Time for Somaliland to Re-Envision Itself in a Changing Somalia

allAfrica.com: Somalia
Garowe Online (Garowe)
30 August 2009
Editorial

There is no question that Somaliland people have been held hostage by a leadership with deep ties to the collapsed Barre regime .

The people of Somaliland - a separatist republic in northwest Somalia - have been here before. The dictatorial tendencies of President Dahir Riyale, Somaliland's leader since 2003, are undoubtedly practices he learned from his former master, Gen. Mohamed Siad Barre, whose 21-year military rule in Somalia ignited the Horn of Africa country's enduring civil war. Somaliland's separatist leaders, who unilaterally declared independence following the Barre regime's collapse in 1991, have entertained the Somaliland people with fallacies of international recognition and democratic governance. And so the Somaliland public supported separatism, hopeful that international recognition will pour in financial assistance and help recover the troubled economy. They even supported a war of aggression against Somalis in Sool region - in 2007, when Somaliland troops violently took control of the key town of Las Anod in a military development that saw 50,000 civilians flee to safety.

There is no question that Somaliland people have been held hostage by a leadership with deep ties to the collapsed Barre regime - starting with Mr. Riyale, himself a senior officer in the regime's notorious NSS secret police, which specialized in suppressing domestic dissent. The lie told to the Somaliland public, time and again, has been that Somaliland declared independence following the Barre regime's unjust bombardment of Hargeisa and Burao. There is even a MiG-21 jet sitting as a war-time monument in Hargeisa, forever reminding locals of a war from 20 years ago, as corruption and the undemocratic practices of the Riyale regime are overlooked. Indeed, Somaliland's president, who was elected in a close contest in 2003, has remained in power far longer - in part due to a constitutional complexity. But an easier argument could be made that Somaliland natives have allowed Mr. Riyale and his henchmen to abuse public trust for years because they fear shattering the "Somaliland independence dream" that has been founded on and solely depends on the existence of a stable government in Hargeisa.

That Mr. Riyale sent soldiers to seize parliament to prevent meaningful political discourse on Aug. 29 marks a turning point in Somaliland's contemporary history. Here is a region that long considered itself to be a model state for African democracy; today, its leader is directly engaged in the abusive and corrupt practices of the average African dictator.

The people of Somaliland must re-envision their region in a changing Somalia. The cheap idea that Somaliland is "peaceful" while Somalia is "chaotic" has reached an eventual dead-end. The Somaliland people must make difficult choices in the coming days and weeks. Mr. Riyale's very presence in office is an offense to democracy. Yet, without him, simmering clan hostilities that showed its ugly face in the mid-1990s in Burao could re-emerge, potentially threatening peace and stability in the region.

Re-envisioning Somaliland will require brave Somalis willing to face reality. But can Hargeisa allow freedom of thought in today's state of fear-mongering?

Somalia-Ethiopia troops jointly chase out Islamist insurgents from town.

Garowe Online
29 August 2009

A joint force of Somali and Ethiopian government troops have chased out Islamist insurgents from a key town in central Somalia, Radio Garowe reports.

Residents in the town of Beletwein, capital of Hiran region, said a heavily-armed convoy of Ethiopian troops entered the town overnight Friday and reportedly took control of the town without much resistance.

Islamist insurgents who controlled the western neighborhoods of Beletwein reportedly fled further south, with confirmed reports saying there were brief skirmishes in the western outskirts of town as the insurgents retreated.


Ethiopian troops in Beletwein, Somalia
The governments of Somalia and Ethiopia have not spoken publicly about new developments in Beletwein, but Addis Ababa has repeatedly denied reports that its troops re-entered Somalia since withdrawing in Jan. 2009 after a two-year military intervention inspired an ongoing Islamist insurgency in south-central Somalia.

Beletwein is reportedly calm and allied forces control strategic parts of the town. But town residents feared that Somali-Ethiopian troops might move deeper into Hiran region, where Islamist insurgents have set up defensive positions in Bula Burte district.

Somali insurgent factions, Al Shabaab and Hizbul Islam, have not spoken publicly about the arrival of Ethiopian troops in Beletwein.

The insurgents control most districts in Hiran, and many regions in southern Somalia including the key towns of Kismayo, Baidoa, Jowhar, and Marka.

The arrival of Ethiopian troops in Beletwein comes a day after Hiran region's pro-government Islamist governor, Sheikh Abdirahman Ibrahim Ma'ow, returned to Beletwein after spending three months in Mogadishu.

Transparency database project for journalists set to launch in Africa

IJNet
Posted on: 28/08/2009

A new journalist database project to be launched September 6 at the annual Highway Africa conference in Grahamstown, South Africa, aims to provide invaluable information at no cost for African journalists.

The Ujima Project is a collection of databases, documents and other information that attempts to bring transparency to the workings and spending of African governments, multi-national nongovernmental organizations and business enterprise throughout the continent. "Ujima" is a Swahili word meaning collective responsibility.

The Ujima Project is a project of the Great Lakes Media Institute, a nonprofit journalism education group, initially formed to support the training of Rwandan journalists and the resulting Great Lakes Media Center in Kigali. The project has also been supported by Investigative Reporters and Editors, an international journalism organization based at the University of Missouri, Columbia, in the United States.

The Ujima Project is a "new experiment in journalistic transparency," according to Sally Stapleton, director of the Great Lakes Media Institute. In addition to its presence online, plans are underway to make a mobile component of the site as well.

The Ujima Project, which will be available September 6, is located online at http://www.ujima-project.org/.

Zambia: NGOs in uproar after president signs new law | Governance | News Item

IRIN Africa | Southern Africa
LUSAKA , 28 August 2009 (IRIN)

Zambian president Rupiah Banda has signed legislation regulating the operations of civil society, sending shock waves through the sector, which fears its independence will be severely compromised.

Presidential assent means the 2009 NGO Bill, withdrawn in 2007 after widespread protests by civil society and opposition parties, now only needs gazetting to become legislation that will require "the registration and co-ordination of NGOs" and can "regulate the work, and the area of work, of NGOs operating in Zambia".

Dickson Jere, a special assistant to the president for press and public relations, confirmed in a statement: "His Excellency the President Mr Rupiah Banda has assented to 13 Bills, which were recently passed by the National Assembly, including ... the Non-Governmental Organisations Bill."

The new stipulations will compel NGOs to re-register every five years and submit annual information on their activities, funders, accounts, and the personal wealth of their officials; failure to comply could result in the suspension or cancellation of registration.

On 28 August civil society organizations held an emergency meeting in the capital, Lusaka, to plan a response to the looming regulations, which the NGOs have termed "unconstitutional".

Senega - Heaviest fighting in years hits Casamance

IRIN Africa
ZIGUINCHOR, 26 August 2009 (IRIN) - Residents of Senegal’s Casamance region are shaken by some of the heaviest fighting in years between the army and alleged separatist troops, staying away from their plantations and closing shops before nightfall, residents and aid workers say.

On 25 August automatic weapon and rocket-propelled grenade fire was heard in the main city Ziguinchor from 9pm for about three hours, residents told IRIN. “It sounded as if it was just behind the walls of our home,” said a local NGO worker who requested anonymity “because the situation is delicate”.

“We have not seen fighting like this here since 2002," he said.
...

The Evolution of Cyber Warfare

The Evolution of Cyber Warfare - Council on Foreign Relations

Backgrounder

Author:	Greg Bruno, Staff Writer

February 27, 2008

Jendayi Frazer - How the Obama Administration Can Help Sub-Saharan Africa and Advance U.S. Strategic Interests

Jendayi E. Frazer: How the Obama Administration Can Help Sub-Saharan Africa and Advance U.S. Strategic Interests - WSJ.com
WSJ

• OPINION
• AUGUST 25, 2009

Ms. Frazer, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, was assistant secretary of state for African affairs from 2005-2009.
.....
Here are four quick steps the administration can take to translate the rhetoric of love into policies that advance mutual U.S. and African interests:

Place Eritrea on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
...
Oppose congressional legislation to extend the trade preferences in the African Growth and Opportunity Act to all developing countries.
...
Hold a summit at the White House with the presidents of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda.
...
Move the headquarters of the U.S. African Command (AFRICOM) from Germany to Liberia. This needs to be done to promote U.S. strategic interests in the region, which include maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea, countering terrorism and drug trafficking, and promoting regional development and stability.

The Liberian government has repeatedly offered to host a headquarters for AFRICOM understanding the U.S. presence will create jobs and help stabilize the country and region. The command needs to be in the region its operations are charged with shaping.

Towards a “Theory” (or analogy) of Crisis Mapping?

from iRevolution

Patrick Philippe Meier

The etymology of the word “theory” is particularly interesting. The word originates from the ancient Greek; theoros means “spectator,” from thea “a view” + horan “to see.” In 1638, theory was used to describe “an explanation based on observation and reasoning.” How fitting that the etymologies of “theory” resonate with the purpose of crisis mapping.

But is there a formal theory of crisis mapping per se? There are little bits and pieces here and there, sprinkled across various disciplines, peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. But I have yet to come across a “unified theory” of crisis mapping. This may be because the theory (or theories) are implicit and self-evident. Even so, there may be value in rendering the implicit—why we do crisis mapping—more visible.

Crises occur in time and space. Yet our study of crises (and conflict in particular) has generally focused on identifying trends over time rather than over space. Why? Because unlike the field of disaster management, we do not have seismographs scattered around the planet that precisely pint point the source of escalating social tremors. This means that the bulk of our datasets describe conflict as an event happening in countries and years, not cities and days, let alone towns and hours.

This is starting to change thanks to several factors: political scientists are now painstakingly geo-referencing conflict data (example); natural language processing algorithms are increasingly able to extract time and place data from online media and user-generated content (example); and innovative crowdsourcing platforms are producing new geo-referenced conflict datasets (example).

In other words, we have access to more disaggregated data, which allows us to study conflict dynamics at a more appropriate scale. By the way, this stands in contrast to the “goal of the modern state [which] is to reduce the chaotic, disorderly, constantly changing social reality beneath it to something more closely resembling the administrative grid of its observations” (1). Instead of Seeing Like a State, crisis mapping corrects the myopic grid to give us The View from Below.

Crises are patterns; by this I mean that crises are not random. Military or militia tactics are not random either. There is a method to the madnes—the fog of war not withstanding. Peace is also a pattern. Crisis mapping gives us the opportunity to detect peace and conflict patterns at a finer temporal and spatial resolution than previously possible; a resolution that more closely reflects reality at the human scale.

Why do scientists increasingly build more sophisticated microscopes? So they can get more micro-level data that might explain patterns at a macro-scale. (I wonder whether this means we’ll get to a point where we cannot reconcile quantum conflict mechanics with the general theory of conflict relativity). But I digress.

Compare analog televisions with today’s high-definition digital televisions. The latter is a closer reflection of reality. Or picture a crystal clear lake on a fine Spring day. You peer over the water and see the pattern of rocks on the bottom of the lake. You also see a perfect reflection of the leaves on the trees by the lake shore. If the wind picks up, however, or if rain begins to fall, the water drops cause ripples (”noise” in the data) that prevent us from seeing the same patterns as clearly. Crisis mapping calms the waters.

Keeping with the lake analogy, the ripples form certain patterns. Conflict is also the result of ripples in the socio-political fabric. The question is how to dampen or absorb the ripples without causing unintended ripples elsewhere? What kinds of new patterns might we generate to “cancel out” conflict patterns and amplify peaceful patterns? Thinking about patterns and anti-patterns in time and space may be a useful way to describe a theory of crisis mapping.

Some patterns may be more visible or detectable at certain temporal-spatial scales or resolutions than at others. Crisis mapping allows us to vary this scale freely; to see the Nazsca Lines of conflict from another perspective and at different altitudes. In short, crisis mapping allow us to escape the linear, two-dimensional world of Euclidean political science to see patterns that otherwise remain hidden.

In theory then, adding spatial data should improve the accuracy and explanatory power of conflict models. This should provide us with better and more rapid ways detect the patterns behind conflict ripples before they become warring tsunamis. But we need more rigorous and data-driven studies that demonstrate this theory in practice.

This is one theory of crisis mapping. Problem is, I have many others! There’s more to crisis mapping than modeling. In theory, crisis mapping should also provide better decision support, for example. Also, crisis mapping should theoretically be more conducive to tactical early response, not to mention monitoring & evaluation. Why? I’ll ramble on about that some other day. In the meantime, I’d be grateful for feedback on the above.

Patrick Philippe Meier

Should we be Building SMS or Internet Services for Africa?

Should we be Building SMS or Internet Services for Africa?
from White African by HASH

Probably one of my favorite discussions of this trip was entered into after the Uganda Linux User Group (LUG) meeting here in Kampala. It was about whether we should be providing internet protocol (IP) services first, rather than SMS. If cost is the single most important factor for any mobile service aimed at ordinary Africans, then what will it take to move the ball from the SMS court to the IP court? This isn’t just for non-profits to consider, but everyday businesses as well.

Phones that can access data networks have always been in short supply here, so the easy answer has always been to use SMS, just because that’s what people have in their pocket and can use right now. While there are great arguments for either decreasing the costs of SMS, or of moving to IP, the practicality of that was remote due to the costs involved. Either you need a big organization, or a government, who can force the mobile operators to lower their rates on SMS (their cash cow), or you need to have the costs of data-enabled phones to decrease enough that the majority of users switch to them.

There is an argument that says that Grameen’s and Google’s recent deal with MTN Uganda didn’t go far enough in pushing for free, or cheaper, messaging for their new services. Whether you agree or disagree on that matter isn’t relevant if you bypass the argument altogether and provide services via data, which is drastically cheaper, using SMS as the backup.

What a lot of people don’t realize is that for the first time, last year, mobile phones shipped to Africa with data service capabilities outnumbered the simple SMS-only phones that are so prevalent on the continent (Gartner 2009). Of course, this doesn’t mean that there will be a majority of IP accessible phone users immediately, but it is on its way.

Equally important to understand, and a point that increases the momentum of the mobile services over IP argument, is the fact that where there is mobile penetration, there is also available data services. This stands true in Uganda, where MTN says there is 92% GPRS coverage on their network. It’s even true in countries still trying to catch up, like Liberia, where though there are only islands of coverage, that coverage generally comes with data.

Reinier Battenberg, who runs the only local hosting in Uganda, brought up a great point. The fact that Google and Grameen weren’t able to significantly alter MTN’s position on the prices of SMS doesn’t matter. What matters is that Google didn’t offer an IP-based solution for their new Google Trader that they launched. That’s simply unbelievable! It’s doubtful if that type of work would take more than a day for an engineer to implement. Instead of effectively providing an end-run on the strategy around SMS, they just played the same game that the operator wants to play and will win. Something that Google really wants to do is drive people to the web, so why not at least provide web-services for those that can use it? It doesn’t make sense… all around it’s both curious and a questionable strategy.

"

On Aid to Africa

World Bank: On Aid to Africa:

Dambisa Moyo' book "Dead Aid" is gaining influence among African leaders (I wanted to point to President Kagame's thoughtful commentary in the FT). I would like to add the following comments. Volumes of aid to Africa per se are not the issue; instead the issue is the quality of political leadership and the effectiveness with which aid is put to in Africa to support the continent's development. Aid, by itself, is not a bad thing and, if utilized properly, can help resource constrained economies make wise investments to move from a low to a higher base of performance. Post-war Western Europe and Japan reconstructed into a modern economy through massive aid provided through the Marshall Plan, and many developing economies in East Asia (China, Korea, etc) and South Asia (e.g., India) have taken off because of large injections of external aid and, of course, the determined will and good policies of those nations. I find the debate championing the ending of aid to Africa as a dangerous one for it misses one key economic argument: resource fungibility.

Ethiopia - Army Members Fleeing to Neighboring Countries

allAfrica.com: Eritrea:
Shabait.com (Asmara) 25 August 2009

Asmara — Three Ethiopian soldiers who arrived in Eritrea recently abandoning the TPLF regime disclosed that members of the Army are fleeing to neighboring countries opposing the regime's growing suppression and ethnic-based racism.

The defecting soldiers are Tamru Teshome Legie from the Debub Hizboch ethnic group, Mekonen Teklai Berhane and Mengis Berhane both from the Tigrayan ethnic group.

Private Tamru stated that the TPLF regime is detaining and committing atrocities against members of the army who oppose the regime's continued acts of brutality and oppression.

Private Mengis Teklai on his part said that he was detained in Humera Prison Camp for about 2 years and half without any justifiable reason, and that he has been through inhumane atrocities and brutality. He also expressed readiness to make public the names of 17 persons from the Tigrayan ethnic group who are currently detained in that prison camp without any reason and facing harsh treatment.

As regards the so-called implementation of development programs in the Tigray region, Private Mengis indicated that apart from the construction of some residential houses in the home villages of some senior officials of the regime, no significant social services such as health, education, roads and other infrastructure facilities have been put in place to provide service to the public.

USAID partners to Map the Afghanistan Elections, Invites All to Share Data on Open Platform

USAID Press Release
August 19, 2009

WASHINGTON, DC. - USAID has partnered with Fortius One's GeoCommons, Google, Development Seed, Relief Star-Tides, and Synergy Strike Force to map election related incidents online -- enabling anyone to share information that bolsters the fledgling democracy.

See maps and layers of data uploaded at http://news.geocommons.com /afghanistanelection09.

Volunteers from the Synergy Strike Force are on the ground in Jalalabad and are helping to collect, share, and disseminate local data. The Synergy Strike Force (SSF) is a volunteer team that works to support humanitarian relief and stabilization efforts in post conflict environments such as those in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. The SSF is a private volunteer organization comprised of individuals with various technical skills and access to a wide range of social network.

Anyone interested in supporting the effort is welcome to participate by uploading any geographically coded data at http://maker.geocommons.com/. If anyone in country has an incident to report via cell phone, they can send a text message to 93 79 404 0569.

This open data mapping project is one way for everyone to increase transparency as the elections roll out. It allows anyone anywhere to report an incident in the name of more meaningful democratic results for better governance.

Read about the potential uses of the maps for analysis and policymaking at www.GlobalDevelopmentCommons.net. For more information about the partners and tools involved, please visit http://www.globaldevelopmentcommons.net/node/2776.

This partnership was achieved through USAID's Global Development Commons initiative, which seeks to catalyze innovations for better international development results.

No Consensus on the Washington Consensus

Institute for Policy Studies: No Consensus on the Washington Consensus

August 24, 2009 · By Robin Broad and John Cavanagh

On local, national, and international levels, new forces have risen to challenge the Consensus and create alternatives.

This article was originally published in Latin Trade Magazine on 7/10/09.

Beginning in the 1980s, the “Washington Consensus” – the concept that free markets were the solution to poverty — dominated development theory, policy, and practice around the world.

Today, just as faith in deregulated markets has evaporated in the nightmare on Wall Street, so too is the long reign of market fundamentalism ending in the development arena. And a debate over the best route to development — a debate that was vibrant in the 1970s and earlier — has returned.

As chronicled in our book Development Redefined: How the Market Met Its Match, adverse impacts of World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization policies — and the arrogance and recalcitrance of those institutions — over these past decades have sparked public opposi­tion around the world. This became even more widespread after their spectacular failure in the string of financial crises that wracked many Asian and Latin American countries, as well as Turkey and Russia, in the late 1990s.

Throughout Latin America, especially in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, voters have since elected leaders who eschew the Washington Consensus and seek independence from international financial institutions. In addition to their crises of credibility and legitimacy, the World Bank and the IMF also face new competition. Some countries in the region and elsewhere in the Global South are bypassing their resources and turning instead to China, Venezuela, and other new donors for loans that often come less encumbered by onerous conditions.

Both institutions have tried to use the current global economic crisis to repackage themselves and to regain credibility, legitimacy, and power. In April, the Group of 20 rich and influential nations committed to an increase in the IMF’s resources. Both institutions argue they have learned from this crisis and that they have loosened their policies. Yet a careful look at their recent lending reveals that their rhetoric has changed more than their practices.

Let’s be very clear: the Washington Consensus hasn’t disappeared. There are still defenders of many of its core precepts, not just in the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, but also in the U.S. Treasury Department. Nor is it easy for Southern governments to break with the Consensus or its institutions: Brazil, led by a former metalworker and union leader, has shown how hard it is to shake Consensus policies as his government has continued to pursue export-oriented industrialization and agribusiness. Moreover, there are many poorer nations (particularly in Africa) that remain mired in debt and dependent on international financial institutions, with seemingly little space to maneuver away from Consensus prescriptions.

As the global economic crisis spreads and commodity prices fall, increasing poverty levels and increasing needs for foreign exchange could add to the ranks of countries finding themselves forced to deal with the IMF and World Bank. But, for now, most of the poorer countries are trying to avoid having to do so.

These caveats notwithstanding, the legitimacy of market fundamentalism is severely diminished. Almost none of today’s participants in the development debate would argue that the market alone is enough. Significantly, debate has even found its way back to academic economists. As Robert Reich, who served as former President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, has explained: “Economists can’t pretend that the consensus for free markets and free trade that existed 30 years ago is still here.”

On local, national, and international levels, new forces have risen to challenge the Consensus and create alternatives to it. Although there are many different proposals, most alternative projects have as a common starting point a redefinition of development. Many citizen groups around the world prioritize the fulfillment of people’s basic social, economic, cultural, and political rights. They measure progress in terms of the improved health and well being of children, families, communities, democracy and the natural environment. Rather than a linear “takeoff,” development in this view involves the redistribution of political power and wealth down­ward. Many citizen groups and governments are also rethinking aid and open markets, which the Consensus so single-mindedly promoted.

Although much is in flux, the so-called Washington Consensus no longer reigns.

South Sudan accuses north of arming southern militias

DefenceWeb | South Sudan accuses north of arming southern militias

Written by Reuters

Monday, 24 August 2009

Khartoum is arming militias, as well as civilians in south Sudan, in order to destabilize the tribally fractured semi-autonomous region, officials from the leading southern party have said.

The international community has been increasingly worried about fighting between southern tribes that has claimed at least 950 lives this year, mostly women and children, in bloody attacks on entire villages by heavily armed tribal groups.

Khartoum's National Congress Party (NCP) and the former southern rebel group, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), signed a peace deal in 2005 that ended more than 20 years of vicious north-south war, Reuters reports.

The south was given a share in national oil revenues as well as its own government, headed by the former rebels that also took seats in the national parliament.

"Yes they are arming, even as the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) has disarmed civilians," SPLM Spokesperson Yien Matthew said.

"The National Congress (Party) has been arming militia groups to cause instability in south Sudan (and) has also been arming civilians," Pagan Amum, Secretary General of the SPLM told journalists in the southern capital Juba.

Speaking after a high-level SPLM meeting, Amum said that the party had laid out a plan to stop the movement of guns into the south that included monitoring of the north-south border and continuing civilian disarmament.

Inter-tribal fighting, often over cattle, takes place annually but the south's President Salva Kiir has blamed the recent intensification on unnamed agitators that he said were trying to show that the south is unable to govern itself ahead of the 2011 referendum.

The worst of this year's tribal fighting took place in the south's Jonglei State between the Murle and Lou Nuer tribes. Yien said that the SPLM believed Khartoum may have had a hand in this, but did not give details.

Speaking more generally, Matthew said guns bearing a logo of a Khartoum manufacturer had been found in the south.

Guns proliferated amongst southern communities during the 22 year north-south war, which saw tribal groups pitted against each other in some of the bloodiest fighting.

Some tribal militias were supported by Khartoum.

Amum said that the NCP was also arming civilians "all over" northern Sudan, including in the western Darfur region where a six-year-old war continues.

"This is very dangerous plan to cause the collapse and instability all over the country and we call on the National Congress to review this policy, to stop it," Amum said.

He called for Sudan- wide disarmament and the strengthening of law enforcement

agencies.

Amum's statements came one day after the SPLM and NCP signed a new agreement promising to hasten the demarcation of the contentious north-south border, as well as seeking to resolve other sticking points in the north-south deal.

Fighting Terrorism? Or Creating More Terrorists In Uganda?

Fighting Terrorism? Or Creating More Terrorists In Uganda?: "

Crossed Crocodiles

The US has poured arms and military training on Uganda. Now that Uganda has found oil, the Ugandan military is getting busy displacing the people who live on the land where the oil is located, and seizing those lands for themselves.

CAMP KASENYI, Uganda – Staff Sergeant Andre Amantine of the 2-18 Field Artillery Regiment out of Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, salutes Sergeant First Class Cary Adams-course Sergeant Major, during a 15-week Counter Terrorism Course, June 16, 2009, at Camp Kasenyi, Uganda. More than 100 Ugandan soldiers graduated from this CJTF-HOA-supported course, which covered topics such as individual movement techniques, troop landing procedures, land navigation, first aid, identifying improvised explosive devises, and more. (Photo by Master Sergeant Loren Bonser)

Army to displace villages in Hoima

OVER 4,000 residents in seven villages of Kyangwali sub-county in Hoima district face eviction. The land will be used to establish an army base for the protection of the oil reserves in the region.

The residents, led by their local leaders and the MP for Buhaguzi, Tomson Abwooli Kyahurwenda, have vowed to resist the eviction saying the land was inhabited by their ancestors.

The land in question measures about 15 square miles and covers the villages of Katikara 1, Katikara 2, Kituti Kasonga, Kabenena, Ngurwe and Ngoma.

Kyahurwenda has written to the defence minister, Dr Crispus Kiyonga, protesting the army’s ‘illegal’ demarcation of the disputed land.

He said officials from the prime minister’s office had demarcated the land.

Kyahurwenda said the officers led by a man only identified as Bataali, had marked the land.

“I seek your urgent intervention. Change your decision to grab the land whose owners have had it customarily since time immemorial,” the letter, also copied to the Prime Minister said.

…

The Kitakara LC I chairman, Mugenyi Tibamwenda, said army officers had planted mark-stones claiming they had acquired the land.

He said residents had abandoned agriculture because of fear that they would be evicted from their land soon.

Tom Muhe Bigabwenkya, a sub-county councillor warned of serious consequences for the National Resistance Movement during the 2011 general elections.

The mid-western regional Police commander, Marcellino Wanitto, has promised to take up the matter to ensure that it is resolved amicably.

And from June 24:

Reports: Army officers grabbing Amuru oil land

High ranking army officers are forcefully grabbing land in the oil rich belt of Amuru District, the security coordinator in-charge of oil exploration in the area, Lt. Col. David Kagoyo, has said.

“I have reliable information from some sources that some army officers are forcefully grabbing people’s land in Amuru,” Lt. Col. Kagoyo said during Nebbi District’s oil exploration stakeholders meeting last week.

Amuru lies in the oil belt licenced to Heritage Gas company stretching from south of Panyimur to North of Wadlai along the Nile river.

The LC5 Chairman Nebbi, Mr John Pascal Wapokra, was non-committal on the land grabbing question, saying the matter is before court.

Lt. Col. Kagoyo demanded that before anything is done, the land ownership issue should be settled first before the oil drilling takes place since it could jeopardise the gains that the government and development partners have made.

The discovery of the oil wells in Amuru, which was created out of Gulu District, has created anxiety over land ownership in the area.

Area residents who spoke to this newspaper said the incident has created fear that they might lose their land.

Similarly, due to its oil potential, land grabbing is at a high level in Buliisa District.

The US continues to train and supply the Ugandan military, the UPDF. Uganda is a favored partner of the US Africa Command. Pictured above is just one of many training programs. If people are pushed off their traditional lands, the lands they live on and the lands they farm, where are they going to go, and what are they going to do? If the soldiers evicting them are armed and trained by the United States, how will they feel about the United States? Evicting these people creates a growing pool of internally displaced persons who have a legitimate grievance against their government, and against all those involved in extracting, in fact stealing, their resources. They will be able to see, but not to share wealth some of which should be legitimately theirs. That some of these displaced people may be lured into terrorism as a response is something that can be predicted and avoided. To date, no one seems interested in preventing the problem before it starts. So far the approach is first create the problem, then waste lives and resources fighting it.

"

USAID Challenges Reflect Greater Problems at State

USAID Challenges Reflect Greater Problems at State: "

USAID Challenges Reflect Greater Problems at the State Department

By Matt Armstrong

Cross-posted at MountainRunner

A primary pillar of US engagement with the world in the modern era is foreign assistance. Institutionalized under the Marshall Plan and later the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that created the US Agency for International Development, development aid was and continues to be a means of denying ideological sanctuary to our adversaries that prey on poverty and despair as well as focusing on developing the capacity for self-governance through economic and other development.

In March 2008, General Anthony Zinni (ret.) and Admiral Leighton Smith (ret.) told Congress:

... the 'enemies' in the world today are actually conditions -- poverty, infectious disease, political turmoil and corruption, environmental and energy challenges.

USAID’s mission today is as important as ever and yet it remains leaderless with declining morale and shrinking funds as increasingly America’s foreign development aid wears combat boots, just like its public diplomacy.

As a valuable resource in the struggle for minds and wills, it is not coincidental that what we call public diplomacy and foreign assistance have led parallel ups and downs. The January 1948 signing of the legislation authorizing America’s international information programs and expanding America’s educational and cultural exchanges was passed in a large part because of the Communist reaction to the declaration of what would become the Marshall Plan six months earlier. The decline (or even the temporary elimination) of foreign assistance in 1972 mirrors the decline in public diplomacy (e.g. Fulbright’s statement that the “Radios should take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics.”). Much like the meddling in the public diplomacy budget (while at $900b, over half supports exchanges and only a fraction of the remainder is discretionary), the foreign assistance budget is subject to Congressional earmarks that limit flexibility and effectiveness.

While everybody says development – like public diplomacy – is an imperative, little has been done to strengthen and empower the agency in charge. Also like public diplomacy, one of USAID’s problems is a lack of awareness within the US, including in Congress. At the Smith-Mundt Symposium, the Assistant Administrator for USAID remarked he had only $25k to inform the American public about what it was doing overseas. Perhaps the budget does not matter because AID “pays homage” to the same “firewall” that limits taxpayer and Congressional knowledge of public diplomacy. The result is not surprisingly a lack of understanding the effectiveness of AID.

Back in January 2009, Secretary Clinton vowed to make development once again one of the pillars of America’s engagement as she said it would be an “equal partner” with diplomacy and defense. The so-called “3-Ds” would need AID to be “strengthened”, “adequately funded”, and ultimately given leadership after a decade of neglect and intentional weakening under the previous Secretary.

Just as we’ve seen a militarization of public diplomacy in the absence of effective leadership and Congressional support, we have a militarization of development assistance. According to a CSIS report published June 2009:

…foreign assistance funds are more frequently being implemented by the military. The Pentagon now accounts for over 20 percent of U.S. Official Development Assistance (ODA). Between 1999 and 2005 the share of official development funds channeled through the Department of Defense increased from 3.5 percent to 21.7 percent. In that same period, U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) share of ODA decreased from 65 percent to less than 40 percent of total American development funds.

The decline of USAID is more pronounced in terms of staff. The number of permanent American employees in 2008 was nearly half that of 1998.

But as three former USAID administrators declared in a November 2008 article in Foreign Affairs, money alone can’t solve the problem.

The reduced staff and loss of expertise has limited the agency's technical competency and its managerial control over projects, making USAID increasingly dependent on larger and larger grants and contracts to spend its budget. This has transformed USAID from a creative, proactive, and technically skilled organization focused on implementation to a contracting and grant-making agency...

On a policy level, meanwhile, large presidential initiatives and congressional earmarks for health care, HIV/AIDS, K-12 education, microfinance, and the environment have in recent years crowded out other development interventions, such as anticorruption measures, agricultural assistance, democracy-promotion programs, and infrastructure-enhancement measures...

Strategic needs on the ground should dictate the nature of the programs, but currently, allocation decisions are determined by earmarks, presidential initiatives, or diplomatic pressures.

Money alone can’t solve this problem. The Agency requires strong leadership and strong support and an updated mandate.

Adam Graham-Silverman reported in Congressional Quarterly on August 5, 2009, both the House and Senate are pushing to rewrite the 1961 law authorizing foreign assistance, Public Law 87-195.

Last month, Clinton announced a quadrennial diplomacy and development review (QDDR), which the USAID administrator would co-chair, modeled on the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. Clinton has called for staffing boosts to rebuild USAID and a closer coordination of diplomacy and development work.

Both the House and Senate are considering changes to overseas aid programs. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard L. Berman, D-Calif., is circulating a blueprint for a complete rewrite of the 1961 law that governs foreign aid spending. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., expects to mark up a bill (S 1524) after the August recess that would take more modest measures to strengthen USAID as a first step to broader change...

Lugar, a coauthor of Kerry's bill and a supporter of a stronger, overhauled USAID, said the department has not been enthusiastic about the Senate's legislation.

'They gave the impression that our action was less timely than we had thought,' he said diplomatically. The department has been telling Congress 'we have our own discussion going on,' he said.

Whatever the discussions are within State, they are certainly hampered by the failure to find leadership for USAID. The loss of Paul Farmer, the latest candidate to pull out before nomination, is a blow to Agency and to US national security. The immediate impact will be the continued militarization of foreign aid as Congress and Defense cannot rely on the hope State will step up in the area of development or public diplomacy by itself despite the capable leadership of the Secretary.

Between this issue with USAID, the recent report by State’s Inspector General on the dysfunction in the Africa Bureau, and State’s absence in the current imbroglio over the militarization of public diplomacy, the Administration, State and Congress must take a very close look at a Department that is successful in limited areas despite itself.

"

MALAWI: Activists Look Askance at New Mine - IPS ipsnews.net

MALAWI: Activists Look Askance at New Mine - IPS ipsnews.net

By Jessie Boylan
KAYELEKERA, Malawi, Aug 22 (IPS) - "We are serious about the integrity of the environment," says Neville Huxham, the country director for Paladin Energy Africa. "We're taking the uranium out of the ground, we're exporting it to be used for productive purposes, so we should be getting a medal for cleaning up the environment."

In the rolling hills 575 kilometres north of Malawi's capital city Lilongwe, lies Paladin's Kayelekera uranium mine, the first major mining development in Malawi, and the standard on which future mines will be based.

The narrow, winding road to Kayelekera is mostly unsealed, crossing the North Rukuru and Sere Rivers as it makes its narrow, winding way past numerous scattered villages hugging its edges.

"The road is much better now," Reinford Mwagonde, director of Citizens For Justice (CFJ), tells us on the way out to the village. "At least four trucks carrying sulphuric acid drive this road every day - what would happen if one of them had an accident?"

Mwagonde has been campaigning against Paladin’s activities since 2005, when he became aware of the company's plans to develop the mine. CFJ and four other civil society organisations (CSOs) took Paladin to court in 2006, challenging the company's mining licence on a number of grounds including inadequacies in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.

The case was later settled out of court but Mwagonde has never missed a beat since.

"The EIA didn't address serious environmental concerns around the issue of water contamination of the rivers that flow into Lake Malawi," says Mwagonde. The lake is a major source of potable water and fish for millions of people in Malawi, Tanzania and Mozambique.

"They say that we’re anti-development," says Mwagonde, "because we're against the mine. But we're against the mine because of the long-term health and environmental implications that are unique to uranium mining that the community has not been properly informed about."

Creative legislation

Sweetheart dealing President Bingu wa Mutharika has said the Kayelekera uranium mine will contribute as much as ten percent of Malawi's gross domestic product and 20 percent of total export earnings. Paladin chairman John Borshoff says the country can expect 45 million dollars in taxes and royalties from the mine each year. But over the expected 11-year lifespan of the project, Malawi will lose more than $120 million in various taxes due to the terms agreed with Paladin. The government traded a 15 percent stake in the project in exchange for favourable tax rates for the company. Paladin will pay 27.5 instead of 30 percent corporate tax, and be completely exempt from a ten percent rent tax. Royalties - ordinarily five percent - have been dropped to 1.5 percent for the first three years, and three percent thereafter; the company will also be exempt from paying value added tax for up to ten years. The terms of the tax regime are also frozen for the next decade.

CFJ has also raised concerns that the mine would not be operating in Australia under its current configuration, and that it is taking advantage of Malawi's minimal understanding or regulation of uranium mining.

John Borshoff, Paladin’s director, was quoted in the Apr. 3, 2006 edition of Melbourne’s Herald Sun newspaper saying "Australia and Canada have become overly sophisticated... There has been an over compensation in terms of thinking about environmental and social issues in regard to uranium operations in Australia, forcing companies like Paladin into Africa."

The Malawian government has drafted legislation dealing with radioactive materials but it is yet to be passed. Concerns have been raised by CSOs that Paladin's input into the draft legislation has been too great, and that the company should not have been granted a license to mine before legislation was in place.

"Paladin," according to Undule Mwakasungula, director of the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation, "cannot be held accountable if something happens."

For example, the closure plan outlined by Paladin in the EIA lacks an appropriate strategic, long-term tailings management plan. Rather than moving the tailings back into the mine-pit at closure, as would be required in Australia, Paladin plans to leave them in the tailings dam exposed to erosion and extreme weather conditions.

On the ground

Paladin Energy Ltd. is a junior Australian mining company with only one other operating mine – the Langer Heinrich uranium mine in Namibia. Although Paladin started mining and stockpiling ore at Kayelekera in June 2008, the mine wasn’t officially opened until April of this year by Malawian president Bingu wa Mutharika... and won't be in full production until the end of 2009.

With a long list of shareholders anxious to being exporting 3.3 million pounds of uranium-oxide per annum from Kayelekera, it isn't surprising that Paladin was in a hurry to start digging.



...

That Norwegian UN memo in full

Global Dashboard 21 Aug 2009
That Norwegian UN memo in full: "

Lots of media coverage this morning about the leaking of the confidential memo written by Mona Juul, Norway’s Deputy Ambassador to the UN, on Ban Ki-moon’s performance as Secretary-General - but no-one seems to have posted the full text. So here it is.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s fruitless visit to Burma in the beginning of July is indicative of a Secretary-General and an organization who are struggling to show leadership. In a time when the UN and the need for multilateral solutions to global crises are more needed than ever, Ban and the UN are conspicuous by their absence. During the last six months, where the follow-up to the many crises that left their imprint on the General Assembly during the fall should have brought the Secretary-General and the UN into play at full force, the opposite seems to have happened.

In relation to the financial crisis , neither the Secretary-General nor the General Assembly - despite the summit on the financial crisis during the end of June - have shown themselves to be the most important arena, and the vacuum is being filled by the G-20 and other actors. Ban’s voice on behalf of the G-172 and the poor is barely being registered. And at times an invisible Secretary-General, in combination with a rather special president of the General Assembly, has to a large extent placed the UN on the sidelines and the organisation has not known when to act. In the environment/energy area the UN also struggles to be relevant, despite the planned climate summit at the opening of the General Assembly in the fall. Even though the Secretary-General repeats ad nauseam that Copenhagen must “seal the deal”, there is widespread concern that the UN summit will not contribute anything worth mentioning in the process towards Copenhagen.

In the many political/security-related crises around the world the Secretary-General’s leadership and ability to deliver on behalf of the international organization are also found wanting. Burma is a shining example. There was no shortage of warnings that the Secretary-General should not go at this time. The Americans were among the most sceptical of him going, while the British believed he should. Special Envoy Gambari was also sceptical at the outset, but Ban insisted. Gambari noted that recent negative press (with headlines such as “Whereabouts unknown” in The Times and “Nowhere Man” in Foreign Policy) had made Ban even more determined to visit Burma. After a seemingly fruitless visit by the Secretary-General, the UN’s “good offices” will be made even more difficult. Special Envoy Gambari will have major problems during the aftermath, after “the top man” has failed and the generals in Yangoon no longer want to meet with him.

Another example of weak handling by the Secretary-General is the war in Sri Lanka . The Secretary-General was a powerless observer to thousands of civilians losing their lives and becoming displaced from their homes. The authorities in Colombo refused to see the Secretary-General while the war was ongoing, but he was heartily invited - and accepted an invitation - as soon as the war was “won”. Even though the UN’s humanitarian effort has been active and honest enough, the moral voice and authority of the Secretary-General has been missing.

In other “crises areas” such as Darfur, Somalia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and not least the Congo , the Secretary-General’s appeals, often irresolute and lacking in dedication, seem to fall on deaf ears. Many would also claim that the handling of the investigative committee, following the war in Gaza , ended with an unstable and overly careful follow up.

More surprising, and all the more disappointing, is that Ban Ki-moon has been almost absent on the issue of disarmament and non-proliferation . This was an issue he himself held forward as a principal area of focus before he took over his post. The re-organisation of the department for disarmament into an office directly under the Secretary-General, run by a High Representative, signalled a major focus on this area, also given the Secretary-General’s background on the Korean peninsula. With discussions of a new non-proliferation agreement in 2010 and a U.S. administration that have put the theme much higher on the agenda, it is discouraging that the Secretary-General is not to a larger degree involved.

What all these examples have in common is that a spineless and charmless Secretary-General , has not compensated this by appointing high profile and visible coworkers. Ban has systematically appointed Special Representatives and top officals in the Secretariat who have not been visibly outstanding - with the exception of Afghanistan. In addition he seems to prefer to be in the center without competition from his coworkers and has implied quite clearly that press statements are for him exclusively. The result is that the UN is a less visible and relevant actor in various areas where it would have been natural and necessary for the UN to be engaged. An honorable exception is the appointment of Helen Clark as the new leader of UNDP . She has in a short time, done good things. It will be interesting to see if she will be given space to give the UN a profile in the area of development. As a woman from this side of the world, Clark could soon turn into a candidate for Ban´s second term.

It is common knowledge that it was a deliberate choice of the former US administration not to prefer an activist Secretary-General. The current American Administration has not yet signalled any changes in its postition towards Ban, however, there are rumours that in certain quarters in Washington Ban is refered to as a “one term SG.” It is understood that people in the circles of Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton are very negative to Ban, but neither of them has given any declarations. China is also quite positive to him and it is primarily China who holds the key to Ban´s second mandate. Russia has for a long time been dissatisfied with the Secretary-General´s handling of both Kosovo and Georgia but also the lack of appointments of Russians to leading position at the UN. At the same time the Russians, however, have no problems with a not too-interventionist Secretary-General.

Half way through his term, one feels that the member states are increasingly negative towards Ban. Many considered that Ban should be given time and he would improve as he gained experience and any comparison with his charismatic predecessor was unfair. Among those, however, the tone has changed, and now the argument of his learning-potential has expired and the lack of charisma has become a burden. The Secretary-General seems to function quite well when he sticks to a script and performs at larger meetings and arrangements. The problem arises when he is “on his own” and is incapable of setting the agenda, inspiring enthousiasm and show leadership- not even internally. The consequence of Ban´s lack of engagement and interest in studying well enough the problems, is that he fails to be an effective actor or negotiator in the many negotiation processes he is supposed to handle.

The atmosphere in the “house” is described as being less than motivating. The decision making structure is hampered by the fact that all information both up and down is filtered by the omni-present chef de cabinet, Kim. After the latest round of negative media coverage, it is understood that the atmosphere on the 38th floor is rather tense . Ban has constant outbreaks of rage which even the most cautious and experienced staff find hard to tackle. The relations with the Deputy-Secretary-General Migiro are also tense and her marge de manouvre seems - if possible- to have decreased. There are constant rumours of replacements and reshuffling. In addition to constant rumours about Migiro leaving, there are rumours that the overwhelmingly well liked OCHA chief John Holmes will be promoted to chef de cabinet and that Nambiar will leave. Same goes with the head of DPA, Pascoe - Holmes is also tipped as a candidate for his succession. The Brits are understood to want that position “back”. These are, however, only rumours and most likely Ban will continue with the same staff -at least until the end of the year. If that is enough to secure him another term, only time can tell.

Juul.

Related posts:

1. The full, crazy plan
2. That Gonzales testimony fiasco in full…
3. “We now have a full partner in Pakistan”

"

The US and Somalia, Some Necessary Insight

The U.S & Somalia: A Somali Perespective

22 Aug 22, 2009 – 8:28:09 PM

By: Amb: Ahmad Abdi Hashi ( Hashara), Former Somali Amb. to the U.N 2001-2005; Secretary for Foreign Affairs ARS, asharo @ gmail . com

US –SOMALI relationship, at different periods, have been characterized by an adversarial relationship as in during the Cold War, a forget about Somalia after the Blackhawk Down disaster, the fight against terrorism after 9/11 and some humanitarian support through international NGOs.

It was, however, the Blackhawk Down incident in October 1993 that defined for a long time US policy towards Somalia. President Bill Clinton ordered all US troops out of Somalia and closed the Somali file in Washington. The world took the cue, labelled Somalia as a failed State and relegated Somalia to the backburner.

It was only after 9/11 that the US showed some interest albeit in relation only to the fight against international terrorism. The US saw the vacuum in Somalia as a possible haven for Al-Qaida but failed to support the Transitional National Government formed a year earlier in 2000.

When the Islamic Courts came to power and consolidated their control over most of southern Somalia, in 2005-6, alarm bells rang in Washington. The Bush administration would not accept an Islamist regime in Somalia. Consequently, CIA hired the notorious warlords to fight the Islamic Courts which resulted in the rout of the warlords. It was another Bay of Pigs debacle for the US but in Africa this time.

With the Islamic Courts entrenched, the Bush administration gave the green light to Ethiopia to invade and occupy Somalia 2006-08. The Islamic Courts made a strategic withdrawal, regrouped and forced the Ethiopian to leave the country in defeat.

Naturally, these foreign military adventures and the post 911 policy of the Bush administration in Somalia served neither the strategic interests of the US nor the aspirations of the Somali people to resurrect a strong Somali State. In short, the Bush administration viewed Somalia with unmitigated hostility.

As the new Obama administration came to power, fires of hope were ignited throughout the world. Hope that the injustices of the Bush era would be corrected. The closure of the Guantanamo Detention Center, withdrawal from Iraq, prohibition of torture, rendition and the olive branch to the Moslem world were a welcome change in US foreign policy. These first tentative steps raised high expectations.

We, the Somalis as well, hoped for a change in US policy towards Somalia based on objective analysis of the real situation on the ground; a new paradigm, different in substance from the Bush administration’s ill-conceived and failed policies in Somalia.

Contrary to the expectations of the Somali people, the new Obama administration remains committed to the same failed policies of its predecessor; engagement in Somalia solely through the narrow prism of fighting international terrorism and piracy off the Somali coast as well as reliance on Ethiopia, the erstwhile enemy of Somalia and chief trouble maker in the Horn of Africa, for all matters relating to Somalia.

What Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announced in Nairobi on 7th July, 2009 signalled a continuation of the same arrogant policies of the Bush administration as well as an escalation of US military mischief in Somalia. To the profound disappointment of Somalis, Secretary Clinton declared that the US is sending 40 more tons of military hardware in addition to the 40 tons already shipped. That is a total of 80 tons military materiel and much more is in the pipeline.

The tons of weapons and millions of US taxpayer money as well as political support go to a so-called government in Somalia which has no territory to control, no institutions, does not command the support and respect of the Somali people and whose “ president” hides in a Ugandese APC when travelling to and from Mogadishu Airport.

That is the “government” the US and other western powers support.

By throwing its weight behind a fiction, the US shed the veneer of a backroom player. It has come out of the closet. The aim is to impose upon the Somali people a small group of its choice; former warlords, Islamic turn coats and famously corrupt politicians.

Forcing unpopular politicians on a country does not work. Iraq and Afghanistan are relevant examples. This will not work in Somalia either.

Siding with this insignificant faction makes the US becomes an active participant in the Somali conflict. It remains to be seen whether putting all eggs in this one basket of choice will serve the best interests of the US or the aspirations of the Somali people for durable and sustainable peace. US strategic objectives can only be achieved if it reaches out to the real stakeholders that matter in Somalia. Evidently, the US is again missing the boat.

There are as well other disturbing aspects to this new US military venture in Somalia that defy logic.

In the absence of a responsible government in Somalia, this huge influx of US weapons will make Mogadishu the biggest arms bazaar in Africa south of the Sahara. Illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition will flourish and proliferation of weapons especially in Africa will be out of control. And nobody would know where the weapons end or who has what. Whether a situation like this would contribute to peace and security in Africa and other places remains to be seen.

Another miscalculation is that the US and its allies ignore the easy access to and availability of every type weapons in Somalia. One can even buy a tank and park it in front of the house like a car. There is no weapons scarcity; the result of years of Ethiopian violations of the UN arms embargo on Somalia.

We must not, as well, overlook the devastating effect these military shipments have on Somalia. It is like pumping more gasoline into an already out of control forest fire. Such military fire power will at the end of the day cause heavy damage and destruction, kill, maim thousands of Somalis and add more millions to the already displaced.

A question is relevant in this regard. Whether these US military shipments are in line with the UN arms embargo or not? Security Council Resolution 751 0f 1992 obligated all member Sates of the UN to respect “a general and comprehensive arms embargo on Somalia”. The corollary to this requires all States to refrain from any military venture that jeopardises peace and security in Somalia. US weapons shipments undermine peace in Somalia and are consequently a violation of the arms embargo irrespective of any exemptions.

In further reference to the arms embargo on Somalia, the US sets a double standard with regard to violations of the arms embargo. It has the audacity to scapegoat Eritrea while ignoring its own and those violations of recidivist Ethiopia.

This arrogant behaviour has already encouraged countries like Djibouti as well as the predator States of Ethiopia and Kenya to violate with impunity the arms embargo. Other States will definitely follow suit. Consequently, this will lead to the internationalization of the Somali conflict.

Since the tons of US weapons constitute a violation of the arms embargo and are meant to kill, maim Somalis and destroy their properties, the US must be held responsible. It is the moral obligation of all peace loving nations to do so.

If the US wants to play a constructive role in Somalia, it must accept the urgent need for a structural correction in its policy towards Somalia. And for this to happen, the US and its allies must adjust to certain facts:

FACT I : US support for the fiction created in Djibouti must be exposed for what it is. There is no government in Somalia at the present time. A government that cannot ensure security for its people establish institutions, provide services and which sells, in retail, State patrimony and national assets to the highest bidder is no government worth the name.

This fiction includes warlords who should be facing the music at the Hague. Others were the erstwhile enemy of the US yesterday.

Today, they are the darling of the West and Ethiopia, the same countries they regularly condemned as imperialists, invaders and occupiers. One would wonder how this strange metamorphosis happened overnight and at what price.

FACT II : Attempts to impose a fiction on the Somali people is not right. We the Somalis have, like other nations, the sovereign right to choose our own leadership without foreign interference.

FACT III : Shipments of weapons or any other kind of foreign led military intervention cannot work in Somalia; this will only escalate the conflict. Historically, we the Somalis have an aversion to foreign domination and interference. The US led UN military venture in the early 90s, CIA hiring of the notorious warlords in early2006 as well as the two year occupation of Somalia (2006-8) all failed. History tells that no nation can ever be subdued by any number of troops or weapons. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are the most recent examples.

A foreign led military venture of any kind is therefore not an option for Somalia.

FACT IV : Viewing Somalia only from the perspective of piracy and terrorism is a wrong track. This deviates from the real issue which is: the lack of a truly representative central authority. Piracy or any security concerns-perceived or real- can be addressed only when such authority is installed by the Somali people themselves without foreign dictation.

FACT V : The role of the regime in Ethiopia in the Horn of Africa must be re-evaluated and in particular with regard to Somalia. There is an unresolved territorial dispute between us, the Ethiopian occupied Ogaden region. Somalia and Ethiopia fought two wars in 1964 and 1977. The traditional enmity is deep-rooted.

Even Jonnie Carson, the US Deputy under Secretary of State acknowledged this fact in a recent statement when he correctly labelled “Ethiopia as the traditional enemy of Somalia.”

Yet, the US relies and acts on a flow of misinformation provided by this traditional enemy of Somalia. The US and its western allies must understand the long standing animosity between Ethiopia and Somalia and Ethiopia’s interest in a weak unstable Somalia, taking orders from Addis Ababa.

And one more final truth: Somalia belongs to Somalis; we, Somalis are a resilient nation even in times of adversity. Our destiny, leadership and any constitutional arrangements can and must be decided by us, Somalis, without foreign interference.

The models in Somaliland and Puntland were developed by Somalis, under an acacia tree, free from the manipulations of the Ahmedou W. Abdallas of the world. Whether one agrees with their current status is another matter. But, the two areas are peaceful because the process was indigenous and Somali owned. Hopefully at some point and time, these confederate corners will come to the fold of a strong and united Somalia.

We Somalis want peace for our people more than any one else. But we need a genuine lasting peace by the people for the people. The type being offered and supported by the US and Ethiopia is fake. It is manufactured in Washington, New York and Addis Ababa. And there is a growing international consensus that what was created in Djibouti at the beginning of 2009 is a complete failure.

The road to durable and lasting peace in Somalia is evident: a Somali owned process, immediate and full withdrawal of foreign troops, participation of stakeholders on the basis of equality and limiting UN role to logistical support. The result would be a comprehensive peace agreement, with mechanisms for implementation and a truly representative Somali government that can bring peace and stability to its citizens and act as a responsible player at the international arena.

Thus the need for a new paradigm and an unequivocal departure from the failed policies of the Bush administration is imperative. This will serve the best interests of the US and promote the aspirations of the Somali people for peace.

Taking Africa's Data to the Next Level

Taking Africa's Data to the Next Level: "En Français

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally acessible and useful. This is especially true in Africa, where most of the continent's data is not yet online. A crucial building block to this is providing a rich, comprehensive base map of Africa that allows local data to be organized and published across the web. To achieve this ambitious goal, we've released maps of Africa on Google Maps several months ago with data created by individuals using Google Map Maker and now have the product available in Swahili.

We're committed to making the result of everyone's work as available and accessible as possible. With this latest Map Maker launch, we're also taking a stride in that direction by extending our Kenya pilot and making the entire dataset of Africa fully available for download by non-profits, government agencies and individuals to create and enhance their own non-commercial map-related projects. These folks use mapping data extensively to analyze the affect of a disaster, the spread of a disease, or how to develop an urban center. We're looking forward to seeing how they will use our data to further improve the world.

More details are available on our download site.



Happy Mapping!

Posted by Lior Ron, Product Lead; and Lalitesh Katragadda, Tech Lead, Map Maker

Israel Turns Dubiously to the Continent

allAfrica.com: Africa: Israel Turns Dubiously to the Continent
Inter Press Service
Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler
19 August 2009

Jerusalem — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been busy pursuing one aspect of the Obama Administration's agenda - carrying to Africa the U.S. message of accountability. With a rather different agenda, Israel's foreign minister Avigdor Liberman also has Africa in his sights.

Whereas the U.S. is pressing a moral message hard - more democracy and less corruption, the Israeli approach is entirely pragmatic.

It's not the first time Israel has been heavily involved in Africa.

Tanzanian freshmen at the University of Dar es Salaam will be excused for being unaware of the fact that their campus strikingly resembles facilities in Tel Aviv and Beersheba, two of Israel's leading universities. That's because the UDSM campus was designed by Israeli architects.

Nearly half a century ago, there was unexpected interaction between sub- Saharan Africa, just emerging from the dark years of colonial rule, and Israel - which had come into existence a decade-and-a-half earlier after ridding itself of a British presence - busily engaged in reaching out to other emerging nations.

Ever since, it's been a relationship of ups and downs.

The aid to development programmes of Israeli experts, especially in the fields of irrigation, agriculture, communal rural development and medical training, won Israel considerable sympathy, and friends, in many of the newly- independent states. Hundreds of African students and experts underwent specialised training, tailor-made for their societies, in Israel.

But, as was the case in the Cold War era, the Israeli development projects were not entirely altruistic.

There was also the political motive of trying to break the ostracism in which Arab states and their allies in the Third World were encasing the fledgling new Middle Eastern state. This became especially acute following the 1955 conference of the non-aligned world in Bandung in Indonesia, where non- co-operation with Israel was adopted as policy.

There was a strategic dimension too. Israel's legendary first prime minister David Ben-Gurion and his foreign minister Golda Meir foresaw a policy of encircling the circle of Israel's regional isolation through alliances with non- Arab states on the periphery of the region - Turkey and Iran and, critically, Ethiopia in the Horn of Africa.

Just back from an extensive tour of South America, Liberman is soon to set out on a five-nation African tour. The Israeli foreign ministry calls it "an out- of-the-ordinary visit", the most extensive ever by Israel's top diplomat to the continent. He will criss-cross Africa to take in Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Angola and Nigeria.

"Avigdor Liberman would perhaps not be happy to hear that he is following in Golda Meir's (Socialist) footsteps," says strategic affairs commentator Yossi Melman. "But the fact is that, like Israel's foreign minister from the 1950s and '60s, the current foreign minister is very interested in Africa and in restoring Israel's status there."

Liberman told the Haaretz daily: "To my regret, Israel has for many years been absent from two continents - South America and Africa - and does not have a sufficient presence there."

The Israeli foreign minister has a personal strategic purpose, though. He is under threat of indictment for corruption and money laundering, and is under constant international scrutiny for his Yisrael Beitenu party's racist ideology and his own past offensive comments about Arab-Israelis and about Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak. He is desperate to find ways to break out of his political isolation.

Unlike Clinton who has just preceded Liberman to several of the same African states, one country not on his itinerary is South Africa. There are still bitter memories about the strong ties Israel maintained with apartheid South Africa, including its reported involvement in helping it develop nuclear capability, subsequently shelved.

Liberman says his visit will provide a diplomatic boost to states with economic and security ties with Israel. "I want to tell them that Africa is important to Israel," he said in his interview. "We must not neglect them, especially in view of the efforts by countries like Iran to influence them and establish themselves there."

Security sources point out that Israel has an additional immediate security interest - keeping tabs on the spread of Al-Qaeda linked groups in various parts of Africa.

Officials in the Israeli foreign ministry's Mashav Department of International Cooperation have long advocated the need to build on "Israel's African Golden Age" (when expertise and civilian know-how were the tools of its diplomatic trade). But, quietly, they voice regret that, however welcome their minister's initiative, it has a less savoury dimension.

As former Israeli ambassador to Angola Tamar Golan, who heads the Africa Project at Ben-Gurion University notes, "the sad truth is that with the exception of a few civilian enterprises, all Israel's activity in Africa is related to diamonds and weapons."

Says Melman: "The 'Ugly Israeli' in the guise of the arms dealer (mostly former intelligence and military officials) who promotes weapons sales on behalf of Israeli military industries, with the backing of the defence establishment, has given Israel a bad name on the continent. Israelis have reportedly been involved in civil wars (in Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Cote d'Ivoire) and in aiding dictatorial regimes such as in Equatorial Guinea and the two Congo republics."

The ministry confirms that Liberman will be accompanied by a large retinue of businessmen, many of them arms dealers, as well as security advisers and representatives of state-backed military industries.

Even during the Africa-Israel romance of the '60s, behind the scenes Israel was known to have sold arms and to have sent military experts to many countries and also to have been involved in military training programmes (the most notorious 'beneficiary' having been the Uganda tyrant, Idi Amin). According to various publications, Israelis were involved in coup d'etats in Uganda and Zanzibar in the sixties, or at least had prior knowledge of them.

"Regrettably," says Golan, "Israel's current mercantile presence, often through shadowy mediators rather than official channels, has little prospect of being altered by Liberman." She adds, "His real test is whether he is genuinely intent on Israel again making some kind of positive mark in Africa. That will mean him taking the advice of his ministry experts and allow room for Israel to undertake aid to development projects that have suitable financial backing."

U.S. Africa Command Academic Symposium Begins in Ethiopia

U.S. Africa Command Academic Symposium Begins in Ethiopia - US AFRICOM News

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, Aug 19, 2009 — Opening ceremonies were held August 18, 2009 at the Sheraton Hotel in Addis Ababa for the second U.S. Africa Command Academic Symposium.

Thirty-seven academics from Africa, Europe and the United States have come together to enhance their understanding of U.S. Africa Command and offer their input on how the command can best support peace and stability in Africa.

Somalia: Concern over 'Puntland secession' or frustration with 'progress?'

Garowe Online - Home
Editorial
18 Aug 18, 2009 - 11:27:19 PM

The 'Puntland secession' argument is the boogeyman expression used by every group who opposes the self-determination of all Somali people – Somalis and foreigners alike.

The enduring civil war in Somalia has transformed our beloved homeland into humanity’s victim of sorts, not only limited to one of Africa's worst humanitarian situations, but even in the field of intellectual debate on ways to end the civil war. Now that a small number of political orientations has emerged as the final players, it is to be expected that one adheres to one of these political orientations or becomes a neutral observer and completely avoids controversy. When one is unable to make a distinction in these choices, then one risks being catalogued indefinitely as being intellectually void of political reasoning and, worse, as a heartless heathen intent on the continuation of the civil war for the destruction of Somali society and the profiting of the war industry since 1991.

Somalia's political landscape has been disintegrated for two decades and the ultimate challenge is to produce the political settlement that can satisfy enough groups to tip the balance of power in the favor of one side of the increasingly volatile conflict. In the north, two political ideologies are in practice: in northwest Somalia, the separatist republic of Somaliland that unilaterally declared independence in 1991 with no international recognition to date; in the northeast, the self-governing State of Puntland that supports a federal structure for Somalia. In the south-central regions (south of Puntland), a myriad of contradicting and inter-changing political ideologies have emerged to confuse the war-battered public and create a new atmosphere of death and mistrust, further polarizing the conflict and potentially throwing the solution key deeper into the black hole.

In this environment, it is unexpected that the intellectual debate is thrown into a finger-pointing cycle of “who said it” when the only real and genuine question at hand is how to end the suffering of the Somali people? For love or hate, Puntland represents one of the possible solution scenarios for Somalia if the international community is sincerely committed to creating the paradigm of a trustworthy and working partner who assures domestic stability, in large part due to legitimacy among the public. The insurgents waging war in south-central Somalia came into existence, in part, by taking advantage of public sentiment that was largely against the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), which many Somalis saw as a tool of foreign powers playing geopolitical games on the war-torn Horn of Africa country. Now, there is the general public sense that the tide is turning against the hardliners, giving Somalia a new opportunity to seize the moment and displace bands of young Somali men whose ability to enjoy the age 20s like an ordinary person was unfortunately shattered by the enduring civil war years. These young men need an education, earn a legitimate income, become a father – but, most immediately, the fast majority of the young insurgents seek a political settlement to end the military stalemate and new opportunities to a pursue a fresh path in life.

The federalism debate in Somalia is certainly not taking on a fresh path. The old deacons who repeatedly spoke of "canonization" or "Balkanization" of Somalia are still singing the same tunes. The separatists say Puntland is a "copy" of Somaliland. The anarchists oppose federalism because they oppose peace and development altogether. The insurgents say they want Islam – but the bloodletting continues. The pirates…well, the pirates don't care for federalism but they want money – and the world feeds them.

And in Puntland, the people continue on their day to day affairs. On August 1, 2009, to mark Puntland's 11th year anniversary, the soldiers, the women and youth groups, the singers, and the athletes, paraded in open celebration in front of the State's leadership as a clear testament to the legitimacy Puntland's successive governments and leadership enjoy in the land. Many people have died to secure Puntland's relative peace and neither militant threats nor misleading propaganda can bring down the Puntland society's hard-own peace and stability.

The 'Puntland secession' argument is the boogeyman expression used by every group who opposes the self-determination of all Somali people – Somalis and foreigners alike. It is no time for that debate when the insurgents are vowing renewed conflict during Islam's Holy Month of Ramadan. But, many suspect, the war industry that has developed around Somalia's misery over the past two decades, with its entrenched intellectual, financial, economic, food and medical components, is inherently unhappy with peaceful and progressive developments from Somalia as this represents a risk to 'valuable assets.' Remember the rumors about 'frustration' in some (foreign) corners when Somaliland's armed takeover of Las Anod in late 2007 did not spark all-out war between Somaliland and Puntland?