Stable Ethiopia now needs international and local support
Premium Article !
Published Date: 29 March 2010
By Charles Tannock
TWO decades ago, Ethiopia was a Cold War battlefield. On the ideological map of the world, it was Soviet territory, a land of famine, dictatorship and civil war. But, with the overthrow of Mengistu Haile Mariam's Marxist-Leninist dictatorship in 1991, Ethiopia began to transform itself. Today, it ranks among the five fastest-growing economies in the world and is a bastion of regional stability.
That stability matters, because the Horn of Africa is becoming a security headache once again. If the region is to be stabilised, Ethiopia will need to play a key part.acing Ethiopia and its long-serving prime minister, Meles Zenawi, are daunting. The country remains on a war footing with Eritrea over the disputed border village of Badme. The peace deal between the government and the former rebel SPLM is unravelling fast in neighbouring Sudan, where a scheduled referendum in the south in January 2011 on secession and independence – part of the 2005 peace deal – may provoke a return to all-out war.
Further south, Kenya remains scarred by the aftermath of post-election violence, and its constitutional review process could lead to yet more bloodshed. Moreover, Ethiopia's proximity to strife-torn Yemen just across the Red Sea is complicating the country's foreign policy because of its role in working to keep Somalia out of Islamist control.
Despite these myriad problems – or perhaps because of them – Ethiopia has an opportunity to emerge as the undisputed regional leader. Though landlocked, Ethiopia is comparatively well endowed with natural resources, not least its fertile farmland. A final settlement of the lengthy dispute with Egypt over the waters of the Blue Nile appears to be in sight, and could have a powerful impact on economic growth.
But, despite Ethiopia's progress, the international community has been reluctant to view the country as a strategic partner. Of course, Ethiopia has its problems, but these should be seen in an African context. The human-rights situation could undoubtedly be improved – in particular, the treatment of the political opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa – but Isaias Afwerki's regime in Eritrea is far worse.
President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda has created what amounts to a one-party state during his 24 years in power, yet he is feted in the West as one of Africa's visionary leaders.
If Zenawi consolidates his hold on power in the parliamentary elections due this May, the world should expect the stability that he has brought to take deeper root. Whether it will ripple throughout the region is another question. That is why, regardless of the electoral result, Ethiopia needs international backing.
It is interesting to contrast the likely consequences of the election in Ethiopia with the expected fallout from the presidential election scheduled in Sudan at around the same time. If Omar al-Bashir retains Sudan's presidency, as expected, he will be emboldened to step up his hostility to the country's restless regions. His bloody campaign in Darfur, the world should need no reminding, has led to his indictment by the International Criminal Court.
Bashir will also no doubt try to stop the oil-rich devolved region of South Sudan from declaring independence. The people of South Sudan are likely to favour secession – not least because of decades of war and the deeply resented imposition of Sharia law by Bashir's government.
Many now believe that Bashir will seek to prevent the referendum from taking place, or to use its result as a pretext to return to war with the south – with devastating consequences across the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia's diplomacy will be vital to minimising the potential for such violence to spread, but Ethiopia can fulfil this role only if it receives strong strategic backing from the West.
Regional rivalries and past history mean that Ethiopia has few natural allies in the region. One such ally could be Somaliland, the former British protectorate, which broke away from Somalia in 1991 and lies to the north-east of Ethiopia.
Somaliland is, like Ethiopia, relatively stable. It also has a lengthy coastline and a deepwater port, Berbera, which could help land-locked Ethiopia. The moderate Islam practiced in Somaliland could not be farther removed from the barbarity of the Al-Shabab in Somalia. If Ethiopia were to recognise Somaliland as sovereign, other African Union countries would probably follow – and, perhaps, the US and EU states.
Ethiopia's leadership throughout the Horn of Africa could bring change in a part of the world that has largely been written off. It is time to give Ethiopia the diplomatic tools it needs.
• Charles Tannock is ECR foreign affairs spokesman in the European Parliament.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Israeli officials have stated that they would support the creation of Somaliland,
(IsraelNN.com) A Turkish-owned ship named "Frigia" and carrying cargo of the Israel Chemicals company has been captured by Somali pirates.
The ship had left Ashdod port and was en route to Thailand Tuesday when it was attacked in the Indian Ocean. No Israelis were aboard - 19 Turks and 2 Ukrainians were manning the ship, which was flying a Maltese flag.
The ship had delivered a cargo of sulfur for the Negev Star company two weeks ago, and then loaded up with $11 million worth of phosphates and potash.
There has been no contact with Frigia since it was hijacked. According to Turkish media, the ship is being directed toward a Somali port.
Naval piracy has experienced a resurgence in recent years, particularly at the hands of Somalians. Somalia experienced a political collapse in 1991, from which it has never recovered. A radical Islamic insurgency has swept the region, threatening to overtake Somalia. Citizens in the north have attempted to secede and create a new state -- Somaliland -- but have not yet succeeded.
Israeli officials have stated that they would support the creation of Somaliland, which has democratic, non-radical aims.
The ship had left Ashdod port and was en route to Thailand Tuesday when it was attacked in the Indian Ocean. No Israelis were aboard - 19 Turks and 2 Ukrainians were manning the ship, which was flying a Maltese flag.
The ship had delivered a cargo of sulfur for the Negev Star company two weeks ago, and then loaded up with $11 million worth of phosphates and potash.
There has been no contact with Frigia since it was hijacked. According to Turkish media, the ship is being directed toward a Somali port.
Naval piracy has experienced a resurgence in recent years, particularly at the hands of Somalians. Somalia experienced a political collapse in 1991, from which it has never recovered. A radical Islamic insurgency has swept the region, threatening to overtake Somalia. Citizens in the north have attempted to secede and create a new state -- Somaliland -- but have not yet succeeded.
Israeli officials have stated that they would support the creation of Somaliland, which has democratic, non-radical aims.
Can Somaliland Cure Somalia’s Woes?
Can Somaliland Cure Somalia’s Woes?
Written by Rachelle Kliger
Published Sunday, March 28, 2010
Somaliland FM: Lack of resources is eroding our influence on regional stability.
Somalia is suffering on many fronts. The transitional government is engaged in an ongoing conflict with radical Islamists who risk turning the country into a haven for Al-Qa’ida inspired groups. The Horn of Africa nation is afflicted by a dire food shortage, inflation and a spate of piracy.
But as Somalia continues to wallow in violence, some eye a solution in Somaliland, a relatively quiet and stable autonomous region in the north of the country which, while it has not been recognized internationally as a country, is considered a de facto state.
The Media Line spoke with Somaliland’s Foreign Minister Abdullahi Duale during his trip to Washington, where he was meeting with U.S. administration officials.
“We are basically a very stable and peaceful country,” Duale told The Media Line. “We have secured our sea coasts and we’re free of piracy. Somaliland has fought terrorism over the years and we have institutions that work. We’re at peace with ourselves and we have great relations with our neighbors, such as Djibouti, Ethiopia and Yemen.”
Somaliland has been clamping down on a spate of piracy that is plaguing the region by seizing pirates and putting them on trial.
“In piracy, we’re helping extremely well,” Duale said. “We have an 850-kilometer coastline and up until now we’ve been very lucky. We have a very vigilant and small group of coastguards. Although their capacity is very limited – we don’t have the infrastructure for combating it – we’ve been lucky and our people are supporting us.”
But beyond that, Duale implied that in the current political and economic climate, Somaliland’s powers are limited in curbing the violence in the region.
“There have been successive attempts by the international community - by the U.S., the Arab League and the African Union - but thus far it hasn’t been a viable success, simply because they’re not serious,” he said. “This is a serious thorn in the side for the entire region and throughout the world. A stable Somalia will contribute a great deal to us and to the region.”
A-Shabab is the dominant radical Islamist group, which controls large tracts of southern Somalia and parts of the capital Mogadishu.
Duale argued that the lack of strong relations between Somalia and Somaliland also reduces the administration’s power of influence.
“We do not have relations or a dialogue with them,” he said. “We have no security arrangements with them. We’re trying to make sure our borders are intact and that our security is not compromised. There are no viable institutions that one can deal with [in Somalia] and we have never participated in their conferences, so it’s a serious problem. There’s fragmentation and problems and we don’t want to get drawn into this.”
“We have been advised by friendly countries to stay out of that, but we wish them luck and hope that what comes out of this process is a serious government that takes control of the nation and provides security and governance to the people of Somalia who have suffered for so long.”
Mohamed Amiin Adow, the chief correspondent of the Shabelle news agency, had a different take on the matter.
“If Somaliland relinquishes its stance of breaking away from the rest of Somalia, then the seat of the Somali government can be relocated from Mogadishu to Hargeisa and law and order can spread from the more stable parts of the north to the chaotic parts of the south,” he told The Media Line. “Somaliland has been enjoying peace and stability since it declared independence from the rest of Somalia.”
“No one is safe in Somalia when it comes to security, whereas Somaliland is a little bit different due to the functioning self-administration,” Adow said. “It’s more stable as opposed to Somalia, but doesn’t have the established security which can fully guarantee the safety and security of its people.”
“Many people believe the security situation in Somaliland is very fragile and can vanish at anytime unexpectedly, because Somaliland has no border security system and illegal weapons are brought in regularly,” he added. “Also, there are more and more A-Shabab sympathizers in Somaliland, so violent activities can happen, like the one in 2009, when a suicide bombing killed a lot of people in Hargeisa.”
The foreign minister said he is engaged in efforts to secure recognition from countries around the world to make Somaliland an official independent state.
“We established a nation state using a bottom-up approach,” he said. “It’s been characterized as one of the most successful, if not the successful nation-making processes that has taken place in Africa and elsewhere. It’s a pity that thus far we haven’t had the attention of the international community.”
“We are a poor nation with close to four million people, a budget of less than $40 million, 50,000 security forces including the military and coast guard and close to 7,000 civil servants,” Duale continued. “We’re operating a whole nation the size of England and Wales with 40 million dollars.”
“We’re appealing to America and the international community and to countries that promote democracy to assist Somaliland in building its infrastructure and capacity,” he said. “We have been threatened by terror for quite some time and been victims of terrorism numerous times, and we overcame this.”
“We’re in a neighborhood that’s extremely volatile and extremely difficult and we have contributed greatly not only in the regional geopolitical case of security but also in good governance and in the democratization process.”
Britain withdrew from British Somaliland in 1960 to allow its protectorate to join with Italian Somaliland and form the new nation of Somalia. A 1969 coup ushered in an authoritarian socialist rule for two decades. The regime collapsed in 1991 and Somalia descended into turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy.
In May 1991, northern clans declared an independent Republic of Somaliland.
It is considered a de facto independent state but no sovereign states have recognized its independence, even though many governments maintain informal ties with Somaliland and there are delegations and embassies in its capital, Hargeisa.
As for Somalia, the country has not had a stable government since 1991.
A Western-backed Transitional Federal Government was set up in 2004 but Mogadishu remained under the control of a coalition of sharia courts known as the Islamic Courts Union.
Originally the militant wing of the Islamic Courts Union, A-Shabab began an insurgency in late 2006 with assassinations and suicide bombings targeting aid workers and transitional government officials. The group has since made significant gains and now controls much of southern Somalia.
The Western-backed Ethiopian military invaded Somalia in 2007, but many analysts believe this augmented A-Shabab's military campaign against the transitional government.
The Ethiopians withdrew in January of last year after over 16 months of A-Shabab attacks on its forces.
The Islamists soon regrouped, began seizing strategic areas and launching daily attacks on security forces, civilians, aid workers and peacekeepers. The dominant Islamist group today, known as A-Shabab, wishes to topple the current Western-backed government and impose Islamic law.
The transitional government is preparing a major military offensive to retake the capital Mogadishu from A-Shabab and various other militant groups in the coming weeks.
Copyright © 2010 The Media Line. All Rights Reserved.
Have comments? Email editor@themedialine.org.
Written by Rachelle Kliger
Published Sunday, March 28, 2010
Somaliland FM: Lack of resources is eroding our influence on regional stability.
Somalia is suffering on many fronts. The transitional government is engaged in an ongoing conflict with radical Islamists who risk turning the country into a haven for Al-Qa’ida inspired groups. The Horn of Africa nation is afflicted by a dire food shortage, inflation and a spate of piracy.
But as Somalia continues to wallow in violence, some eye a solution in Somaliland, a relatively quiet and stable autonomous region in the north of the country which, while it has not been recognized internationally as a country, is considered a de facto state.
The Media Line spoke with Somaliland’s Foreign Minister Abdullahi Duale during his trip to Washington, where he was meeting with U.S. administration officials.
“We are basically a very stable and peaceful country,” Duale told The Media Line. “We have secured our sea coasts and we’re free of piracy. Somaliland has fought terrorism over the years and we have institutions that work. We’re at peace with ourselves and we have great relations with our neighbors, such as Djibouti, Ethiopia and Yemen.”
Somaliland has been clamping down on a spate of piracy that is plaguing the region by seizing pirates and putting them on trial.
“In piracy, we’re helping extremely well,” Duale said. “We have an 850-kilometer coastline and up until now we’ve been very lucky. We have a very vigilant and small group of coastguards. Although their capacity is very limited – we don’t have the infrastructure for combating it – we’ve been lucky and our people are supporting us.”
But beyond that, Duale implied that in the current political and economic climate, Somaliland’s powers are limited in curbing the violence in the region.
“There have been successive attempts by the international community - by the U.S., the Arab League and the African Union - but thus far it hasn’t been a viable success, simply because they’re not serious,” he said. “This is a serious thorn in the side for the entire region and throughout the world. A stable Somalia will contribute a great deal to us and to the region.”
A-Shabab is the dominant radical Islamist group, which controls large tracts of southern Somalia and parts of the capital Mogadishu.
Duale argued that the lack of strong relations between Somalia and Somaliland also reduces the administration’s power of influence.
“We do not have relations or a dialogue with them,” he said. “We have no security arrangements with them. We’re trying to make sure our borders are intact and that our security is not compromised. There are no viable institutions that one can deal with [in Somalia] and we have never participated in their conferences, so it’s a serious problem. There’s fragmentation and problems and we don’t want to get drawn into this.”
“We have been advised by friendly countries to stay out of that, but we wish them luck and hope that what comes out of this process is a serious government that takes control of the nation and provides security and governance to the people of Somalia who have suffered for so long.”
Mohamed Amiin Adow, the chief correspondent of the Shabelle news agency, had a different take on the matter.
“If Somaliland relinquishes its stance of breaking away from the rest of Somalia, then the seat of the Somali government can be relocated from Mogadishu to Hargeisa and law and order can spread from the more stable parts of the north to the chaotic parts of the south,” he told The Media Line. “Somaliland has been enjoying peace and stability since it declared independence from the rest of Somalia.”
“No one is safe in Somalia when it comes to security, whereas Somaliland is a little bit different due to the functioning self-administration,” Adow said. “It’s more stable as opposed to Somalia, but doesn’t have the established security which can fully guarantee the safety and security of its people.”
“Many people believe the security situation in Somaliland is very fragile and can vanish at anytime unexpectedly, because Somaliland has no border security system and illegal weapons are brought in regularly,” he added. “Also, there are more and more A-Shabab sympathizers in Somaliland, so violent activities can happen, like the one in 2009, when a suicide bombing killed a lot of people in Hargeisa.”
The foreign minister said he is engaged in efforts to secure recognition from countries around the world to make Somaliland an official independent state.
“We established a nation state using a bottom-up approach,” he said. “It’s been characterized as one of the most successful, if not the successful nation-making processes that has taken place in Africa and elsewhere. It’s a pity that thus far we haven’t had the attention of the international community.”
“We are a poor nation with close to four million people, a budget of less than $40 million, 50,000 security forces including the military and coast guard and close to 7,000 civil servants,” Duale continued. “We’re operating a whole nation the size of England and Wales with 40 million dollars.”
“We’re appealing to America and the international community and to countries that promote democracy to assist Somaliland in building its infrastructure and capacity,” he said. “We have been threatened by terror for quite some time and been victims of terrorism numerous times, and we overcame this.”
“We’re in a neighborhood that’s extremely volatile and extremely difficult and we have contributed greatly not only in the regional geopolitical case of security but also in good governance and in the democratization process.”
Britain withdrew from British Somaliland in 1960 to allow its protectorate to join with Italian Somaliland and form the new nation of Somalia. A 1969 coup ushered in an authoritarian socialist rule for two decades. The regime collapsed in 1991 and Somalia descended into turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy.
In May 1991, northern clans declared an independent Republic of Somaliland.
It is considered a de facto independent state but no sovereign states have recognized its independence, even though many governments maintain informal ties with Somaliland and there are delegations and embassies in its capital, Hargeisa.
As for Somalia, the country has not had a stable government since 1991.
A Western-backed Transitional Federal Government was set up in 2004 but Mogadishu remained under the control of a coalition of sharia courts known as the Islamic Courts Union.
Originally the militant wing of the Islamic Courts Union, A-Shabab began an insurgency in late 2006 with assassinations and suicide bombings targeting aid workers and transitional government officials. The group has since made significant gains and now controls much of southern Somalia.
The Western-backed Ethiopian military invaded Somalia in 2007, but many analysts believe this augmented A-Shabab's military campaign against the transitional government.
The Ethiopians withdrew in January of last year after over 16 months of A-Shabab attacks on its forces.
The Islamists soon regrouped, began seizing strategic areas and launching daily attacks on security forces, civilians, aid workers and peacekeepers. The dominant Islamist group today, known as A-Shabab, wishes to topple the current Western-backed government and impose Islamic law.
The transitional government is preparing a major military offensive to retake the capital Mogadishu from A-Shabab and various other militant groups in the coming weeks.
Copyright © 2010 The Media Line. All Rights Reserved.
Have comments? Email editor@themedialine.org.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Chicago forum to discuss how Obama can help African Americans
By Michael A. Fletcher and Hamil R. Harris
Friday, March 19, 2010; 12:28 PM
Should President Obama have a black agenda?
Popular talk show host and activist Tavis Smiley is planning to host a forum Saturday at the 6,000-seat Emil and Patricia A. Jones Convocation Center on the Chicago State University campus to explore the provocative question.
Smiley has invited a panel of black academics and leaders, including the heads of the NAACP and the National Urban League, to Obama's home town to discuss whether the nation's first African American president is doing enough to address the community's concerns.
Smiley also invited White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, but neither she nor any Obama representatives plan to attend, a spokesman said.
Several years ago, Smiley compiled a nationally best-selling book, "The Covenant With Black America," which laid out strategies for addressing black-white disparities, in health care, education, wealth creation and criminal justice.
Smiley also has caused ripples in African American leadership circles with his outspoken insistence that Obama -- like any other president -- be held accountable by black voters.
Many of the disparities cited in Smiley's book have only grown amid the recession, and increasingly some black leaders are grumbling that Obama should be doing more about them.
Last week in an article in The Washington Post, some members of the Congressional Black Caucus complained that Obama is out of touch with them and difficult to reach on the issues that matter most to their constituents.
For his part, Obama has resisted suggestions that he craft policies directly aimed at the staggering economic and social challenges facing many black communities. Black unemployment stands at 15.8 percent, far above the national average of 9.7 percent, and African Americans are more likely than most Americans to lack access to health care and good schools. They also have been disproportionately affected by the home foreclosure crisis, and the rampant loss of wealth that has come with it.
Obama has said that African Americans would benefit from his broader agenda, which he says is aimed at relieving the burdens saddling all working Americans. His administration's efforts to increase federal financial aid for college, increase funding for impoverished school districts, and to expand access to health care would disproportionately benefit working-class people, many of whom are black, he has said.
"I'm the president of the entire United States," he told American Urban Radio Networks in December. "What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need. That, in turn, is going to help lift up the African American community."
While Smiley is gathering black leaders in Chicago, NAACP chief executive Ben Jealous said as he arrived to a Washington dinner of National Newspaper Publisher Association that now is the time to rally behind the president
"We have to come together right now to push through the big changes that this country needs: jobs, health care and a justice system that works for all of us." Jealous said. "Black people are at the center of that agenda. It really is about all people in this country who are hurting."
Ron Walters, a political scientist who is scheduled to appear on a panel at Smiley's conference, said that Obama's position is true only to a point. If the black community is suffering disproportionately, he said, then it is due targeted help.
"In general, when a president signs a bill that puts billions of dollars out there, the assumption is that will help African Americans," he said. "The point is maybe. Our history is that we always had to fight to get general resources to flow into the black community."
Walters said that Obama is being "defensive" about the question of race, because we "live in a racially sensitive country. If he said there were going to be programs aimed at African Americans, there would be such a hullabaloo."
Although Obama has drawn fire from some African American leaders for his reluctance to embrace a black agenda, White House aides point out that the president has been quietly forging bonds with one key constituency group: the black church.
The White House has hosted weekly conference calls and regular briefings with church leaders, including many who lead African American congregations.
"The administration is proud to engage clergy from across the country, and will continue to work with faith-based and other community leaders to address challenges facing our communities," said Joshua DuBois, executive director at the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
In the past year DuBois and Paul Monteiro in the White House Office of Public Engagement have held weekly conference calls with religious leaders; in December, the president listened in as several pastors offered prayers.
The Rev. Otis Moss Jr., pastor emeritus of Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Cleveland, has been a supporter of Obama. His son is pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, which the Obama family attended until the storm caused by the fiery sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
"I have great faith and respect and admiration for the president's commitment and leadership, but we have to help him," Moss said. "Not since Lincoln and Roosevelt has a president inherited such tremendous challenges nationally and globally."
Friday, March 19, 2010; 12:28 PM
Should President Obama have a black agenda?
Popular talk show host and activist Tavis Smiley is planning to host a forum Saturday at the 6,000-seat Emil and Patricia A. Jones Convocation Center on the Chicago State University campus to explore the provocative question.
Smiley has invited a panel of black academics and leaders, including the heads of the NAACP and the National Urban League, to Obama's home town to discuss whether the nation's first African American president is doing enough to address the community's concerns.
Smiley also invited White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, but neither she nor any Obama representatives plan to attend, a spokesman said.
Several years ago, Smiley compiled a nationally best-selling book, "The Covenant With Black America," which laid out strategies for addressing black-white disparities, in health care, education, wealth creation and criminal justice.
Smiley also has caused ripples in African American leadership circles with his outspoken insistence that Obama -- like any other president -- be held accountable by black voters.
Many of the disparities cited in Smiley's book have only grown amid the recession, and increasingly some black leaders are grumbling that Obama should be doing more about them.
Last week in an article in The Washington Post, some members of the Congressional Black Caucus complained that Obama is out of touch with them and difficult to reach on the issues that matter most to their constituents.
For his part, Obama has resisted suggestions that he craft policies directly aimed at the staggering economic and social challenges facing many black communities. Black unemployment stands at 15.8 percent, far above the national average of 9.7 percent, and African Americans are more likely than most Americans to lack access to health care and good schools. They also have been disproportionately affected by the home foreclosure crisis, and the rampant loss of wealth that has come with it.
Obama has said that African Americans would benefit from his broader agenda, which he says is aimed at relieving the burdens saddling all working Americans. His administration's efforts to increase federal financial aid for college, increase funding for impoverished school districts, and to expand access to health care would disproportionately benefit working-class people, many of whom are black, he has said.
"I'm the president of the entire United States," he told American Urban Radio Networks in December. "What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need. That, in turn, is going to help lift up the African American community."
While Smiley is gathering black leaders in Chicago, NAACP chief executive Ben Jealous said as he arrived to a Washington dinner of National Newspaper Publisher Association that now is the time to rally behind the president
"We have to come together right now to push through the big changes that this country needs: jobs, health care and a justice system that works for all of us." Jealous said. "Black people are at the center of that agenda. It really is about all people in this country who are hurting."
Ron Walters, a political scientist who is scheduled to appear on a panel at Smiley's conference, said that Obama's position is true only to a point. If the black community is suffering disproportionately, he said, then it is due targeted help.
"In general, when a president signs a bill that puts billions of dollars out there, the assumption is that will help African Americans," he said. "The point is maybe. Our history is that we always had to fight to get general resources to flow into the black community."
Walters said that Obama is being "defensive" about the question of race, because we "live in a racially sensitive country. If he said there were going to be programs aimed at African Americans, there would be such a hullabaloo."
Although Obama has drawn fire from some African American leaders for his reluctance to embrace a black agenda, White House aides point out that the president has been quietly forging bonds with one key constituency group: the black church.
The White House has hosted weekly conference calls and regular briefings with church leaders, including many who lead African American congregations.
"The administration is proud to engage clergy from across the country, and will continue to work with faith-based and other community leaders to address challenges facing our communities," said Joshua DuBois, executive director at the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
In the past year DuBois and Paul Monteiro in the White House Office of Public Engagement have held weekly conference calls with religious leaders; in December, the president listened in as several pastors offered prayers.
The Rev. Otis Moss Jr., pastor emeritus of Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Cleveland, has been a supporter of Obama. His son is pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, which the Obama family attended until the storm caused by the fiery sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
"I have great faith and respect and admiration for the president's commitment and leadership, but we have to help him," Moss said. "Not since Lincoln and Roosevelt has a president inherited such tremendous challenges nationally and globally."
Thursday, March 18, 2010
U.S.-backed Somalian offensive might be launched
(GIN)—A U.S.-backed offensive could be launched in a few weeks against the insurgent Al-Shabaab rebels who are already controlling much of the East African nation of Somalia.
“What you’re likely to see is airstrikes and Special Ops moving in, hitting and getting out,” said an unnamed official to The New York Times.
In recent months, U.S. advisers have helped supervise the training of Somali forces to prepare them to be deployed in the offensive. It is hoped the offensive will help the western-backed transitional federal government (TFG) expel the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamist militiamen from the Somali capital.
“What you’re likely to see is airstrikes and Special Ops moving in, hitting and getting out,” said an unnamed official to The New York Times.
In recent months, U.S. advisers have helped supervise the training of Somali forces to prepare them to be deployed in the offensive. It is hoped the offensive will help the western-backed transitional federal government (TFG) expel the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamist militiamen from the Somali capital.
Friday, March 12, 2010
U.S. Policy in Somalia
U.S. Policy in Somalia
Johnnie Carson
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs
Ertharin Cousin, Ambassador to the UN Mission in Rome
Washington, DC
March 12, 2010
MR. DUGUID: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State Department. We are here for a special briefing by Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson and Ambassador Ertharin Cousin, who is our ambassador to the World Food Program in Rome, who joins us from Rome. They will speak to you today about U.S. policy on Somalia.
Ambassador.
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Gordon, thank you very, very much. Thank you all for coming today. I want to take this opportunity to address a number of press reports over the past week characterizing our policy in Somalia, specifically regarding our assistance to the Transitional Federal Government. These reports have not accurately reflected or portrayed our policy position and what we are doing in that country. Today, I will take a few moments to set the record straight and to place our policy in proper context.
U.S. policy in Somalia is guided by our support for the Djibouti peace process. The Djibouti peace process is an African-led initiative which enjoys the support of IGAD, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. It also enjoys the support of the African Union and the key states in the region. The Djibouti peace process has also been supported by the United Nations, the European Community, the Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Conference. The Djibouti peace process recognizes the importance of trying to put together an inclusive Somali government and takes into account the importance of the history, culture, clan, and sub-clan relations that have driven the conflict in Somalia for the past 20 years.
The Transitional Federal Government, led by President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, builds on the progress made during the establishment of the Djibouti peace process. However, extremist elements such as al-Shabaab have been – have chosen to reject the peace process and have waged a violent campaign against the TFG and the people of Somalia in order to impose their own vision for the future in that country.
The United States and the international community, the UN, the AU, and our European allies, among others, have chosen to stand with those seeking an inclusive, peaceful Somalia. We have provided limited military support to the Transitional Federal Government. We do so in the firm belief that the TFG seeks to end the violence in Somalia that is caused by al-Shabaab and other extremist organizations.
However, the United States does not plan, does not direct, and does not coordinate the military operations of the TFG, and we have not and will not be providing direct support for any potential military offensives. Further, we are not providing nor paying for military advisors for the TFG. There is no desire to Americanize the conflict in Somalia.
We are also aware of the reporting on the Somali – of the Somalia Monitoring Group’s concerns about the diversion of food and assistance in Somalia. The State Department has received the draft report and we are reviewing it carefully. I will not comment on that report because we have a representative from our Bureau of International Organizations who can answer those questions. But we are concerned about the troubling allegations that are contained in that document.
The Somali people have suffered tremendously throughout more than 20 years of conflict, and Somalia’s turmoil destabilizes not only that country, but the region and also some aspects of the international community. The U.S. recognizes that any long-term solution to the crisis in Somalia must be an inclusive political solution. We continue to call upon all those who seek peace in Somalia to reject terrorism and violence, and to participate in the hard work of stabilizing the country for the benefit of Somalia’s population.
I’d now like to recognize and ask Ambassador Cousin, who is in Rome, whether she would like to add her comments. Thank you.
Ambassador Cousin.
AMBASSADOR COUSIN: Thank you very much, Ambassador Carson. I’d also like to thank the members of the press for your presence and interest in covering these important issues related to Somalia. As Johnnie Carson stated, the Somali people have suffered tremendously during the more than 20 years of conflict in their country.
The Somalia Monitoring Group, more commonly known as the SMG, submitted their report to the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee this past week. This SMG report – the SMG reports directly to the Security Council on implementation of the Somalia and Eritrea sanctions regimes. We take the work of the Somalia Monitoring Group very seriously and we are studying its recommendations.
Next week, the Security Council will meet and receive the regular 120-day report from the Chair of the Somalia Sanctions Committee that will include a briefing on the committee’s discussion of the SMG’s final report. The Somalia Monitoring Group report contains a number of recommendations, including those regarding the work of the World Food Program in Somalia. We at the U.S. Mission to the UN agencies in Rome are active members of the executive board of the World Food Program. This board regularly examines the work of the World Food Program and the perils its dedicated staff face around the world, particularly in places like Somalia.
In December of 2009, the World Food Program presented a briefing on the – its Somalia program to the World Food Program executive board. After the December board meeting, WFP did take internal measures to address the concerns raised in this internal report. Some of the same types of allegations were raised in the Somalia Monitoring Group’s report. So this morning, the executive board recognized that regardless of the process mandated by the SMG, the board has a responsibility for oversight and governance of the WFP operations. Consensus was reached by the board to ensure that all practices of the WFP in – WFP team in Somalia are in line with the organization’s policies and procedures.
We will continue to work to ensure that the generous contributions of the American people to support the work of the World Food Program are managed in an accountable and transparent manner. We express our gratitude to the WFP staff for their commitment to meet humanitarian needs in the most difficult of circumstances. The United States remains strongly committed to meeting the humanitarian needs of the people of Somalia. We continue to seek ways to ensure that the Somalian people receive the assistance they require.
I’ll end here, Assistant Secretary, and look forward to any questions from the media. Thank you.
MR. DUGUID: Before we get to the questions, I would like to make a correction for the record. I described Ambassador Cousin’s – one of her official duties rather than her official title, which is – Ambassador to U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome is her official working title.
As we call on you, please identify yourself and which ambassador you would like to speak to.
Matt.
QUESTION: Matt Lee with AP. Ambassador Carson, you mentioned at the very top – you were talking about a number of recent press reports. Can you be specific about what these reports said? I’m not asking you to identify whatever organization they were responsible. But what did they say? And what is wrong – what was wrong with them?
Secondly, you said that the Djibouti process was supported by IGAD, the AU, and all the countries of the region. But that’s not entirely true, is it? I mean, there is one country that doesn’t support it. Or has Eritrea changed their position? And then –those two very briefly – but then on the military aid that you talked about the several tons of weapons that have been provided to the TFG. Are there any concerns that those weapons may be leaking out in the same way that the food aid was described as leaking out to insurgents?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Let me say, the most prominent article was one that appeared approximately a week ago in The New York Times, written by Jeff Gettleman, and I think co-authored by one of his colleagues, which asserted or carried the assertion that the U.S. Government had military advisors assisting and aiding the TFG, that the U.S. Government was, in fact, helping to coordinate the strategic offensive that is apparently underway now, or may be underway now, in Mogadishu, and that we were, in effect, guiding the hand and the operations of the TFG military. All of those are incorrect. All of those do not reflect the accuracy of our policy, and all of those need to be refuted very strongly. I think my statement clearly outlined what we are doing and why we are doing it.
You indicated that one state in the region has not joined in, and that is absolutely true; that is Eritrea. But Eritrea, in fact, stands alone. What my statement said was that all key states in the region, all the important states in the region – and I would include among them Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, and other members of IGAD --
QUESTION: You’re not planning to meet up with President Isaias anytime soon, are you?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Whenever an opportunity presents itself to engage President Isaias in a conversation that will lead to peace and a cessation of Eritrean support for spoilers in the region, I will do so.
With respect to military weapons, we try as best we possibly can to ensure through a number of mechanisms that any assistance, any assistance that we give to the TFG, directly or indirectly, is accounted for and audited through mechanisms that we believe are very good.
QUESTION: Are you aware of any concerns that weapons have – may have gone to insurgents?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: There are allegations out there. But let me say that because of two decades of conflict and instability in Somalia, the country is awash with arms and, in fact, is an international arms bazaar. Weapons can be acquired very easily on the black market and they can be sold very easily on the black market. We undertake, through a number of mechanisms, including one that we have intentionally put in place to monitor any support that we give, to ensure that every possible effort is maintained over the handling of any assistance we provide.
QUESTION: Andrew Quinn from Reuters. I have one question for Ambassador Cousin. I was hoping you could talk a little bit more about what the practical results will be of this consensus you spoke of with regards to the WFP activity in Somalia and the U.S. role in providing some of the food aid there. Is that going to – if it’s stopped, is it going to resume? What happens now?
And for Ambassador Carson, I was wondering – and you’re talking about the inclusive – hoping for an inclusive resolution of the situation. Do you – does the U.S. foresee or encourage a sort of Afghanistan-style reintegration effort, reaching out to members of al-Shabaab and so on to bring them perhaps back on board with the TFG or other sort of more centrist elements?
And secondly, what does – does the U.S. have a position on the AU’s calls for UN peacekeepers in Somalia? Where do we stand on that one?
MR. DUGUID: Ambassador Cousin first. Ambassador Cousin, please.
AMBASSADOR COUSIN: Thank you. The board will continue to work with WFP to ensure that all the policies and procedures of WFP are followed in Somalia, just as they are in other countries where WFP partners with the U.S. and other countries in the delivery of food assistance. We, the United States, as well as the board continue to be committed to supporting the food security needs of the people of Somalia.
MR. DUGUID: Ambassador.
AMBASSADOR CARSON: On the issue of inclusiveness, we believe that the long-term solution for Somalia’s conflict is to be found in a political reconciliation. We believe that it is important for the TFG to reach out to broaden its base as much as possible, to bring in as many clan and sub-clan groups as possible, to include among its rank other moderate Islamist groups and Somalis who were not a part of that group. I would think that any moderate Islamists who are seeking peace, who are denouncing al-Shabaab, and who want to be a part of a peace process should, in fact, be considered for inclusion in a TFG government.
With respect to the call by the AU for a UN peacekeeping force in Somalia, I think that it is important at this point that AMISOM do the job that it has committed itself to do, that more African countries step up to participate in the AMISOM force, along with the Ugandan, Burundian, and Djiboutian troops who are already on the ground.[1] The force was – for AMISOM was originally supposed to be 8,000 men. It is only slightly over 5,000. We hope other African nations will come forward to make contributions to the effort in Somalia.
The Africans, as I’ve indicated, have recognized the importance of stabilizing that country. This has been recognized in IGAD, in AU resolutions, and the commitment by African countries themselves to put troops on the ground. This is essentially an African effort, an African-led effort that does deserve the support of the international community. But it is important that AMISOM do the primary work of trying to establish peace in that country.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you. We’ll go back to the third row, then we’ll come back to the second row. Yes, please, sir.
QUESTION: I have three small questions. The first one is: I know you stated very clearly that United States is not coordinating or involving any impending military offensive by the TFG. But has the TFG requested any military assistance, specifically aerials and military strikes, from the United States Government? And if so, what was your response or your reply to them?
And the other question is: Have there been any military advisors from the United States Government or any sort of covert military presence in Somalia, in Mogadishu during the past few months? Because in Mogadishu, the talk is that there is a very strong feeling that there are some sorts of military advisors from the United States Government in Mogadishu. So can you confirm whether there has been any visit, any sort of visit from the United States Government, military advisors to Somalia?
And the third and final question: As you said, you do not want to Americanize the Somali TFG military operations. But in September 2009, we know that an operation by the United States Government killed one of the al-Qaida leaders in East Africa in Somalia. So how does these two arguments go along?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Let me respond to all three questions. I have not, in my office, received any formal or informal request from the TFG for airstrikes or operations in support of the offensive that may be underway right now. I have seen newspaper comments of TFG leaders responding to questions that have been posed to them about whether they would be willing to accept outside support. But we have not received any, I have not received any, my office has not received any requests for airstrikes or air support or people on the ground to assist the TFG in its operations. The TFG military operations are the responsibilities of the TFG government.
I will reiterate what I said in my statement: We do not have any American U.S. military advisors on the ground assisting the TFG in its operations. It should be very clear: We do not have any American U.S. military advisors on the ground. We are not planning, coordinating any of the TFG’s military operations. It is for the TFG leadership to determine how its military operates on the ground.
Finally, the issue of Americanization of this. This is not an American conflict. This is a conflict among Somalis that Africans and members of the international community recognize as being extremely important for Somalia, for the region, and for the international community. It will be up to the Somalis to ultimately resolve this conflict. The U.S., along with others in the international community, can contribute in a supporting role, which we do and acknowledge, but not to become directly engaged in any of the conflict on the ground there.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, the Somali Government itself is saying that the conflict is not a Somali conflict anymore; there is the clear affiliation by al-Shabaab with al-Qaida on the other and U.S. military operation last year in the south of Somalia. And in 2000, there were at least three other airstrikes. So it’s not a Somali conflict anymore. Your take on that?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: That is a misreading of Somalia’s history, its culture, and its long period of internecine conflict inside the country, as well as in the region itself. Somalia has been torn apart by internal strife for more than two decades. That two decades supersedes many of the terrorist activities and events that you would like to associate with Somalia.
Somalia’s problems are the result and absence of a central government, constant tensions between various regions among the five major clans and many sub-clans that exist. There are indeed individuals who have more recently come in from outside of the country to take advantage of some of the chaos and disorganization that exists there, but Somalia’s problems are to be resolved by Somalis by recognizing the reasons and causes of the conflict in their own country. Somalia’s people have to work together to bring peace to their country.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you. As our time is limited, let’s try and limit the follow-ons, please. Yes.
QUESTION: Catherine Herridge of Fox News. How would – Ambassador, how would you characterize the relationship between al-Shabaab, which appears to be growing bolder every day, and al-Qaida in Yemen, and what that will mean for the United States?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: There is no question that some individuals, mostly in the senior leadership of al-Shabaab, are affiliated either directly or indirectly with international terrorist groups. Some would like to be even more affiliated. But it is important to recognize that al-Shabaab, which no doubt is carrying out many terrorist activities in that country, is not a homogeneous, monolithic, or – group that is comprised of individuals who completely share the same political philosophy from top to bottom.
QUESTION: But just to follow up on that, because certainly, what the – it’s not an American problem. I understand what you’re saying there. But certainly, there are very significant American interests involved, given that al-Shabaab is actively recruiting Americans of Somali descent in this country to train in the camps there. And just this week, al-Shabaab has said that it’s not afraid of any American intervention in that country.
AMBASSADOR CARSON: The young Somalis who were recruited in this country to go back to Somalia to fight went back to fight against the Ethiopian incursion that occurred in that country. They did not go back to protest or to fight against the – any kind of a U.S. policy in that country. And it’s very clear that they went back for Somali nationalistic reasons. They went back to fight Ethiopians who --
QUESTION: But we were backing the Ethiopians. Was the U.S. not backing the –
AMBASSADOR CARSON: They went back to fight against Ethiopians. The United States was not in Somalia.
MR. DUGUID: Charlie.
QUESTION: Ambassador Carson, Charlie Wolfson from CBS. Can you just give us a dollar figure here of how much aid? And maybe to the ambassador in Rome, Cousin – Ambassador Cousin, how much money is the U.S. giving for this effort either on the food side or totally?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: I’ll let Ambassador Cousin speak to the food issue. But with respect to U.S. support for AMISOM, the United States, as a member of the Contact Group and as a member of the international community, has provided something in the neighborhood of $185 million over the last 18 or 19 months.[2] And that is in support of the AMISOM peacekeeping effort – Uganda, primarily, but Burundi and Djibouti as well. Funding going to the TFG from the United States has been substantially smaller, and that number is approximately $12 million over the last fiscal year.[3] So the amounts of money that we are talking about are really relatively small.
I’ll let Ambassador Cousin speak to the food issue.
AMBASSADOR COUSIN: Thank you. Our food aid, our food assistance budget for Somalia is approximately $150 million. But at this time, the WFP is not operating in the southern region of Somalia, and our operational and food aid support to Somalia is limited to the northern region of Somalia only.
MR. DUGUID: Charley, then David. And I think that’s about all we’ll have time for. Charley.
QUESTION: Please, sir. Charley Keyes of CNN. You’ve spoken several times about what U.S. military assistance is not, but can you be any more specific about what U.S. military assistance to Somalia is?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Well, let me just say the United States Government in support of AMISOM, largely through programs run by the Department of State, has, in fact, provided assistance to AMISOM. We have supported the acquisition of non-lethal equipment to the Governments of Burundi and to Uganda, in particular. We have provided them with military equipment, and this ranges every – from everything from communications gear to uniforms.
We have supported the training of TFG forces outside of Somalia, mostly in Uganda but also in Djibouti. We have paid for the transportation of the troops back from their training places abroad into the country. We have also paid for specialized training given by Ugandans to the Djiboutians to deal with such things as improvised explosive devices, training for the protection of ports and airports. But this has been done by the Ugandans, not by any U.S. Government military officials.
So those are some of the things. And everything that we have done, we have reported, as required, to the UN Sanctions Committee.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you. David, final question.
QUESTION: Dave Gollust from Voice of America. You keep reading that the transitional government, like, controls a matter of blocks in Mogadishu, that it’s very weak, it’s very threatened. What is your take on its survivability?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: I think the TFG has demonstrated in an enormous capacity to survive. When Sheikh Sharif took office as the head of the TFG approximately 16 months ago, there were individuals who predicted that his government would fall within a matter of months
and that he would not be able to reside and govern from Mogadishu. That has not been true. Almost a year ago, in May of last year, al-Shabaab mounted an enormously large offensive designed to break the back of the TFG and the will of AMISOM. They failed to do so. The fact that the TFG remains standing is a reflection of its resolve and the commitment of its leaders to stand up against al-Shabaab. And they are demonstrating their capacity to do so on a daily basis.
There is no doubt that the TFG is still fighting very hard to regain control over most of Mogadishu. Reports that it controls only three, four, or five city blocks are erroneous. What the TFG does control is the main port of Mogadishu, the two main airports, and all of the central government buildings. It has clear control over a third of the city. And probably two-thirds of the city, some of which is controlled by al-Shabaab, remains largely contested territory. We hope that as the TFG builds up its military forces, that it will be able to provide more security, exert more control over the city, and demonstrate its capacity to protect the citizens of the country. We also hope that it will also be more inclusive, reach out to other clans and sub-clans, and to expand its political influence, and also to be able deliver services.
But again, I want to emphasize, these are the responsibilities of the TFG. This is a Somali problem primarily that has affected the region and, to a certain extent, the international community. The United States believes that the Somalis and Africans should not – should, in fact, remain in the lead. This is not an American problem and we do not seek to Americanize the conflict there.
MR. DUGUID: Assistant Secretary Carson, thank you. Ambassador Cousin, thank you very much for appearing with us today.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. That concludes today’s briefing. Please stand by for the regular daily press briefing, which should begin shortly.
# # #
Johnnie Carson
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs
Ertharin Cousin, Ambassador to the UN Mission in Rome
Washington, DC
March 12, 2010
MR. DUGUID: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State Department. We are here for a special briefing by Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson and Ambassador Ertharin Cousin, who is our ambassador to the World Food Program in Rome, who joins us from Rome. They will speak to you today about U.S. policy on Somalia.
Ambassador.
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Gordon, thank you very, very much. Thank you all for coming today. I want to take this opportunity to address a number of press reports over the past week characterizing our policy in Somalia, specifically regarding our assistance to the Transitional Federal Government. These reports have not accurately reflected or portrayed our policy position and what we are doing in that country. Today, I will take a few moments to set the record straight and to place our policy in proper context.
U.S. policy in Somalia is guided by our support for the Djibouti peace process. The Djibouti peace process is an African-led initiative which enjoys the support of IGAD, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. It also enjoys the support of the African Union and the key states in the region. The Djibouti peace process has also been supported by the United Nations, the European Community, the Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Conference. The Djibouti peace process recognizes the importance of trying to put together an inclusive Somali government and takes into account the importance of the history, culture, clan, and sub-clan relations that have driven the conflict in Somalia for the past 20 years.
The Transitional Federal Government, led by President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, builds on the progress made during the establishment of the Djibouti peace process. However, extremist elements such as al-Shabaab have been – have chosen to reject the peace process and have waged a violent campaign against the TFG and the people of Somalia in order to impose their own vision for the future in that country.
The United States and the international community, the UN, the AU, and our European allies, among others, have chosen to stand with those seeking an inclusive, peaceful Somalia. We have provided limited military support to the Transitional Federal Government. We do so in the firm belief that the TFG seeks to end the violence in Somalia that is caused by al-Shabaab and other extremist organizations.
However, the United States does not plan, does not direct, and does not coordinate the military operations of the TFG, and we have not and will not be providing direct support for any potential military offensives. Further, we are not providing nor paying for military advisors for the TFG. There is no desire to Americanize the conflict in Somalia.
We are also aware of the reporting on the Somali – of the Somalia Monitoring Group’s concerns about the diversion of food and assistance in Somalia. The State Department has received the draft report and we are reviewing it carefully. I will not comment on that report because we have a representative from our Bureau of International Organizations who can answer those questions. But we are concerned about the troubling allegations that are contained in that document.
The Somali people have suffered tremendously throughout more than 20 years of conflict, and Somalia’s turmoil destabilizes not only that country, but the region and also some aspects of the international community. The U.S. recognizes that any long-term solution to the crisis in Somalia must be an inclusive political solution. We continue to call upon all those who seek peace in Somalia to reject terrorism and violence, and to participate in the hard work of stabilizing the country for the benefit of Somalia’s population.
I’d now like to recognize and ask Ambassador Cousin, who is in Rome, whether she would like to add her comments. Thank you.
Ambassador Cousin.
AMBASSADOR COUSIN: Thank you very much, Ambassador Carson. I’d also like to thank the members of the press for your presence and interest in covering these important issues related to Somalia. As Johnnie Carson stated, the Somali people have suffered tremendously during the more than 20 years of conflict in their country.
The Somalia Monitoring Group, more commonly known as the SMG, submitted their report to the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee this past week. This SMG report – the SMG reports directly to the Security Council on implementation of the Somalia and Eritrea sanctions regimes. We take the work of the Somalia Monitoring Group very seriously and we are studying its recommendations.
Next week, the Security Council will meet and receive the regular 120-day report from the Chair of the Somalia Sanctions Committee that will include a briefing on the committee’s discussion of the SMG’s final report. The Somalia Monitoring Group report contains a number of recommendations, including those regarding the work of the World Food Program in Somalia. We at the U.S. Mission to the UN agencies in Rome are active members of the executive board of the World Food Program. This board regularly examines the work of the World Food Program and the perils its dedicated staff face around the world, particularly in places like Somalia.
In December of 2009, the World Food Program presented a briefing on the – its Somalia program to the World Food Program executive board. After the December board meeting, WFP did take internal measures to address the concerns raised in this internal report. Some of the same types of allegations were raised in the Somalia Monitoring Group’s report. So this morning, the executive board recognized that regardless of the process mandated by the SMG, the board has a responsibility for oversight and governance of the WFP operations. Consensus was reached by the board to ensure that all practices of the WFP in – WFP team in Somalia are in line with the organization’s policies and procedures.
We will continue to work to ensure that the generous contributions of the American people to support the work of the World Food Program are managed in an accountable and transparent manner. We express our gratitude to the WFP staff for their commitment to meet humanitarian needs in the most difficult of circumstances. The United States remains strongly committed to meeting the humanitarian needs of the people of Somalia. We continue to seek ways to ensure that the Somalian people receive the assistance they require.
I’ll end here, Assistant Secretary, and look forward to any questions from the media. Thank you.
MR. DUGUID: Before we get to the questions, I would like to make a correction for the record. I described Ambassador Cousin’s – one of her official duties rather than her official title, which is – Ambassador to U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome is her official working title.
As we call on you, please identify yourself and which ambassador you would like to speak to.
Matt.
QUESTION: Matt Lee with AP. Ambassador Carson, you mentioned at the very top – you were talking about a number of recent press reports. Can you be specific about what these reports said? I’m not asking you to identify whatever organization they were responsible. But what did they say? And what is wrong – what was wrong with them?
Secondly, you said that the Djibouti process was supported by IGAD, the AU, and all the countries of the region. But that’s not entirely true, is it? I mean, there is one country that doesn’t support it. Or has Eritrea changed their position? And then –those two very briefly – but then on the military aid that you talked about the several tons of weapons that have been provided to the TFG. Are there any concerns that those weapons may be leaking out in the same way that the food aid was described as leaking out to insurgents?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Let me say, the most prominent article was one that appeared approximately a week ago in The New York Times, written by Jeff Gettleman, and I think co-authored by one of his colleagues, which asserted or carried the assertion that the U.S. Government had military advisors assisting and aiding the TFG, that the U.S. Government was, in fact, helping to coordinate the strategic offensive that is apparently underway now, or may be underway now, in Mogadishu, and that we were, in effect, guiding the hand and the operations of the TFG military. All of those are incorrect. All of those do not reflect the accuracy of our policy, and all of those need to be refuted very strongly. I think my statement clearly outlined what we are doing and why we are doing it.
You indicated that one state in the region has not joined in, and that is absolutely true; that is Eritrea. But Eritrea, in fact, stands alone. What my statement said was that all key states in the region, all the important states in the region – and I would include among them Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, and other members of IGAD --
QUESTION: You’re not planning to meet up with President Isaias anytime soon, are you?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Whenever an opportunity presents itself to engage President Isaias in a conversation that will lead to peace and a cessation of Eritrean support for spoilers in the region, I will do so.
With respect to military weapons, we try as best we possibly can to ensure through a number of mechanisms that any assistance, any assistance that we give to the TFG, directly or indirectly, is accounted for and audited through mechanisms that we believe are very good.
QUESTION: Are you aware of any concerns that weapons have – may have gone to insurgents?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: There are allegations out there. But let me say that because of two decades of conflict and instability in Somalia, the country is awash with arms and, in fact, is an international arms bazaar. Weapons can be acquired very easily on the black market and they can be sold very easily on the black market. We undertake, through a number of mechanisms, including one that we have intentionally put in place to monitor any support that we give, to ensure that every possible effort is maintained over the handling of any assistance we provide.
QUESTION: Andrew Quinn from Reuters. I have one question for Ambassador Cousin. I was hoping you could talk a little bit more about what the practical results will be of this consensus you spoke of with regards to the WFP activity in Somalia and the U.S. role in providing some of the food aid there. Is that going to – if it’s stopped, is it going to resume? What happens now?
And for Ambassador Carson, I was wondering – and you’re talking about the inclusive – hoping for an inclusive resolution of the situation. Do you – does the U.S. foresee or encourage a sort of Afghanistan-style reintegration effort, reaching out to members of al-Shabaab and so on to bring them perhaps back on board with the TFG or other sort of more centrist elements?
And secondly, what does – does the U.S. have a position on the AU’s calls for UN peacekeepers in Somalia? Where do we stand on that one?
MR. DUGUID: Ambassador Cousin first. Ambassador Cousin, please.
AMBASSADOR COUSIN: Thank you. The board will continue to work with WFP to ensure that all the policies and procedures of WFP are followed in Somalia, just as they are in other countries where WFP partners with the U.S. and other countries in the delivery of food assistance. We, the United States, as well as the board continue to be committed to supporting the food security needs of the people of Somalia.
MR. DUGUID: Ambassador.
AMBASSADOR CARSON: On the issue of inclusiveness, we believe that the long-term solution for Somalia’s conflict is to be found in a political reconciliation. We believe that it is important for the TFG to reach out to broaden its base as much as possible, to bring in as many clan and sub-clan groups as possible, to include among its rank other moderate Islamist groups and Somalis who were not a part of that group. I would think that any moderate Islamists who are seeking peace, who are denouncing al-Shabaab, and who want to be a part of a peace process should, in fact, be considered for inclusion in a TFG government.
With respect to the call by the AU for a UN peacekeeping force in Somalia, I think that it is important at this point that AMISOM do the job that it has committed itself to do, that more African countries step up to participate in the AMISOM force, along with the Ugandan, Burundian, and Djiboutian troops who are already on the ground.[1] The force was – for AMISOM was originally supposed to be 8,000 men. It is only slightly over 5,000. We hope other African nations will come forward to make contributions to the effort in Somalia.
The Africans, as I’ve indicated, have recognized the importance of stabilizing that country. This has been recognized in IGAD, in AU resolutions, and the commitment by African countries themselves to put troops on the ground. This is essentially an African effort, an African-led effort that does deserve the support of the international community. But it is important that AMISOM do the primary work of trying to establish peace in that country.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you. We’ll go back to the third row, then we’ll come back to the second row. Yes, please, sir.
QUESTION: I have three small questions. The first one is: I know you stated very clearly that United States is not coordinating or involving any impending military offensive by the TFG. But has the TFG requested any military assistance, specifically aerials and military strikes, from the United States Government? And if so, what was your response or your reply to them?
And the other question is: Have there been any military advisors from the United States Government or any sort of covert military presence in Somalia, in Mogadishu during the past few months? Because in Mogadishu, the talk is that there is a very strong feeling that there are some sorts of military advisors from the United States Government in Mogadishu. So can you confirm whether there has been any visit, any sort of visit from the United States Government, military advisors to Somalia?
And the third and final question: As you said, you do not want to Americanize the Somali TFG military operations. But in September 2009, we know that an operation by the United States Government killed one of the al-Qaida leaders in East Africa in Somalia. So how does these two arguments go along?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Let me respond to all three questions. I have not, in my office, received any formal or informal request from the TFG for airstrikes or operations in support of the offensive that may be underway right now. I have seen newspaper comments of TFG leaders responding to questions that have been posed to them about whether they would be willing to accept outside support. But we have not received any, I have not received any, my office has not received any requests for airstrikes or air support or people on the ground to assist the TFG in its operations. The TFG military operations are the responsibilities of the TFG government.
I will reiterate what I said in my statement: We do not have any American U.S. military advisors on the ground assisting the TFG in its operations. It should be very clear: We do not have any American U.S. military advisors on the ground. We are not planning, coordinating any of the TFG’s military operations. It is for the TFG leadership to determine how its military operates on the ground.
Finally, the issue of Americanization of this. This is not an American conflict. This is a conflict among Somalis that Africans and members of the international community recognize as being extremely important for Somalia, for the region, and for the international community. It will be up to the Somalis to ultimately resolve this conflict. The U.S., along with others in the international community, can contribute in a supporting role, which we do and acknowledge, but not to become directly engaged in any of the conflict on the ground there.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, the Somali Government itself is saying that the conflict is not a Somali conflict anymore; there is the clear affiliation by al-Shabaab with al-Qaida on the other and U.S. military operation last year in the south of Somalia. And in 2000, there were at least three other airstrikes. So it’s not a Somali conflict anymore. Your take on that?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: That is a misreading of Somalia’s history, its culture, and its long period of internecine conflict inside the country, as well as in the region itself. Somalia has been torn apart by internal strife for more than two decades. That two decades supersedes many of the terrorist activities and events that you would like to associate with Somalia.
Somalia’s problems are the result and absence of a central government, constant tensions between various regions among the five major clans and many sub-clans that exist. There are indeed individuals who have more recently come in from outside of the country to take advantage of some of the chaos and disorganization that exists there, but Somalia’s problems are to be resolved by Somalis by recognizing the reasons and causes of the conflict in their own country. Somalia’s people have to work together to bring peace to their country.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you. As our time is limited, let’s try and limit the follow-ons, please. Yes.
QUESTION: Catherine Herridge of Fox News. How would – Ambassador, how would you characterize the relationship between al-Shabaab, which appears to be growing bolder every day, and al-Qaida in Yemen, and what that will mean for the United States?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: There is no question that some individuals, mostly in the senior leadership of al-Shabaab, are affiliated either directly or indirectly with international terrorist groups. Some would like to be even more affiliated. But it is important to recognize that al-Shabaab, which no doubt is carrying out many terrorist activities in that country, is not a homogeneous, monolithic, or – group that is comprised of individuals who completely share the same political philosophy from top to bottom.
QUESTION: But just to follow up on that, because certainly, what the – it’s not an American problem. I understand what you’re saying there. But certainly, there are very significant American interests involved, given that al-Shabaab is actively recruiting Americans of Somali descent in this country to train in the camps there. And just this week, al-Shabaab has said that it’s not afraid of any American intervention in that country.
AMBASSADOR CARSON: The young Somalis who were recruited in this country to go back to Somalia to fight went back to fight against the Ethiopian incursion that occurred in that country. They did not go back to protest or to fight against the – any kind of a U.S. policy in that country. And it’s very clear that they went back for Somali nationalistic reasons. They went back to fight Ethiopians who --
QUESTION: But we were backing the Ethiopians. Was the U.S. not backing the –
AMBASSADOR CARSON: They went back to fight against Ethiopians. The United States was not in Somalia.
MR. DUGUID: Charlie.
QUESTION: Ambassador Carson, Charlie Wolfson from CBS. Can you just give us a dollar figure here of how much aid? And maybe to the ambassador in Rome, Cousin – Ambassador Cousin, how much money is the U.S. giving for this effort either on the food side or totally?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: I’ll let Ambassador Cousin speak to the food issue. But with respect to U.S. support for AMISOM, the United States, as a member of the Contact Group and as a member of the international community, has provided something in the neighborhood of $185 million over the last 18 or 19 months.[2] And that is in support of the AMISOM peacekeeping effort – Uganda, primarily, but Burundi and Djibouti as well. Funding going to the TFG from the United States has been substantially smaller, and that number is approximately $12 million over the last fiscal year.[3] So the amounts of money that we are talking about are really relatively small.
I’ll let Ambassador Cousin speak to the food issue.
AMBASSADOR COUSIN: Thank you. Our food aid, our food assistance budget for Somalia is approximately $150 million. But at this time, the WFP is not operating in the southern region of Somalia, and our operational and food aid support to Somalia is limited to the northern region of Somalia only.
MR. DUGUID: Charley, then David. And I think that’s about all we’ll have time for. Charley.
QUESTION: Please, sir. Charley Keyes of CNN. You’ve spoken several times about what U.S. military assistance is not, but can you be any more specific about what U.S. military assistance to Somalia is?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Well, let me just say the United States Government in support of AMISOM, largely through programs run by the Department of State, has, in fact, provided assistance to AMISOM. We have supported the acquisition of non-lethal equipment to the Governments of Burundi and to Uganda, in particular. We have provided them with military equipment, and this ranges every – from everything from communications gear to uniforms.
We have supported the training of TFG forces outside of Somalia, mostly in Uganda but also in Djibouti. We have paid for the transportation of the troops back from their training places abroad into the country. We have also paid for specialized training given by Ugandans to the Djiboutians to deal with such things as improvised explosive devices, training for the protection of ports and airports. But this has been done by the Ugandans, not by any U.S. Government military officials.
So those are some of the things. And everything that we have done, we have reported, as required, to the UN Sanctions Committee.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you. David, final question.
QUESTION: Dave Gollust from Voice of America. You keep reading that the transitional government, like, controls a matter of blocks in Mogadishu, that it’s very weak, it’s very threatened. What is your take on its survivability?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: I think the TFG has demonstrated in an enormous capacity to survive. When Sheikh Sharif took office as the head of the TFG approximately 16 months ago, there were individuals who predicted that his government would fall within a matter of months
and that he would not be able to reside and govern from Mogadishu. That has not been true. Almost a year ago, in May of last year, al-Shabaab mounted an enormously large offensive designed to break the back of the TFG and the will of AMISOM. They failed to do so. The fact that the TFG remains standing is a reflection of its resolve and the commitment of its leaders to stand up against al-Shabaab. And they are demonstrating their capacity to do so on a daily basis.
There is no doubt that the TFG is still fighting very hard to regain control over most of Mogadishu. Reports that it controls only three, four, or five city blocks are erroneous. What the TFG does control is the main port of Mogadishu, the two main airports, and all of the central government buildings. It has clear control over a third of the city. And probably two-thirds of the city, some of which is controlled by al-Shabaab, remains largely contested territory. We hope that as the TFG builds up its military forces, that it will be able to provide more security, exert more control over the city, and demonstrate its capacity to protect the citizens of the country. We also hope that it will also be more inclusive, reach out to other clans and sub-clans, and to expand its political influence, and also to be able deliver services.
But again, I want to emphasize, these are the responsibilities of the TFG. This is a Somali problem primarily that has affected the region and, to a certain extent, the international community. The United States believes that the Somalis and Africans should not – should, in fact, remain in the lead. This is not an American problem and we do not seek to Americanize the conflict there.
MR. DUGUID: Assistant Secretary Carson, thank you. Ambassador Cousin, thank you very much for appearing with us today.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. That concludes today’s briefing. Please stand by for the regular daily press briefing, which should begin shortly.
# # #
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Million meals SOS
Million meals SOS
By REBECCA TORR, Posted on » Monday, March 08, 2010
A BAHRAINI charity worker has launched an appeal to feed a million starving people in Somalia.
Khalid Al Khayat aims to raise BD20,000 which, at 20 fils a time will provide a single survival meal to a million Somalians.
The meal is a soup-like concoction which is all the starving stomachs can initially tolerate, but one cup a day is enough to sustain them.
He has already collected BD1,000 and hopes he will achieve his goal by the end of this month.
He has already collected BD1,000 and hopes he will achieve his goal by the end of the month.
Mr Al Khayat is also calling on His Majesty King Hamad to launch a national campaign in support of the world's starving, especially those in Africa.
This is the third time Mr Al Khayat has campaigned to raise money in support of the poor in Somalia.
"This is the third campaign I have done, the other two were in 2006 and 2007 for orphans in Somalia," he told the GDN.
"I wanted to help after I visited Somalia in 1989 as part of the first Arab work camp for 60 men and women from the GCC and 60 Somalians.
"We stayed in Ailjaley and saw how poor Africans really lived, the food we ate was so awful we used to throw it in the garbage and then we saw people in the village come and eat what we had thrown away.
"When we saw this we started asking for more food so we could give it to them.
"From then I started liking Somalia and Africa and wanted to help."
In 2006 Mr Al Khayat's goal was to raise BD500 to purchase 25,000 meals for the poor in Somalia, but instead he received BD6,6000 and was able to buy 330,000.
In 2007 he launched another campaign to raise BD1,000 for 50,000 meals, but was delighted to receive BD9,000, which enabled him to feed 450,000.
"Each meal is 20 fils, it's a combination of milk, corn, oil, sugar and flour which they make into a thick soup, because of starvation this is all their stomachs can handle," said Mr Al Khayat, who is a public relations specialist in the banking and investment sector.
"It's actually drunk not eaten and one cup is enough nutrition for one day."
Mr Al Khayat, from Hidd, said that although there was poverty in every country, the poor in Africa were really in need of help.
"I fell much more needs to be done to help Africa. When I visited in 1989 it was the golden age in Somalia, since then they have gone through several wars," he said.
"The best thing I saw there was that people don't discriminate between religions, because everyone is in the same situation."
Money raised during the campaign will be directed to the Kuwait-based charity Direct Aid, which will buy and distribute the meals in Somalia.
The campaign is backed by Al Noor Society, which is waiting on the approval of the Social Development Ministry before it will be able to receive donations.
Donations can be made by contacting Mr Al Khayat on 39681000 and, once approved, Al Noor Society will also be able to receive donations.
Donators will receive a receipt and once their money has been received by Direct Aid, they will be sent a letter acknowledging their contribution.
becky@gdn.com.bh
By REBECCA TORR, Posted on » Monday, March 08, 2010
A BAHRAINI charity worker has launched an appeal to feed a million starving people in Somalia.
Khalid Al Khayat aims to raise BD20,000 which, at 20 fils a time will provide a single survival meal to a million Somalians.
The meal is a soup-like concoction which is all the starving stomachs can initially tolerate, but one cup a day is enough to sustain them.
He has already collected BD1,000 and hopes he will achieve his goal by the end of this month.
He has already collected BD1,000 and hopes he will achieve his goal by the end of the month.
Mr Al Khayat is also calling on His Majesty King Hamad to launch a national campaign in support of the world's starving, especially those in Africa.
This is the third time Mr Al Khayat has campaigned to raise money in support of the poor in Somalia.
"This is the third campaign I have done, the other two were in 2006 and 2007 for orphans in Somalia," he told the GDN.
"I wanted to help after I visited Somalia in 1989 as part of the first Arab work camp for 60 men and women from the GCC and 60 Somalians.
"We stayed in Ailjaley and saw how poor Africans really lived, the food we ate was so awful we used to throw it in the garbage and then we saw people in the village come and eat what we had thrown away.
"When we saw this we started asking for more food so we could give it to them.
"From then I started liking Somalia and Africa and wanted to help."
In 2006 Mr Al Khayat's goal was to raise BD500 to purchase 25,000 meals for the poor in Somalia, but instead he received BD6,6000 and was able to buy 330,000.
In 2007 he launched another campaign to raise BD1,000 for 50,000 meals, but was delighted to receive BD9,000, which enabled him to feed 450,000.
"Each meal is 20 fils, it's a combination of milk, corn, oil, sugar and flour which they make into a thick soup, because of starvation this is all their stomachs can handle," said Mr Al Khayat, who is a public relations specialist in the banking and investment sector.
"It's actually drunk not eaten and one cup is enough nutrition for one day."
Mr Al Khayat, from Hidd, said that although there was poverty in every country, the poor in Africa were really in need of help.
"I fell much more needs to be done to help Africa. When I visited in 1989 it was the golden age in Somalia, since then they have gone through several wars," he said.
"The best thing I saw there was that people don't discriminate between religions, because everyone is in the same situation."
Money raised during the campaign will be directed to the Kuwait-based charity Direct Aid, which will buy and distribute the meals in Somalia.
The campaign is backed by Al Noor Society, which is waiting on the approval of the Social Development Ministry before it will be able to receive donations.
Donations can be made by contacting Mr Al Khayat on 39681000 and, once approved, Al Noor Society will also be able to receive donations.
Donators will receive a receipt and once their money has been received by Direct Aid, they will be sent a letter acknowledging their contribution.
becky@gdn.com.bh
Friday, March 5, 2010
Swiss May Give Animals Free Lawyers
March 4, 2010, 6:23 pm
Swiss May Give Animals Free Lawyers
By ROBERT MACKEY
afgoetschel.com
Like a duck needs a lawyer. Antoine Goetschel with potential clients.
Barely three months after Swiss voters approved a measure to restrict the rights of Muslims to build minarets, they return to the polls on Sunday to consider expanding the rights of animals to get free legal representation.
At the moment, only one Swiss canton, Zurich, employs an attorney to represent abused animals in court. But if the voters agree with the 144,000 animal lovers who signed a petition to get the measure on the ballot, next week each of Switzerland’s 26 cantons will be required to appoint a lawyer to act as a public prosecutor for the region’s animals.
According to Antoine F. Goetschel, the attorney who has been spending part of his week representing the interests of Zurich’s animals since 2007, the new measure is necessary since other regions of the country are failing to enforce laws against animal cruelty.
In a typical year, most of Mr. Goetschel’s 150 to 200 clients are mistreated dogs. Last month, though, he got a lot more attention than usual when he represented a dead fish in court.
Asked by The Associated Press why he took a fisherman to court and charged him with torturing a large pike by taking 10 minutes to kill it, Mr. Goetschel said, “It’s the same reason why a prosecutor goes after a murderer: to make sure that people are suitably punished for their crimes.” After losing the case he noted, “Fish don’t get much sympathy.”
That might be true of wild fish, but Switzerland does have a law on the books against what Mr. Goetschel calls the solitary confinement of goldfish. As Cathrin Schaer of the German magazine Spiegel pointed out in an interview with Mr. Goetschel this week, “Since 2008, it has been illegal to keep animals that usually live in groups — such as goldfish, canaries or guinea pigs — alone.”
The country also requires dog owners to take a course training them to be good and will ban tying up horses inside their stalls within a few years.
While he acknowledged to Spiegel that the country already has far-reaching laws to protect animals, Mr. Goetschel says that state-appointed lawyers are necessary “to ensure that existing animal-welfare laws are adhered to.” In many parts of the country, he said, the laws “are not taken seriously.” Since his position was created in Zurich, he said, “everyone involved — the police, local veterinarians and animal-welfare organizations — takes these things more seriously.”
Swiss May Give Animals Free Lawyers
By ROBERT MACKEY
afgoetschel.com
Like a duck needs a lawyer. Antoine Goetschel with potential clients.
Barely three months after Swiss voters approved a measure to restrict the rights of Muslims to build minarets, they return to the polls on Sunday to consider expanding the rights of animals to get free legal representation.
At the moment, only one Swiss canton, Zurich, employs an attorney to represent abused animals in court. But if the voters agree with the 144,000 animal lovers who signed a petition to get the measure on the ballot, next week each of Switzerland’s 26 cantons will be required to appoint a lawyer to act as a public prosecutor for the region’s animals.
According to Antoine F. Goetschel, the attorney who has been spending part of his week representing the interests of Zurich’s animals since 2007, the new measure is necessary since other regions of the country are failing to enforce laws against animal cruelty.
In a typical year, most of Mr. Goetschel’s 150 to 200 clients are mistreated dogs. Last month, though, he got a lot more attention than usual when he represented a dead fish in court.
Asked by The Associated Press why he took a fisherman to court and charged him with torturing a large pike by taking 10 minutes to kill it, Mr. Goetschel said, “It’s the same reason why a prosecutor goes after a murderer: to make sure that people are suitably punished for their crimes.” After losing the case he noted, “Fish don’t get much sympathy.”
That might be true of wild fish, but Switzerland does have a law on the books against what Mr. Goetschel calls the solitary confinement of goldfish. As Cathrin Schaer of the German magazine Spiegel pointed out in an interview with Mr. Goetschel this week, “Since 2008, it has been illegal to keep animals that usually live in groups — such as goldfish, canaries or guinea pigs — alone.”
The country also requires dog owners to take a course training them to be good and will ban tying up horses inside their stalls within a few years.
While he acknowledged to Spiegel that the country already has far-reaching laws to protect animals, Mr. Goetschel says that state-appointed lawyers are necessary “to ensure that existing animal-welfare laws are adhered to.” In many parts of the country, he said, the laws “are not taken seriously.” Since his position was created in Zurich, he said, “everyone involved — the police, local veterinarians and animal-welfare organizations — takes these things more seriously.”
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
At 74, Fairfax resident, a former Somali prime minister, may face war-crimes lawsuit
By Brigid Schulte
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Mohamed Ali Samantar, whose name will be brought before the Supreme Court this week as that of a war criminal in his native Somalia, has a hard time getting up from the couch in his tidy split-level home in Fairfax City.
Dressed in a pressed charcoal-colored suit for his first interview in many years, Samantar, 74, stiffly hauls himself halfway up from the threadbare brocade sofa. Some of his 13 sons and daughters rush in to help. He stays them with a single gruff word. Slowly, the man who was defense minister and prime minister of the last functioning regime in Somalia stands up on his own.
His five accusers in a civil lawsuit call him a war criminal, a monster living out his golden years with impunity in a quiet suburban neighborhood. This man, they say, was responsible for the unjust torture that they or members of their families suffered in the 1980s. They say Samantar administered a regime of repeated rape, abduction, summary execution and years-long imprisonment in solitary confinement. The accusers want someone, finally, to be held accountable for the well-documented human rights atrocities of that era.
Samantar waves his hand impatiently. The accusations, he says in a deep, throaty voice, are "baseless allegations, with no foundation in truth."
They come from a time when the country was in the midst of the first of many brutal civil wars, pitting north against south, clan against clan. A time when no one's hands were clean. "I served the people rightly and justly," he says. "I always respected the rule of law. I am no monster. I am not going to eat anyone."
With that, his 3-year-old granddaughter, one of the many grandchildren screeching gleefully throughout the house for their traditional Sunday dinner, comes up and kisses him on the lips.
The case before the justices is not about whether Samantar is a war criminal, but whether his accusers, with no viable legal alternatives in their homeland, can sue to make him answer their allegations. The question to be decided, which has potentially powerful policy implications for the United States and its foreign relations, centers on immunity. Samantar says he has immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, which protects foreign states from lawsuits. His lawyers argue that, although that law does not mention individuals, it protects his official actions just the same. His accusers, in a suit first filed in federal district court in Virginia in 2004 by the San Francisco-based Center for Justice and Accountability, say the law does not shield individuals, especially those who've been out of office for years.
The case has divided courts. A federal judge in Alexandria ruled that even if the immunity law does not mention individuals, such protection is the "practical equivalent" of immunity offered to a state. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond overturned the lower court, pointing to the law's silence on individual immunity.
Samantar's attorney, Michael Carvin, says that a decision against Samantar would open U.S. officials to lawsuits in other countries.
The accusers' attorney, Patricia Millet, says that Congress and the executive branch "have expressly determined that" it is in the United States' interest to deny "foreign officials who engage in torture and killing a safe haven within the United States."
A hero or a criminal?
Talk to Somalis about Mohamed Ali Samantar and the lawsuit, or cruise through Somali chat rooms on the Internet, and you will find vehement, dizzyingly divergent opinions. Samantar's a war criminal who should be brought to justice, or he's a nationalist hero being scapegoated. He's a demon. He's an Abraham Lincoln. To understand that divide, Somalis say, you must know a Somali's clan and how that clan fared when Samantar and the brutal regime of Mohamed Siad Barre were in power -- from 1969, when the generals took over a weak and corrupt government in a bloodless coup, to 1991, when they fled and the country devolved into the violent anarchy that has reigned since.
To understand the lawsuit, Somali experts say, one must understand the history, from the 19th-century colonial division of the country into northern and southern pieces ruled by Britain and Italy, to the 20th-century Cold War dynamic, in which superpowers propping up friendly regimes averted their glance from human rights abuses.
In 1977, Somalia went to war with Ethiopia seeking to annex an area where a Somali clan called the Ogaden lived. When thousands of Ogaden refugees fleeing that conflict poured into Somalia's north, the clan living in that region, the Isaaq, responded to the influx and what they viewed as harsh government policies. With help from Ethiopia, the Isaaq began an armed rebellion.
Members of the Isaaq clan, such as Bashe Yousuf, one of Samantar's five accusers, see him as the last remnant of a regime bent on destroying not only the rebels but the entire clan.
Yousuf and the others say that even though Samantar didn't perpetrate torture directly, he should be held responsible. "He is the highest-ranking person of that regime," says Yousuf, who spent six years in solitary confinement and is a U.S. citizen living near Atlanta. "He gave the commands."
Aziz Mohamed Deria, another of the plaintiffs, holds Samantar responsible for the day in 1988 when the Somali military burst into his family home and took his father, younger brother and cousin, who were never seen again. "The ones who took them, I don't know where they live, their names," says Deria, now a U.S. citizen and commodities broker in Portland, Ore. "What I know is that Mr. Samantar . . . was in charge of what was happening. If I know the big fish and I know where he lives, why go after the small ones?"
Samantar makes no apologies for the army and its conduct during the civil war. "The people bringing these allegations were, by their own admission, part of a movement that came as invaders from another country and wanted to secede," Samantar says in Somali as one of his sons translates. "In the army, your primary function is to defend the nation from foreign invaders. The army did what it was meant to do -- protect the nation from splitting in two." The plaintiffs deny they were part of the rebellion. After the fall of the Siad Barre regime in 1991, the Isaaq in the north declared independence and sought to establish the nation of Somaliland, dividing the country in two.
Building a new life
Samantar barely escaped Somalia with his life in 1991. Armed bandits, he said, shot his young daughter in the back four times and his 15-year-old son in the legs as they raced to the border. A bullet grazed the back of Samantar's skull. He lived in Rome with three of his children until 1997, when his wife, who had come to the United States earlier with their four youngest children and then received political asylum, sponsored him.
Since then, he says, he has lived in Fairfax "in relative peace." The living room is adorned with family photos, an elaborate Arabic embroidery of the 99 names of Allah in gold, and a black-and-white photo of a much younger Samantar shaking hands with Margaret Thatcher.
He is a private man, friends and family say, who plays chess, has a warm sense of humor and prays regularly. He is supported, he says, by his 13 children.
David Rawson, the U.S. deputy chief of mission in Somalia from 1986 to 1988, says he has been puzzled why Samantar, of all Somali officials of that era, is the one being sued. Real power, he says, was concentrated in President Siad Barre and a small group of his clan members.
"Samantar was so far out of the decision-making loop," Rawson says. "But Samantar comes from a small clan. There's no political cost to going after someone vulnerable like that, as opposed to going after someone who comes from a significant family or important clan."
Samantar's clan, the Tumaal, is one of a handful of small clans considered outcasts.
Asked whether he feels remorse for the brutality of his era in power, Samantar's answer is abrupt. "It's in the past," he says, pouring Splenda from a yellow packet to sweeten his bitter chai tea.
Staff writer Robert Barnes and staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Mohamed Ali Samantar, whose name will be brought before the Supreme Court this week as that of a war criminal in his native Somalia, has a hard time getting up from the couch in his tidy split-level home in Fairfax City.
Dressed in a pressed charcoal-colored suit for his first interview in many years, Samantar, 74, stiffly hauls himself halfway up from the threadbare brocade sofa. Some of his 13 sons and daughters rush in to help. He stays them with a single gruff word. Slowly, the man who was defense minister and prime minister of the last functioning regime in Somalia stands up on his own.
His five accusers in a civil lawsuit call him a war criminal, a monster living out his golden years with impunity in a quiet suburban neighborhood. This man, they say, was responsible for the unjust torture that they or members of their families suffered in the 1980s. They say Samantar administered a regime of repeated rape, abduction, summary execution and years-long imprisonment in solitary confinement. The accusers want someone, finally, to be held accountable for the well-documented human rights atrocities of that era.
Samantar waves his hand impatiently. The accusations, he says in a deep, throaty voice, are "baseless allegations, with no foundation in truth."
They come from a time when the country was in the midst of the first of many brutal civil wars, pitting north against south, clan against clan. A time when no one's hands were clean. "I served the people rightly and justly," he says. "I always respected the rule of law. I am no monster. I am not going to eat anyone."
With that, his 3-year-old granddaughter, one of the many grandchildren screeching gleefully throughout the house for their traditional Sunday dinner, comes up and kisses him on the lips.
The case before the justices is not about whether Samantar is a war criminal, but whether his accusers, with no viable legal alternatives in their homeland, can sue to make him answer their allegations. The question to be decided, which has potentially powerful policy implications for the United States and its foreign relations, centers on immunity. Samantar says he has immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, which protects foreign states from lawsuits. His lawyers argue that, although that law does not mention individuals, it protects his official actions just the same. His accusers, in a suit first filed in federal district court in Virginia in 2004 by the San Francisco-based Center for Justice and Accountability, say the law does not shield individuals, especially those who've been out of office for years.
The case has divided courts. A federal judge in Alexandria ruled that even if the immunity law does not mention individuals, such protection is the "practical equivalent" of immunity offered to a state. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond overturned the lower court, pointing to the law's silence on individual immunity.
Samantar's attorney, Michael Carvin, says that a decision against Samantar would open U.S. officials to lawsuits in other countries.
The accusers' attorney, Patricia Millet, says that Congress and the executive branch "have expressly determined that" it is in the United States' interest to deny "foreign officials who engage in torture and killing a safe haven within the United States."
A hero or a criminal?
Talk to Somalis about Mohamed Ali Samantar and the lawsuit, or cruise through Somali chat rooms on the Internet, and you will find vehement, dizzyingly divergent opinions. Samantar's a war criminal who should be brought to justice, or he's a nationalist hero being scapegoated. He's a demon. He's an Abraham Lincoln. To understand that divide, Somalis say, you must know a Somali's clan and how that clan fared when Samantar and the brutal regime of Mohamed Siad Barre were in power -- from 1969, when the generals took over a weak and corrupt government in a bloodless coup, to 1991, when they fled and the country devolved into the violent anarchy that has reigned since.
To understand the lawsuit, Somali experts say, one must understand the history, from the 19th-century colonial division of the country into northern and southern pieces ruled by Britain and Italy, to the 20th-century Cold War dynamic, in which superpowers propping up friendly regimes averted their glance from human rights abuses.
In 1977, Somalia went to war with Ethiopia seeking to annex an area where a Somali clan called the Ogaden lived. When thousands of Ogaden refugees fleeing that conflict poured into Somalia's north, the clan living in that region, the Isaaq, responded to the influx and what they viewed as harsh government policies. With help from Ethiopia, the Isaaq began an armed rebellion.
Members of the Isaaq clan, such as Bashe Yousuf, one of Samantar's five accusers, see him as the last remnant of a regime bent on destroying not only the rebels but the entire clan.
Yousuf and the others say that even though Samantar didn't perpetrate torture directly, he should be held responsible. "He is the highest-ranking person of that regime," says Yousuf, who spent six years in solitary confinement and is a U.S. citizen living near Atlanta. "He gave the commands."
Aziz Mohamed Deria, another of the plaintiffs, holds Samantar responsible for the day in 1988 when the Somali military burst into his family home and took his father, younger brother and cousin, who were never seen again. "The ones who took them, I don't know where they live, their names," says Deria, now a U.S. citizen and commodities broker in Portland, Ore. "What I know is that Mr. Samantar . . . was in charge of what was happening. If I know the big fish and I know where he lives, why go after the small ones?"
Samantar makes no apologies for the army and its conduct during the civil war. "The people bringing these allegations were, by their own admission, part of a movement that came as invaders from another country and wanted to secede," Samantar says in Somali as one of his sons translates. "In the army, your primary function is to defend the nation from foreign invaders. The army did what it was meant to do -- protect the nation from splitting in two." The plaintiffs deny they were part of the rebellion. After the fall of the Siad Barre regime in 1991, the Isaaq in the north declared independence and sought to establish the nation of Somaliland, dividing the country in two.
Building a new life
Samantar barely escaped Somalia with his life in 1991. Armed bandits, he said, shot his young daughter in the back four times and his 15-year-old son in the legs as they raced to the border. A bullet grazed the back of Samantar's skull. He lived in Rome with three of his children until 1997, when his wife, who had come to the United States earlier with their four youngest children and then received political asylum, sponsored him.
Since then, he says, he has lived in Fairfax "in relative peace." The living room is adorned with family photos, an elaborate Arabic embroidery of the 99 names of Allah in gold, and a black-and-white photo of a much younger Samantar shaking hands with Margaret Thatcher.
He is a private man, friends and family say, who plays chess, has a warm sense of humor and prays regularly. He is supported, he says, by his 13 children.
David Rawson, the U.S. deputy chief of mission in Somalia from 1986 to 1988, says he has been puzzled why Samantar, of all Somali officials of that era, is the one being sued. Real power, he says, was concentrated in President Siad Barre and a small group of his clan members.
"Samantar was so far out of the decision-making loop," Rawson says. "But Samantar comes from a small clan. There's no political cost to going after someone vulnerable like that, as opposed to going after someone who comes from a significant family or important clan."
Samantar's clan, the Tumaal, is one of a handful of small clans considered outcasts.
Asked whether he feels remorse for the brutality of his era in power, Samantar's answer is abrupt. "It's in the past," he says, pouring Splenda from a yellow packet to sweeten his bitter chai tea.
Staff writer Robert Barnes and staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Adal Flag
