Can African dictators backed by Washington protect their loyal servant[Yeey]

[Jabhad]

Sending African troops into Somalia 'would trigger war'

 

 

Xan Rice, east Africa correspondent

Monday November 27, 2006

Guardian Unlimited

 

 

Militia from the Islamic Courts Union just north of Mogadishu. Photograph: Karel Prinsloo/AP

 

A US-backed proposal to send African troops into Somalia to support the weak government raises the risk of triggering an all-out war with the Islamic courts that could destabilise the entire region, a leading thinktank said today.

The International Crisis Group warned that approval of the draft US resolution, to be presented to the UN security council on Wednesday, would be viewed by the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia (Sics) as tantamount to a declaration of war.

 

 

Article continues

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ethiopia and Eritrea, which have backed the government and courts respectively with both troops and weapons, would be further sucked into the conflict, the group said.

Backed by the African members of the security council, the draft resolution calls for the deployment of a regional military force to support the transitional federal government (TFG), which has no army of its own and is vying for power with the heavily armed courts militias. Countries that contribute troops, including Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia, would be exempted from the UN arms embargo on Somalia.

 

While the mission's goal would be to strengthen the government and dissuade Sics- which enjoys local goodwill and controls most of south-central Somalia - from further expansion, the crisis group said the strategy would backfire.

 

Most Somalis, including a significant chunk of the government, are deeply opposed to any foreign intervention. Sics has repeatedly stated it will wage "jihad" on any outside troops. "Actual deployment would be likely to fracture the parliament beyond repair and reinforce the impression that the TFG is simply a proxy for Ethiopia. The loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the Somali public would be irreversible," the ICG statement said. "Rather than wait for the TFG to arm itself, [sics] might well launch a pre-emptive attack on [the government's] seat in Baidoa."

 

The US's support for the resolution has caused consternation among western diplomats dealing with Somalia, most of whom share the thinktank's prognosis if regional troops are to deployed. Previous US foreign policy decisions in the Horn of Africa have not helped engender trust.

 

Washington's bungled policy of funding the Mogadishu warlords against the courts - which it accuses of harbouring al-Qaida militants - is credited with speeding the rise of Sics, which gained control of the capital in June and has since expanded rapidly.

 

In July, the US formed the International Contact Group on Somalia, along with Britain, Italy, Norway, Tanzania and Sweden, in an attempt to help find a peaceful solution. On October 19 in Nairobi, the International Contact Group issued a joint statement declaring that it supported dialogue between the Somali government and Sics, which is scheduled to resume in Khartoum next month, as the best way forward.

[Jabhad]

Hopes that the United States government may have learnt some lessons about the dangers of ill-considered military adventures in Muslim countries appear to be misplaced.

 

 

On November 29, the US intends to present a resolution to the UN security council authorising the deployment of a regional military force, (IGASOM), in support of Somalia's transitional federal government, which is backed by the Ethiopian government, against its rival Council of Somali Islamic Courts, which is backed by Eritrea.

The resolution could trigger all-out war in Somalia and destabilise the entire Horn of Africa region by escalating the proxy conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea to dangerous new levels. The intervention is clearly motivated by the US government's obsession with combating radical Islam, but is likely to be entirely counterproductive.

 

 

Somalia was the scene of one of the UN's first big "humanitarian interventions" in the early 1990s. Entitled Operation Restore Hope, the initial aim was to "provide a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations". However, peacekeeping troops soon got sucked into a conflict with some of the local warlords, culminating in the infamous Black Hawk Down incident, in which a number of US servicemen were killed. Operation Shoot-to-Feed, as it soon became known, cost the lives of around 500 Somalis and 150 UN soldiers. Its perceived failure turned western public opinion and helps to explain the weakness of subsequent interventions in Bosnia and Rwanda.

 

 

While this precedent does not offer much cause for optimism about another intervention, the make-up of the regional forces to be deployed is even more disturbing. According to the International Crisis Group, the troop-contributing countries are likely to include Ethiopia, Uganda and, possibly, Kenya, and these countries will be exempt from the arms embargo that is currently in force.

 

 

The ICG warns that the deployment will reinforce the impression that the transitional federal government is simply a proxy for Ethiopia and will lead to an "irreversible" loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the Somali public. Again, there are some recent worrying precedents for this. The regional intervention by a group of African States in Liberia's civil war merely prolonged and spread the conflict to engulf neighbouring states. Even more worrying is the example of the proxy war fought by a number of African governments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which resulted in up to 4 million deaths and remains an area of huge regional tension.

 

 

Deploying frontline states, such as Ethiopia, in Somalia, without the consent of all warring parties, would be the equivalent of pouring petrol on a fire. Intervening under the banner of the UN will also weaken the organisation's neutrality and legitimacy. The ICG has instead called on the UN to reinforce its arms embargo against all sides and to push for a negotiated end to the conflict. It states that "any UN-sponsored military deployment should be designed to support an agreed ceasefire, not undermine it".

 

 

The two sides are scheduled to meet in Khartoum in mid-December for a third round of Arab League facilitated peace talks. The ICG believes that more effective international pressure on the parties, including a more active involvement from the UN secretary general via his special representative, could lead to a breakthrough. However, it warns that the proposed US resolution could give the Islamists an excuse to withdraw from negotiations and make good their threats of jihad against any foreign troops on Somali territory. The worry is that the passage of the resolution could lead them to make a pre-emptive assault on the federal government.

 

 

Although this conflict would not directly involve western troops, the damage that it could do could spread beyond Somalia's immediate borders. Eritrea and Ethiopia could be drawn back into direct conflict and the destabilisation could also have an indirect affect on the peace processes in Sudan and northern Uganda. We have, as I have argued previously, been here before.

 

 

This region of Africa needs peace, stability and development and the west should support this for self-interested reasons. The US government is right to perceive the current instability in Somalia as a threat to the country's immediate neighbours and a potential breeding ground for international terrorism. Unfortunately, and not for the first time, its proposed remedy will probably inflame the disease

 

Source: Agence France-Presse (AFP)

[General Duke]

^^^Some good articles.

[Jabhad]

Nairobi/Brussels, 27 November 2006: The draft resolution the U.S. intends to present to the UN Security Council on 29 November could trigger all-out war in Somalia and destabilise the entire Horn of Africa region by escalating the proxy conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea to dangerous new levels.

 

 

Instead of siding with one party in the civil conflict – the weak and fragmented Ethiopia-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG) – the Council should apply maximum pressure on both it and the Eritrea-backed Council of Somali Islamic Courts (CSIC) to resume negotiations without preconditions.

 

 

The proposed resolution, which has the backing of African members of the Security Council, would authorise deployment of a regional military force (IGASOM) in support of the TFG and exempt that entity and troop contributing countries – Ethiopia, Uganda and possibly Kenya, amongst others – from the existing UN arms embargo. While its objectives are to strengthen the TFG, deter the CSIC from further expansion and avert the threat of full-scale war, it is likely to backfire on all three counts.

 

 

Crisis Group has consistently opposed deployment of a regional intervention force – especially one involving front-line states such as Ethiopia – unless it has the consent of all warring parties, and called for more robust enforcement of the UN arms embargo. The UN Monitoring Group, which reported on 16 October, similarly cited the dangers of such a deployment and urged instead strengthening the arms embargo through surveillance of all Somali borders.

 

 

Despite international recognition, the TFG has never enjoyed broad support or legitimacy within Somalia, and the TFG parliament split badly when it debated the issue of foreign troops in March 2005. Actual deployment would likely fracture the parliament beyond repair and reinforce the impression that the TFG is simply a proxy for Ethiopia. The loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the Somali public would be irreversible.

 

 

The CSIC, which controls most of south central Somalia, has repeatedly declared that it will wage a “jihad” against any foreign troops on Somali territory, including the Ethiopians already deployed there. It would likely perceive Security Council passage of the resolution as tantamount to a declaration of war. Rather than wait for the TFG to arm itself, it might well launch a pre-emptive attack on its seat in Baidoa. The CSIC is viewed as a danger to its neighbours because of its irredentist views, and support for international terrorist elements and cross-border Ethiopian rebel groups. In addition, it threatens to unseat the internationally recognised TFG. Instead of prioritising military protection of the TFG against the CSIC – which is itself receiving military support from as many as eight external countries – the international community should challenge the CSIC to reform its stance on each of these points and work towards a negotiated solution with the TFG.

 

 

The TFG and CSIC are scheduled to meet in Khartoum in mid-December for a third round of Arab League facilitated peace talks. Although previous talks made little headway, more effective international pressure on the parties, including a more active involvement from the UN Secretary General via his Special Representative, would increase the likelihood of success. Without this, the resolution would give the CSIC an excuse to withdraw altogether and would kill any hope of a negotiated ceasefire. Military confrontation would be the only remaining option.

 

 

Instead of authorising deployment of a regional force, the Council should push both parties to resume peace talks immediately. First on the agenda should be a comprehensive ceasefire covering:

 

 

disengagement of opposing forces;

withdrawal from Somalia of all foreign troops and military trainers; and

 

deployment of an International Verification Mission to monitor compliance with the agreement.

Any UN-sponsored military deployment should be designed to support an agreed ceasefire, not undermine efforts to achieve such a ceasefire, and should be made up of forces acceptable to both parties. If either party fails to demonstrate genuine commitment to this process, the Council should impose travel bans on its leaders, freeze assets and authorise economic sanctions against business interests.

 

 

As so often in Somalia, the consequence of an ill-considered intervent

[Ahmed_Guree]

good article.

[NASSIR]

loyal servant?

 

So how many dictators protect their loyal servant?

 

Kibaki leads a civilian government. We know he was elected by the people of Kenya.

 

You label all of them dictators if it suits that this so called [indentured servant] from Puntland will be protected from ICU's possible invasion of Baidabo.

[Somali_Friend]

Lets see how east african and arab countries line up based on this proposal, but first the big bad five.

 

US, China, Russia are already on one side

France is hesitant and britain will make some statements, but will fall in line with US.

 

Arabs:

Yemen is in support of it

Saudi Arabia will not say anything publicly

Egypt will be all over the map diplomatic speak, but SSICU corner when it counts.

The Gulf states will be divided in their public statements

Sudan will support as long as its african force, actually sudan will promote this idea for two reasons. 1. It sets precedence to reject UN, NATO etc and deal only with african forces for its own case of darfur 2. Its a talking point with US and a bargain to be had as well as carry favours with ethiopia and kenya that are crucial to south sudan.

Djibuti might voice opposition, but not a single truck will go to help ICU and risk the very existance of djibuti itself. As it is Djibuti strong man hands ethiopia any of the opposition "unlucky" enough to go to djibuti.

Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda are already committed.

 

Nigeria and South Africa are on side of the resolution/proposal.

 

Libya is also believed to have second thoughts. If Gaddafi cannot command at will the SSICU, its of no use. Gaddafi supports Eritrea only because he can send them whereever he feels like to darfur, to chad, to south sudan, east sudan, LRA uganda and now Central African republic.

[Ahmed_Guree]

^^^

listen you are on your own if things Go wrong which will.

then US etc will surely disown you coz they have problems of their own rember US are not neighbours with Iraq or Afganistan they can leave and the only damage will be on their reputation but for you guys you are in Deep Shi*t.

[Somali_Friend]

Originally posted by Ahmed_Guree:

^^^

listen you are on your own if things Go wrong which will.

then US etc will surely disown you coz they have problems of their own rember US are not neighbours with Iraq or Afganistan they can leave and the only damage will be on their reputation but for you guys you are in Deep Shi*t.

The first untruth or afraid to say lak of knowledge you showed is that the US doesn't only lose reputation in Iraq, but its shirt.

I don't know how much you have read or understand, but US is in its current position cortesy of WWII.

 

The US didn't know Saudi Arabia existed on the map before the preparation or conduct of WWII. Take it this way, the US knew Somalia or parts of it before Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

US and Ethiopia celebrated 100 years of diplomatic relation, where as france, britain even russia have been in that neighborhood for centuries.

 

Look at France it didn't just lose respect in Algeria, but was the end of france as big power.

 

For ethiopians and somalis its the ghetto they are born and get raised. They can make it better, they can destroy this ghetto and biuld better in its place or destroy this ghetto and live in tents like their anscestors did before, but there is just too many of them now, to avoid bumping into each other herds of camels, goats, sheep..etc.

 

If I always define myself in terms of US or Tigray like you seem to do, US goes China comes, China goes India comes and India goes Iran comes or we go into second cycle and Italy recovers from its slumber and comes.....thats a waste of human life.

 

Think in terms of yourself first. Define yourself and see where your place is in the world. Never the other way around.

 

If you look at the rest of the world first, you will be wasting your life trying to find a seat. If you define who you are first then its easy to see your seat in relation to Tigray or America.

 

What if Tigray tomorrow is replaced by the Afar? Are you oing to write again all your histeronics in relation to Afar?

Thats the wrong approach.

Know thyself first and define thyself first.

[General Duke]

^^^Again great insight, the problem is too many argue but present little in the way of facts. Too emotional to see that in a game of politics one must gain support.

[Ahmed_Guree]

'SF'

Talk talk just like the parrot.

We know how your folks lost miserably when they tried to capture Asab under the pretext of Badme.

 

So far the dictatorial regime in Ethiopia has been crumbling and is in a critical condition.

 

The only way to sustain it is getting funds from the 'War on Terror'

 

Lets see how your short term policy will servive.

As i said your folks Tigarus are in Deep shi*T.

US will give you all support materialy and it will fail just like what happened in Latin America.

Tigarus are Enemies of everyone from Afar,Oromo,Ahmara,Hamasien etc i wonder how you will manage in wilderness.