the 1979-81 siege of the US embassy in Tehran, following the Islamic revolution and the shah's overthrow, finds an echo in 19th-century Persian-Russian relations. After the Russian ambassador, Alexander Griboedov, gave sanctuary to the chief eunuch of the shah's harem (a valued spy) and two runaway Georgian concubines, an outraged mob surrounded his embassy. When guards fired on them, the crowd stormed the building. Griboedov and most of his staff were killed and mutilated. Speaking on Iranian television, Iran's current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, assured Mr Putin of a more friendly welcome to Tehran this time around - and diplomatically glossed over this long history of affronts. "Relations between Iran and Russia have been influenced by outside forces at times but today both countries are determined to expand their ties to the highest level," he said. There was "natural unity" between the two, exemplified by their cooperation in building Iran's nuclear plant at Bushehr and their refusal to do the bidding of the western powers, Mr Ahmadinejad added. What was also plain, although not stated, was the Iranian leader's gratification at the visit blowing a large hole in US-led attempts to isolate Tehran. Mr Putin's approach to Iran, underpinned as ever by Russia's greater strength, is more canny. He insisted recently that there was no evidence that Iran was developing an atomic weapon. He has cast himself as a Disraeli-style "honest broker" in the nuclear dispute with the US. He gave another warning yesterday of the unacceptability of military action. And he knows his Tehran sojourn again demonstrates Russia's reviving central role in global affairs. All the same, Mr Putin is hardly falling over himself to help Iran become a nuclear-armed state, if that is what Tehran is trying to do. Completion of the Bushehr project has been repeatedly put back. Nuclear fuel deliveries from Russia have been withheld. Moscow has infuriated Tehran by claiming not to have been paid. In short, Russia is playing both sides off against the middle, using current tensions with the west to advance its own national interest. Mr Putin's pragmatism should not be mistaken for friendship. After all, Russia's power games in Iran are hardly new. Just look at the history.

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran - Vladimir Putin issued a veiled warning Tuesday against any attack on Iran as he made the first visit by a Kremlin leader to Tehran in six decades — a mission reflecting Russian-Iranian efforts to curb U.S. influence. He also suggested Moscow and Tehran should have a veto on Western plans for new pipelines to carry oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea, using routes that would bypass Russian soil and break the Kremlin's monopoly on energy deliveries from the region. Putin came to Tehran for a summit of the five nations bordering the Caspian, but his visit was aimed more at strengthening efforts to blunt U.S. economic and military ties in the area. Yet he also refused to set a date for completing Iran's first nuclear reactor, trying to avoid an outright show of support for Iran's defiance over its nuclear program. Putin strongly warned outside powers against use of force in the region, a clear reference to the United States, which many in Iran fear will attack over the West's suspicions that the Iranians are secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made similar comments. "We are saying that no (Caspian) nations should offer their territory to outside powers for aggression or any military action against any of the Caspian states," Putin said. The five national leaders at the summit later signed a declaration that included a similar statement — an apparent reflection of Iranian fears that the United States could use Azerbaijan's territory as a staging ground for military strikes in Iran. Putin has warned against such attacks previously, but reiterating them in Tehran gave them greater resonance — particularly at a summit for a region where Moscow deeply resents U.S. and European attempts at greater influence. The Russian leader also used the occasion to make a nod to Iran's national pride — describing it as a "world power" and referring to the might of the ancient Persian empire. In Iran's confrontation with the West, Russia has tread a fine line, warning against heavy pressure on Iran and protecting it — for now — from a third round of U.N. sanctions, while urging Tehran to heed the Security Council's demand that it halt uranium enrichment. Putin's careful stance on completing the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran suggested the Kremlin is seeking to preserve solid ties with Tehran without angering the West. "Russia is trying to sit in two chairs at the same time," Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, told The Associated Press. A pledge to quickly complete the plant would send a "strong signal to the West that Russia is with Iran," he said. Putin showed he wouldn't be pressed into speeding up completion of the $1 billion contract to build Bushehr. "I only gave promises to my mom when I was a small boy," he snapped when Iranian reporters prodded him to promise a quick launch. At the same time, Putin — on the first trip to Iran by a Kremlin leader since Josef Stalin visited in 1943 for talks with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II — said Moscow wouldn't back down on its obligation to finish the plant. "Russia has clearly stated that it's going to complete this work," Putin said. "We are not renouncing this obligation." Russia has warned that the Bushehr plant would not go on line this fall as originally planned, saying Iran was slow in making payments. Iranian officials have angrily denied being behind in its payments and accuse the Kremlin of caving in to Western pressure. Moscow also has ignored Iranian demands to ship nuclear reactor fuel for the plant, saying it would be delivered only six months before the Bushehr plant begins operation. The launch date has been delayed indefinitely amid the payment dispute. Putin said the two sides were negotiating revisions to the Bushehr contract, and once agreed a decision on fuel can be made. The Caspian leaders offered a degree of support for the Iranian nuclear program, stressing in their joint statement that any country like Iran which has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has the right to "carry out research and can use nuclear energy for peaceful means without discrimination." Putin underlined his disagreements with Washington on Iran last week, saying he had seen no "objective data" showing Tehran is trying to construct nuclear weapons. Iran says it need enriched uranium to fuel nuclear reactors that will generate electricity. The main issue before the summit was the Caspian Sea itself. Divvying up territory in and around the inland sea — believed to contain the world's third-largest reserves of oil and natural gas — has been a divisive issue among the five nations, and the leaders showed no signs of progress toward resolving the dispute. The Caspian's offshore borders have been in limbo since the 1991 Soviet collapse. The lack of agreement has led to tensions and conflicts over oil deposits, but Putin and Ahmadinejad strongly warned outside powers to stay away from the region. "All issues related to the Caspian should be settled exclusively by littoral nations," Ahmadinejad said. Moscow strongly opposes U.S.- and European-backed efforts to build pipelines to deliver Central Asian and Caspian oil and gas to the West by bypassing Russia, through which all the region's pipelines now flow. Russia has pushed for new pipelines to cross its territory as well. Putin argued that all pipeline projects in the region should require the approval by all five Caspian nations to take effect, a view that would give each capital a veto. "Projects which may inflict a serious damage to the Caspian environment can't be and mustn't be implemented without a preliminary discussion by the Caspian five and making a consensus decision in the interests of our common sea," Putin said. But the idea was barely mentioned in comments by the leaders of the former Soviet republics of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which are striving to balance their relations with Russia, the West and Asia. In Baku, Azerbaijan's capital, political analyst Ilgar Mamedov said the veto idea was only "Putin's opinion." Caspian nations "are independent and act in accordance with their own interests," he said.

Mansa Munsa, Just like Allah raised the Mahdi(the guardian one) from this land, it is not farfetched to see one like him emerge at this time. Your proposal to form a Liberation front to completely eliminate the cycle of this conflict is noble, but have you considered what might be the pitfalls? How will this noble idea be implemented?

Originally posted by SheekhaJacaylka: there are no clan militia in burco sxb ,,,, some angry young men took few guns and made the shooting. Problem solved ,,, they were cought and police is searching some more. Problem solved.....but what about the people of Las Anod. Don't they deserve the same peace and progress Burco is enjoying today? Why attack a peaceful city and adopt national policies that divide rer Las Anod

Originally posted by SOO MAAL: Thanks Caamir, our country Somalia, is really beautiful you wlc Soomaal

xiinfanin, I am just like you. I don't know much about this city. May be Hunguri can tell us about this little town surrounded by these beautiful mountains. It is located between Erigavo and Badhan. Hadaftimo was once the seat of the late sultan Abdisalan.

Dabshid, Even SL and PL hardly maintain the national economic infrastracture of Somalia that fall under their control like ports, roads, bridges, etc. This is still an unfair benchmark for the people of Bardhere since the two entities have a system of taxaton and relative peace.

"I spoke with a dozen head of states and I explained how Somalia is important to our region. I emphasized how we, Ethiopians, care about Somalia and how we would never accept a divided Somalia. Therefore, I accentuated that Somaliland not be recognized as an independent state." Absolutely, the piece lacks both creativity and facts. According to the CIA factbook, you will find that the so called border between the Italian colony and British protectorate was undermarcated. Then it goes on affirming that Britain withdrew from its protectorate to allow the legitimate and much developed Italian Somaliland to unite with the British protectorate(note the difference btw protectorate and colony). The author is also extremely vague to the point of conferring too much credit upon Ethiopia for the ongoing strife in our country and even giving power to Ethiopia as if Somalia's fate lies with this fragmented country. Somalia has more chance of surviving as a unitary state than Ethiopia and its ethnically fragmented society.

Hadaaftimo:- Degmada Hadaaftimo ayaa Si wanaagsan looga ciidey iyadoo ay dadweynaha Reer Hadaaftimo ay si weyn isugu soo baxeen oo Garoonka Degmada ay dhamaan dadweynaha Reer Hadaaftimo ku tukadeen Salaadoodii Ciida iyagoo Rabigood u takbiirinaya kuna cel celinaya Astaamaha lagu yaqaano Ciidaha. Degmada Hadaaftimo ayaa taas waxaa u dheereyd in uu deegaanka ku hareersan uu ahaa mid cagaar ah oo aad dareemeysid in Raxmadii Rabi ay kobcisey cagaarka dhulka taas indhaha raaxa u aheyd. Source: Laasqoray.net

Somalia is still safe from exploitation of its resources. Saudi Arabia which has the largest reserves can only supply the energy use and needs of the world for only 10 years before its deposits reach the depletion time. Other alternatives which have been tried are difficult to undertake. For example, in Alberta Canada, heavy oil like tar sand deposits amount to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, but only 300 billion barrels of oil are recoverable. It costs huge amount of money to recover, thus the net energy is negative. Although Somalia has no proven resereves, it is possible that it would be the next major supplier of oil in the world. Before that happens, we have to get our acts together.

"Narcissism is our inborn tendency to see everything as grandiose or devalued, good or bad, with nothing in-between. It's why nearly every tribe in the world -- and nations are just tribes writ large -- called itself "the People," "the Humans," "the Chosen," "the Motherland," "the Fatherland," or "the greatest nation on earth," relegating everyone outside the tribe to a devalued non-people, non-human status (aka "collateral damage"). No wonder it's so easy to kill the outsiders -- they're just not quite human. When you combine those three concepts, you have the basis for all propaganda." So objective to the root cause of our human problems. thanks Baashi! for the article

A big advice to the Diaspora in regards to the brain-drain Somalia: "We have come a long way from the sixties and we now have highly educated and qualified people though most of them are outside the country. Without them the country cannot be built." “ I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant”: A Desirable Colonial Legacy By: Ismail Ali Ismail October 10, 2007 Those persons of my generation who were finishing school at the time the sun was setting on the British Empire and were contemplating their future as the wind of change was blowing through the length and breadth of Africa will remember, with nostalgia, (like the generations before them who actually served the Empire) the beautiful words with which colonial officialdom used to end its correspondence with members of the public: “I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant.” The beauty of these words lies in the fact of a colonial officer admitting, without qualms, his being a servant of the public. The irony of it, however, is that British colonial officers were masters, not ‘servants’. Nor were they ‘humble’, let alone being ‘obedient’. They were in fact snobbish, overbearing - even openly racist – and obviously hypocritical in adding that sentence as a subscript to their replies to petitioners. The British saw their colonialism as a vehicle for civilizing ‘inferior races’ in the ‘dark countries’, and it was one of their imperialist pioneers, Cecil Rhodes, who called for the African continent to be colonized “from the Cape to the Canal”; and so it became “the most universally colonial continent”, though not colonized entirely by the British. Rhodes also said: “ Have you ever thought how lucky you are to have been born an Englishman”. By ‘dark countries’ they did not mean only Africa but also other areas where the people were of a skin darker than white and, not coincidentally from the racist point of view, also in the dark about development. A latter-day proconsul actually relates how his own father, a country parson, inculcated in him a feeling of superiority to the people he ruled. In trying to explain what that superiority meant the father told him: “It’s whatever it is that makes a million Indians in a district accept the authority of a single Englishman, who has nothing more than a handful of police at his back.” British racism in India was indeed the subject of an old film called, ‘Passage to India’. Though Europeans in general benefited a lot from the Arab civilization T.E. Lawrence (better known as ‘Lawrence of Arabia’) writes in his “Seven Pillars of Wisdom”: “ I am proudest of my thirty fights in that I did not have any of our own blood shed. All our subject provinces to me were not worth one dead Englishman”. That of course is a racist statement. But, a lot of Arab blood was spilt to ‘free’ Arabs from the Turks only to divide them secretly, while they were still fighting, between the British and the French as a result of Sykes-Picot Agreement. How typical of the Perfidious Albion! Doubtless from the British officials point of view “I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant” was a polite statement which was perfunctory and did not really mean what it said. But those members of the public who also used it in their supplications to them really meant it. This reminds me of a little story which a friend told me about a short military training he had undergone in Aldershot (U.K.). The drill sergeant told him: “You call me ‘Sir’ and I call you ‘Sir’; you mean it and I don’t”. It is also related that in Hargeisa the colonial director of medical services chanced upon a Somali dresser one early morning in one of the Group Hospital’s corridors and greeted him with the words, “Good morning, Sir”. The poor dresser, visibly perturbed by being addressed as ‘Sir’ by the superior of his superiors, blurted out the words: “Good morning Sir; I am not your Sir, Sir; you are my Sir, Sir”. But, we should not really blame the British; it is human to think when you are so successful or so far ahead of the others that you are innately superior to them. Others, before them (Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Japanese, and Arabs) had all been too arrogant, racist and condescending in the heydays of their respective civilizations towards less fortunate peoples; and there has not been a colonial power which considered itself on equal footing with its subjects – not even under some colonial policies of assimilation. In the glare of historical lessons one has to be blind not to see that imperial power and hubris are two sides of a coin. The British felt understandably superior at a time they were ruling much of the world in terms of land mass and population (40% of the World Population) and they took pride in the fact that the sun never set on the British Empire. Britain was then a great power deserving its title as ‘The Mistress of the Seas’. But there was resentment of course, and when that illustrious son of India, Krishna Menon, was vexatiously reminded that “the sun never sets on the British Empire”, he retorted, “ It is so because God could not trust the British in the dark”. However, in the natural scheme of things empires, like all else, rise and fall and the British Empire is no more. British power and influence in the world have waned and the kingdom is now, by its own admission, but a second-rate power. Writing eloquently in the mid-sixties on this transformation the late Quintin Hogg (Lord Hailsham) described Britain as “a bothered and painted matron with a middle-aged spread, clearly worried about her housekeeping, unable to employ domestic staff and harassed by her grow-up children.” The ‘grown-up children’ are none other than the dependencies that became independent. Colonialism, lasting a century on the average, has been inevitably a vehicle for cultural diffusion (with cultural imperialism as a byproduct) and as such has brought countries together - even created them. Nowhere is this more true than in Africa where by dint of historical association we have been divided into Anglophones, Francophones and Lusophones. And of course we have on the larger world stage the Commonwealth and the Francophonie both of which bring together countries that share a common colonial heritage. We have learnt a lot from colonial administrations, both good and bad – including some mannerisms and some habits of mind. I was told decades ago of an African district commissioner who having stepped into the shoes of his British predecessor insisted on speaking English to his own people through an interpreter just like the white man he had replaced. He thought that ‘coming down to the level of the people’ would be demeaning to his personality and position. In all fairness, however, we cannot blame such obtuse behavior on British education and training. Unlike the policies of some other the colonial powers in Africa, British colonial policy was in fact so enlightened that it required expatriate officers to learn to speak and write the local language. Examinations were held and those who did not pass had their annual increments withheld and their promotions kept in abeyance. But, in failing to emulate their senior officers junior officers have tended to mimic or copy from them – and sometimes they copied very badly. It was even said that there was a junior clerk from India who so imbibed the hackneyed and insipid style of routine correspondence that he sent the following letter to his supervisor who had just got married in London while on leave: “Dear Sir, With reference to your marriage of recent date I wish to congratulate you most heartily and I hope that God will give you a son at his earliest opportunity. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant.” To be honest, I am not sure whether the story about this blasphemous letter was genuine or apocryphal, but it is one of the humorous anecdotes we have from British India. It underscores non the less the grim reality of bureaucratic life that a person created to think for himself can be so absurdly mechanical and so astonishingly robotic. However, the British bequeathed to India at the time they were leaving in 1947 a world-class civil service (the ICS) which even used to supply trained manpower to other British possessions and was second to none in terms of excellence. But the situation in Somaliland Protectorate was entirely different, for there was always a dearth of sufficiently educated and trained Somali staff to fill even the lower echelons of the service: Indians had to be brought in. The educational attainment of the Protectorate was so hopeless that even most of the few Somalis who were employed in the clerical profession had come from Aden. Even when two friends of mine and I joined the service in Hargeisa on 4 September, 1960, having finished secondary school in Aden, there was not a single Somali civil servant who had a secondary school certificate including the officers themselves, some of whom were heads of departments. The officers owed their exalted positions to their longevity in the service, seniority of grade, attendance of short courses in the U.K., and the fact that they were the best ones available to fill the shoes of departing British officials. We were deployed to different departments and assigned to clerical positions because we were considered to be too green: too young and too inexperienced. We ourselves did not mind since we were not hunting for positions: interested only in higher education, we were looking for scholarships abroad in parity with the graduates of Sheikh Secondary School (then the only one in the former Protectorate) who were receiving scholarships upon graduation and were not absorbed into the service. But, on our part we appreciated the fact that the officers were struggling hard to cope with new national roles they had not been prepared for and they often took refuge in routine correspondence and rule application. In any case, that beautiful subscript “I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient and humble servants” remained alive and well. However, the matter did not end there as the heads of departments were transferred to Mogadishu to fill the top positions in the ministries as well as ambassadorial and other diplomatic posts with the result that key positions in the northern region fell to second and third class officers. Independence brought in fresh and daunting challenges for which our civil services in both the North and South were not equipped. In the South there was no excuse as the Italians had a lead of ten years to prepare them. Until 1964 we in fact had two parallel services with two completely different systems and orientations which often caused frictions and accidents of personality. Still, when their integration was adopted that year it took some time for the two to merge properly. The process was not unlike the merger of the Blue Nile and the White Nile, for if you look down from the bridge over their confluence in Khartoum you can see the two waters with their recognizable colors running side by side for quite a distance until they fully mix to form a single river flowing in full spate. Regrettably, one of the first casualties of Independence was the sentence “I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant” which disappeared from official correspondence with the public, not only in Somalia but also in other Anglophone countries in Africa. Concern about this regrettable lapse was expressed so often in our annual meetings of the African Association of Public Administration and Management (AAPAM) – meetings that brought together academics, practitioners (including Heads of Public Services), international experts and politicians (particularly ministers in charge of the civil services and their reform). But, was the discussion of one simple sentence in official correspondence much ado about nothing? No. What prompted the discussion every time was the feeling that the public services have lost a sense of serving the community – a sense of being the servants of those who pay their salaries, namely the tax-payers. It was recognized that that simple sentence was pregnant with a lot of meaning: it actually gave meaning to such concepts as responsibility, responsiveness, ethics, accountability and of course democratic control. It raised consciousness of these principles and imbued the service with a sense of duty. It is quite reassuring to see officials taking pride (‘I have the honour’) in being the ‘servants’ of the public and showing in all humility (‘humble’) responsiveness (‘most obedient’) to their needs. It has been said that the patience of the Chinese is proverbial. We Somalis are poor in this regard, for patience is not one of our attributes. Nations and institutions take a long time to build, and patience and perseverance are the two essential ingredients. We have come a long way from the sixties and we now have highly educated and qualified people though most of them are outside the country. Without them the country cannot be built. It is for them that I wrote this piece and I hope they will not shun their duty to their country and will help in building a robust public service which will be guided by, “I have the honour to be, Sir/Madam, your most obedient and humble servant”. Undoubtedly, an equally beautiful formulation of its equivalent in Somali can be found. I have been embarrassed many times by the question why I was not helping my country instead of working for the United Nations. I am sure every educated Somali faces the same question and shares the embarrassment. Ismail Ali Ismail geeldoonia@gmail.com