How the UK gov't supports the secessionist authority against the wishes of Katumites and Makhiris

[AsadSL]

:cool:

[The Sage]

NASSIR;788227 wrote:

The Sage, You should know 40% of UK's aid to Somalia goes to Hargeisa. If that is not tipping the balance in favor of the secessionist authority I don't know what it is.

Nassir, yes 40% of its aid goes to Somaliland but if you know how the mechanisms of development aid work then you would know that the aid can only be used to fund the approved projects in DFID's (UK aid agency) development plans for Somaliland. This means that the funds aren't used to fund SL's military but are being used for humanitarian projects, food security, improving health and education, and governance. Also since they only announced the aid allocation recently it will takes some time before anyone in SL sees the money being implemented in projects so they haven't affected any of the recent events over the last few weeks. So the UK's partnership with Somailland hasn't been to the detriment of the people in eastern sool and sanag.

 

"the government of UK will provide US$171 million (£105m) to Somaliland over the next four years (April 2011 to March 2015). The UK plans to allocate US$130m emergency aid for Somalia and Somaliland over the next four years."

 

"The statement revealed the UK government plans to create 22, 500 jobs by 2015 in Somaliland in which over 30 per cent will be women job seekers.

 

The UK funds will go to improving existing health centres and establishing an additional 40 functioning health facilities. They plan to increase children vaccination from 45 per cent levels to 65 per cent.

 

Other areas the UK government wants to improve include capacity and accountability of government. Furthermore, the UK government is currently contributing $17 million to the UN Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) for humanitarian assistance in response to the drought in the region."

 

http://somalilandpress.com/igad-leads-the-largest-donor-delegation-to-somaliland-20416

[NASSIR]

Ngonge, The primary concern for us is not the possibility of Somalia's partial or full dismemberment first and foremost. The British foreign secretary made it clear in his speeches that his government would not violate the territorial integrity of Somalia. The AU is irrelevant and can't impose unilateral partition on our country. Partition if it ever plausibly acceptable in the eyes of the Somali people would be done through a national referendum and mutual agreement.

 

However the real issue I address in this topic is accountability for the money the secessionist authority gets from the UK gov't and for setting up assurances that such funds aren't diverted for political purposes. Without betting on the side of a minority secessionist group, I think the UK government needs to balance its colonial nostalgia with practical political consideration for all Somali stakeholders.

[Mario B]

I share Oodweyne analysis here, the British are playing a fair game..i.e fix the South so that parity is restored and then ask the Northern seccessionist clans to go Mogadishu to make their case. UK will be happy with either outcome.

[NGONGE]

NASSIR;788389 wrote:

Ngonge, The primary concern for us is not the possibility of Somalia's partial or full dismemberment first and foremost. The British foreign secretary made it clear in his speeches that his government would not violate the territorial integrity of Somalia. The AU is irrelevant and can't impose unilateral partition on our country. Partition if it ever plausibly acceptable in the eyes of the Somali people would be done through a national referendum and mutual agreement.

 

However the real issue I address in this topic is accountability for the money the secessionist authority gets from the UK gov't and for setting up assurances that such funds aren't diverted for political purposes. Without betting on the side of a minority secessionist group, I think the UK government needs to balance its

colonial nostalgia

with practical political consideration for all Somali stakeholders.

The AU is irrelevant? Talk sense, saaxib. As for imposing partation, the partation already exists adeer. It merely requires international confirmation. The UK has already made its position clear and said that it will not be the first to recognise SL (not that it will not recognise it; note the distinction). As for the rest, what are you really talking about here and why is it relevant when you are actually for the forever corrupt Somali Republic? Talks sense I said.

 

Guru,

I am merely interperting the exchanges in the house of commons, saaxib. However, though I am slightly concerned I still do not share your massive worry when it comes to this conference. Posession is nine tenths of the law and SL is (on the whole) in posession of its lands. If the worst comes to the worst (which I hightly doubt), Siilaanyo can walk out and refuse to put his signature to anything. Still, you know and I know that after preparing the people of SL for recognition and nationhood he can't carelessly go ahead to a sudden conference and sign away their dreams just like that. He certainly can not hope to remain president should SL lose one inch of its land or dignity in this process. Turn the idea about in your head, let it simmer and tell me how in the world could he come back home with anything less than progess in the area of recognition.

 

p.s.

Should it go wrong, I'd demand the impeachment first. But, like I said in my quote above and from all the signs so far, I can't see it going wrong.

[Aaliyyah]

Nassir you are absolutely right. Thanks for shedding some light on this topic. You dont expect the slanders to agree with you. They know they get mad funds from the UK that they misuse to kill innocent ppl..and one girl did raise this point at the Somalia Diaspora Discussion at Chatham House February 2012. She said that the uk needs to monitor where their funds are being used. A good point that was..agreed with her 100 %..

 

salaam

[Carafaat]

Taleexi;788315 wrote:

Reviving and breathing life into a dying ideology clearly a zealot would obtain from a temporary comfort but all the signs show that the political landscape of the north has been altered permanently and resetting to its former state is like a girl who lost her virginity yet longing to restore it.

poor girl

[Mintid Farayar]

There's also concern re:this Conference from non-Somali corners as well. IGAD is concerned it will map a new trajectory for dealing with the Somalia issue separate from the IGAD/AU mandate for the 'Road Map' and threaten the financial receipts IGAD countries receive from their military involvement (as well as threatening their newly acquired trusteeship over new Somali territories their militaries operate in currently).

 

The French are concerned regarding the open-ended financial contributions demanded of them by the continuous AMISOM deployment with no 'political' progress visible on the ground.

 

The British have backpedaled from calling the 'London Conference' a game-changer to admitting no single conference can be a cure for Somalia's ills.

 

The Americans as the key pendulum swinger, thus far, are keeping their cards very close to their chests and continue operating within the 'dark' military realm of 'special operations'.

 

Story continues to develop...

[GoldCoast]

NGONGE;788300 wrote:

Nonsense. The UK government, if anything, is carrying on with its old policy of assisting Somaliland but waiting for others to recognise it first. In fact, looking at the recent debate in the UK parliament and the exchanges that took place between the MPS (with mostly pro SL MPs having the lion share of the discussion) it seems that the UK is about to spring a surprise in this upcoming conference.

 

- The British FM has confirmed that the newly appointed ambassador to Somalia has no business to do with SL and that things will still remain to be done through the embassy in Addis.

 

- The British are happy to make a distinction between SL & Somalia when discussing both sides.

 

- The British confirm that the only thing stopping them from recognising Somaliland are accusations of colonialist meddling and insist that African countries should be the first to do so. However, what's the betting that they'll take the opportunity to convince, pressure and persuade some of the 50 countries attending the conference to look sympathetically upon the SL case?

 

- The British set up the Somaliland Development Corporation and (for maximum publicity and reach) will launch it a DAY before the conference commences.

 

The coming days will show what the British government has up her sleeve. If the publicity for the conference (which is bound to be intensified as the date approaches) portrays SL as a progressive, peaceful and a promising democracy then we’ll know that the inevitable stitch up is on the Somali Republic. However, if it at all mentions the temporary meteor showers that are Khaatumo, Awadal & Maakhir then the stitch up may just be on the Somaliland Republic. As things stand though, I would bet on option one being the correct one.

In addition, with the expected bickering between the many Somali factions attending this conference SL has a great opportunity to maintain its aloofness and subtly point to the collection of primitive partners the world is forcing them to work with. Furthermore (and with the possible assistance of the Brits and others), it can mingle amongst the many invited guests and build up a contact list that may help it in the near future (and the Turkey conference) if not in the immediate future.

 

All in all, the signs are much more positive than many of the naysayers think. Don’t let the recent sparks mesmerize you just yet Nassir. SL is in a very good place, fellow citizen.

This is surely exaggerated analysis. Do you really expect us to believe the entire premise of this conference is to portray SL in a positive light? Be serious for a second. Nothing indicates SL is central to the conference nor or behind its motives. The statements of British ministers themselves have hardly mentioned or treaded on anything SL related. In fact they've been more than happy to pass the buck on to the issue to Somalis themselves.

 

A much more sober analysis would conclude they've forced SL to attend in order to argue that they staged a transcendent conference unlike any other on Somalia. This is about David Cameron and his own political perception and international sway.It takes an incredible leap oof faith to believe any Somali entity is a motivating factor behind this conference.

 

The recent Parliament debate that you are referring to as if its a much indicator with respect to British policy, in fact showed how little Britian's parliament cares about this issue. There were 15 MP's maximum present for this debate and about 5 left during the course of it. Its just not that important and nothing that will transform the status quo will come out of this.

[Che -Guevara]

^We like to read more into things. At the end, only Somalis can change things on the ground for better or worse.

[Carafaat]

Brittains involvement will for sure create an integrated foreign stance and common policy. Making it difficult for actors to shop betweem supporters in the region.

[xiinfaniin]

SL way duushay, duushay way duushay. Shirkay kusoo bixi lahayd baa loo qabtay

[NGONGE]

GoldCoast;788728 wrote:

This is surely exaggerated analysis. Do you really expect us to believe the entire premise of this conference is to portray SL in a positive light? Be serious for a second. Nothing indicates SL is central to the conference nor or behind its motives. The statements of British ministers themselves have hardly mentioned or treaded on anything SL related. In fact they've been more than happy to pass the buck on to the issue to Somalis themselves.

 

A much more sober analysis would conclude they've forced SL to attend in order to argue that they staged a transcendent conference unlike any other on Somalia. This is about David Cameron and his own political perception and international sway.It takes an incredible leap oof faith to believe any Somali entity is a motivating factor behind this conference.

 

The recent Parliament debate that you are referring to as if its a much indicator with respect to British policy, in fact showed how little Britian's parliament cares about this issue. There were 15 MP's maximum present for this debate and about 5 left during the course of it. Its just not that important and nothing that will transform the status quo will come out of this.

A much more sober analysis would be for you to read my words as they are and not as you precieve them, saaxib. At no point did I claim that the premise of this conference was to portray SL in a positive light. In fact, I actually gave two options and bet on one being the correct one (you do understand the concept of betting, don't you?).

 

Again, my reply was to Nassir believing that the British have changed their tune. Obviously, and as the exchanges in that house of commons meeting indicate, they have not. Do you dispute any of this or just wish to beat up that red herring you created there?