Showing posts with label Ethiopia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethiopia. Show all posts

Monday, January 03, 2011

Al-Shabab and Al-Qaeda: Playing Americans for suckers - Clooney Falling Into Bin Laden’s Sudan Trap

Al-Shabab and Al-Qaeda: Playing Americans for suckers
Source: Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com
Author: Michael Scheuer
Published: 15 July, 2010. Full copy (excluding 4 Comments):
The suicide bombing in Uganda’s capital of Kampala by the Somali Islamist group al-Shabab serves several agendas. While the facile and clueless Western media call it an “anti-World Cup attack” and the lame Obama White House says it proves al-Qaeda’s “racism” toward Africans, the reality is that from al-Sahbab’s perspective the attack is a logical and necessary response to the prolonged U.S.- and Western-backed intervention in Somalia. (How long, one wonders, will it take U.S. and Western officials to learn people don’t like being occupied?) The Kampala attack also is another episode in al-Qaeda’s ongoing campaign to lure the United States into more interventions in the Muslim world.

At the most basic level, there would be no al-Shabab in Somalia — at least not at its present strength, reach, and popularity — if Washington had not panicked several years ago at the thought of an Islamist organization known as the “Islamic Courts” taking power in Somalia. The Islamic Courts’ had all but displaced a feckless, corruption-ridden UN-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG), and was beginning to bring a harsh but effective law-and-order system to Somalia for the first time in decades. Under President Bush, however, Washington could not stand the thought of a working Islamic government and so labored overtly and covertly for its demise.

Ultimately, Washington supported Ethiopia’s late-2006 invasion of Somalia without thinking through that it would henceforth be seen as the sponsor of Christian Ethiopia’s invasion of Muslim Somalia. The invasion turned Somalis of most factions against the interloping Christian occupiers. The large and better-armed Ethiopian conventional forces prevailed, broke up what was left of the Islamic Courts, and protected the UN-backed TFG, which now appeared even more as the imposed creature of hostile Christian countries. The Ethiopians fought a growing guerrilla war against the Somali militias and insurgents until casualties became too heavy and Addis Ababa decided to withdraw its forces. The African Union then acted to supply the 5,000 military personnel from Uganda and Burundi who now are the peacekeepers and TFG-protectors in the capital of Mogadishu.

The sum of this complicated story is that al-Shabab was born, developed quickly, and now appears to have the manpower, political savvy, and military wherewithal to compete for control of much of the central and southern portions of Somalia. Al-Shabab’s quick evolution is the result of several factors, including foreign occupation, which historically radicalizes Somalia’s usually moderate form of Islam, and the availability of help from al-Qaeda, especially in the form of veteran fighters, who offer training and a leaven of combat experience, and media operatives whose expertise has dramatically improved the quality of al-Shabab media capabilities during the past two years. In addition, a substantial inflow of aid from Arab Peninsula countries who are nominally U.S. “allies” has allowed al-Shabab and other Somali Islamists to deliver food and health services to destitute Somalis and improve their weaponry.

Having helped destroy the less radical Islamic Courts regime and still backing the moribund TFG, Washington now confronts the potential of al-Shabab controlling two thirds of Somalia and — after the Uganda bombing — the specter of the group slowly destabilizing heretofore reliably pro-U.S. regimes in Ethiopia, Kenya, and elsewhere in East Africa.

Neither Ethiopia nor Kenya is as stable as it was before the Islamic Courts were destroyed. Ethiopia paid a high price for its invasion and occupation of Somalia not only in terms of funds and lives, but in earning the durable enmity of Somali Muslims and their Islamist allies in Africa and overseas. Kenya has likewise earned al-Shabab’s wrath for supporting the corrupt TFG regime and for its willingness to host the dozen or more UN agencies and multiple Western NGOs who are operating in Somalia with intentions that are perceived by many Somalis as anti-Islamic.

And here is where al-Qaeda is luring the United States into another potentially disastrous intervention. Even though it has expended a minimum and mainly media-focused effort to support al-Shabab, Washington’s abject fear of al-Qaeda — notwithstanding Obama’s cocky and denigrating words about the group — has made bin Laden’s al-Shabab ally a primary U.S. target and therefore yet another vehicle for luring America into an expensive fight on Muslim territory.

Even before all the causalities from the bombing were counted, for example, the FBI had sent investigators to the “crime scene” in Kampala — as if the Ugandans need help from the helpless — and yesterday Rudyard Obama said he would “redouble” U.S. efforts in Somalia, which certainly means more U.S. military involvement there and the pouring of more taxpayer money into the maw of the corrupt-to-the-bone TFG. And as it becomes clear that Ethiopian and Kenyan security are also threatened by al-Shabab, those countries too will be the recipients of Mr. Obama’s resolute eagerness to dig us ever deeper into expensive, Bush-like foreign adventures.

Overall, Bush and Obama took a problem that was on the periphery of top U.S. security issues and through mindlessness and intervention made it an agent of destabilization in East Africa and a growing drain on U.S. resources. Renewed U.S. efforts against al-Shabab, together with Washington’s efforts to undermine the Muslim government of Sudan and get U.S. military forces involved in the irrelevant-to-America Darfur civil war, will again do al-Qaeda’s work for it by validating for Muslims bin Laden’s claim that Washington intends to destroy all Muslim regimes except those of the Arab tyrants who supply oil to the United States and its allies.

Years ago Osama bin Laden said something akin to: “All we need to do is send two mujahedin anywhere on earth to wave a flag that has ‘al-Qaeda’ on it and the Americans will arrive the next day with their troops and an open wallet.” As Obama hungrily gobbles down this latest lure from al-Qaeda, one can only think that there truly is a sucker born every minute.
[End of copy]
- - -

Further Reading

Clooney Falling Into Bin Laden’s Sudan Trap
Source: FOX News - http://nation.foxnews.com
Date: Monday, 03 January 2011. Full copy (excluding 271 Comments):


With the U.S. government and such scintillating strategic thinkers as George Clooney, Don Cheadle, Angelina Jolie, and Mia Farrow in the lead, the West is about to help rip Darfur and the rest of Muslim Sudan's oil-rich southern territories out of the country and create an independent, largely Christian state.

Under the guise of a "referendum" (set for 9 January 2011) that will be observed by a 110-person European Union team of imperial busybodies, Sudan's primarily Christian south will be severed from the Sudanese nation-state, setting the stage for a continuation of the decades old Muslim-Christian Sudanese civil war. The difference will be that henceforth - as is occurring in Somalia - the U.S. and the West will be obliged to protect the new nation they created by theft and oil lust with diplomacy, funding, arms, military training, and eventually troops.

And what is America's interest in becoming involved to the hilt and inextricably in Sudan? What is so vital to the United States in Sudan that President Obama is pressing the leaders of Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, and the other states of the African Union to support "our intense interest in having a successful referendum" - read that as "our intense interest in carving up Sudan to suit our imperial purposes and corner access to Sudanese oil." (As an aside, one must admit Rudyard Obama is nothing if not an aggressive proponent of improving - that is, "Westernizing" - the lives of "our little brown brothers," although the blatant theft of Islamic land is a rather odd component for the kinder and more gentle "Muslim outreach program" Obama announced in Cairo and Jakarta.)

The answer is that Obama, our bipartisan political elite, the mainstream media, and the rich, immature, libertine, and anti-U.S. Hollywood set lead by Clooney, et al, want to feel good about themselves by doing "good" for foreigners. For these elite U.S. citizens-of-the-world, ordinary Americans and their kids can starve, freeze, live on the streets, fail to find work, and remain illiterate forever. In essence, they can rot while Washington spends their taxes on Darfur - a place where absolutely no genuine U.S. interest is at stake.

Now, that's a bit harsh and in one aspect even wrong. The Democrats and Republicans must ensure that ordinary Americans are kept well-off enough to keep having children who will join the U.S. military that will be used to fight the wars their interventionism start. And there can be no doubt that Washington's leading role in championing Darfur's secession from Sudan will intensify America's war with Islam and the evolving Islam-vs-Christianity war in Africa. And, not surprisingly, the ever-adept Osama bin Laden began setting this trap for the United States over the course of the last decade.

Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Yaha al-Libi, one of al-Qaeda's leading theologians, have spoken publicly and on multiple occasions about Washington's intention to intervene in Somalia and Sudan to halt the spread of Sunni Islam in the Horn of Africa; to eliminate the Islamic regime in Sudan; to champion the spread of Christianity in Africa; and to ensure Sudan's massive oil reserves are in pro-U.S. hands. Obama's administration, with full Republican support, is about to make these three al-Qaeda leaders appear omniscient to the Muslim world.

READ THE FULL STORY AT NON-INTERVENTION.COM [By Michael Scheuer entitled "U.S. intervention in Sudan and Somalia: Sowing war’s whirlwind for Americans" published Wednesday, 29 December 2010]
- - -

Postscript from Uganda Watch editor
Note the following copy of two quotations published in the sidebar of Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com:
My policy has been and will continue to be ... to be on friendly terms with, but independent of, all nations on earth. To share in the broils of none. To supply their wants, and be carriers for them all; being thoroughly convinced that it is our policy and interest to do so; and that nothing short of self-respect, and that justice which is essential to a national character, ought to involve us in war.
George Washington

Don't patronize the enemy. They mean business. They mean every word they say. They're killing us now. Their will is not broken, They mean it. ... If they're there, your job is to kill them all. I did not want to have them just retreat and have to fight them all over again.
Maj. Gen. James Mattis, USMC
Also, note that according to Michael Scheuer's About page, he resigned from the CIA in November, 2004 and since that date has written for Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com.
- - -

Follow news from Sudan at this site's parent blog, Sudan Watch http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com

Friday, November 26, 2010

New Sudan war would cost Uganda, region

New Sudan war would cost Kenya, region
Source: AFP / www.capitalfm.co.ke
Date: Thursday, 25 November 2010


(Khartoum, Sudan, Nov 25) - A return to civil war in the event that south Sudan votes for independence would cost the country, the region and international community more than 100 billion dollars, a study published on Thursday warned.

Aegis Trust, an NGO, and three research centres including the Institute for Security Studies, based in South Africa, drew up four post-referendum scenarios, ranging from peace to a resumption of full-scale war between north and south Sudan.

In the case of a 10-year conflict of medium intensity, the losses for Sudan would amount to at least 52.1 billion dollars (39 billion euros), on top of about 29 billion dollars for neighbouring Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda, the study estimated.

The impact on the international community would top 30 billion dollars in terms of peacekeeping missions and humanitarian aid.

"This report demonstrates the high cost of conflict. It implies that domestic, regional and international parties should be asking: 'Are we doing enough to avoid a war that might cost over 100 billion dollars and ruin countless lives?'" said Matthew Bell of London-based Frontier Economics.

The study calculated Sudan's losses in case of war on the basis of an annual 2.2-percent decline in Gross Domestic Product.

It would cost Ethiopia and Kenya more than one billion dollars a year in terms of forecast growth, the researchers said, warning that war would also damage Egypt, Sudan's northern neighbour and the region's leading economy.

The impact could be even heavier in the event of full-scale war that would disrupt the oil production of Africa's largest country, which has reserves of more than six billion barrels.

Khartoum and the former southern rebels signed a peace deal in 2005 after more than two decades of war. A central element of that accord is an independence referendum for the south scheduled for January. Since July, the two sides have been negotiating on key post-vote issues.

Chief among those crucial to a peaceful transition in case of partition is the sharing of oil resources.

Oil revenues make up the Sudanese government's main source of foreign currency earnings, while southern Sudan depends on oil for as much as 98 percent of its budget.

Most of Sudan's reserves are concentrated in the south but can only be exported through a pipeline passing through the north on the way to Port Sudan on the Red Sea.

An oil-sharing formula would benefit both the north and south, whereas an interruption in production and exports would damage the whole country.

"Reaching some level of agreement before the referendum is important not only because both economies need uninterrupted revenue, but also to sustain the confidence of oil companies in their existing investments," the International Crisis Group said this week.

In case of peace and healthy ties between north and south Sudan as well improved security in Darfur, Sudan's growth would steady at an annual 6.2 percent for five years and even reach nine percent from 2016, the study said.
- - -

Report On The Cost Of A Possible Return To War In Sudan
Source: SRS (Sudan Radio Service) - www.sudanradio.org
Date: Thursday, 25 November 2010
(Nairobi, Kenya) – A report published by a coalition of European and African economic and political think-tanks on Thursday says a return to war in Sudan would cost Sudan, the region and the international community about 100 billion US dollars.

The report which comes amid fears that the referendum could trigger an escalation of violence attempts to analyze the economic cost of war to the region.

Mathew Bell an Associate Director of the London based, Frontier Economics spoke to SRS in Nairobi during the launch of the report.

[Mathew Bell]: “The report is an attempt to do with economic analysis of what the cost of war to Sudan and the region and the international community could be. It very explicitly sets aside the very real and important human costs of death and suffering that would result in war but to take a financial perspective as a way of adding to the debate around the cost of war. The headline itself looks like it would cost in excess of about a hundred billion dollars to the combination of Sudan the region and the international community should war break out. That figure breaks down into about 50 billion dollar cost to the Sudanese economy itself. About a 25 billion dollar cost to the regional economy including Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda. And about a 25 to 30 billion dollar cost to the international community in the form of peace keeping in the form of humanitarian intervention.”

Mathew Bell recognizes the difficulties in measuring the costs of potential future conflict in the report. He explains the different scenarios.

[Mathew Bell]: “Because of the uncertainties of what may happen because nobody can be sure about what the outcome is going to be, we have looked at different potential scenarios; we have tried to come up with a range of figures. And the 100 billion dollar that we have been quoting is towards the bottom end of that range. And the Low, medium and high conflict scenarios are different levels of conflict from a low level civil war situation, to a very serious situation to a very serious full blown civil war that might involve some of the regional players as well, or ways of how to characterize different points in the spectrum of costs. What we don’t comment on at all is what the likelihood of different scenarios would be. But we want to give a range of potential costs.”

According to the report the evidence suggests that the net impact of conflict would be significantly negative. Sudan would lose about 50 billion USD from its GDP, the neighboring countries would lose 25 billion USD of GDP and the international community would lose 30 billion USD in peacekeeping and humanitarian costs.

The report by the European and African economic and political think-tanks on the cost of war in Sudan was launched in Nairobi on Thursday.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Khartoum refutes U.S. warnings on threat against flights between Sudan, Uganda

Khartoum refutes U.S. warnings on threat against flights between Sudan, Uganda
Report from www.chinaview.cn by Mu Xuequan, 10 January 2010:
KHARTOUM, Jan. 09, 2010 (Xinhua) -- The Sudanese government Saturday rejected warnings by the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum that terrorists were planning to launch attacks on flights between southern Sudan capital of Juba and the Ugandan capital of Kampala, the official news agency SUNA reported.

The report quoted Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Muawiya Osman Khalid as saying that the Sudanese authorities concerned, during their following up and monitoring, did not find any threat emerging from Sudanese territories against regional or international interests.

The U.S. Embassy in Khartoum late on Friday released a warning on its website of a potential threat against commercial aviation between Juba and Kampala, saying it "received information indicating a desire by regional extremists to conduct a deadly attack onboard Air Uganda aircraft on this route."

Khalid said, "The United States, if having received any information or having any concerns in this regard, should have discussed them with the Sudanese authorities concerned so that required measures would be adopted, instead of circulating baseless information," according to the report.

The Sudanese official also said the movement of international aviation between Sudan and other countries were progressing "normally and safely."

He added that "the concerned security organs in Sudan are always following up with a highest level of alert the safety measures and are efficiently living up to their responsibilities," according to the report.
- - -

Crashed Ethiopia plane 'flew into Beirut storm'
From BBC News at 11:56 GMT, Tuesday, 26 January 2010 - excerpt:
The UK Foreign Office said there was one British national and one person of dual nationality on board.

The other passengers included citizens of Turkey, France, Russia, Canada, Syria and Iraq, Ethiopian Airlines said in a statement on its website.

Among them was Marla Pietton, the wife of the French ambassador in Beirut.

Some of the foreign passengers are reported to be of Lebanese origin.
- - -

British investigators say Ethiopian Airlines plane crash 'similar' to earlier disaster
From Daily Telegraph by David Harrison British, 4:59PM GMT 30 Jan 2010 - excerpt:
British aviation lawyers have launched their own investigation into last week's Ethiopian airliner crash and are examining similarities with another air disaster less than three years ago.

Aviation experts said that each crash could have been caused by a technical fault which combined with other factors.

James Healy-Pratt, an aviation lawyer with London-based Stewarts Law, said: "Based upon our research and investigation into the Kenya Airways crash, the aircraft's spoilers and/or altimeters may have been faulty."

Friday, November 06, 2009

AGI: Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative

AGI:  Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative

From The Office of Tony Blair
November 05, 2009
Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative to create development through good governance becomes charity
The Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative has become a registered UK charity after creating a unique 'hands-on' approach to development and poverty eradication over the past eighteen months.

The Charity Commission approved the application from this relatively new organisation, which is underpinned by the belief that good governance and sustainable development are key to poverty eradication in the long term.

Tony Blair, founder of the Africa Governance Initiative (AGI), said:

"I'm extremely proud of our excellent project teams who are working in partnership with the governments of Rwanda and Sierra Leone to reduce poverty and develop new opportunities for growth.

"It is a privilege to work with leaders as talented and as committed to their people as President Koroma and President Kagame who represent a new generation of leaders in Africa with a commitment to building a new future for their people.

"The developed world needs to keep up its commitment to Africa expressed at the 2005 G8 Summit in Gleneagles. But lasting change in Africa will only come in the end from African solutions. By building the capacity to create sustainable long-term development through good governance and providing high level advice, we have already started to help deliver that change.

"And it won't stop here. Whilst developing our work in Sierra Leone and Rwanda, we want to launch new projects with other countries, sharing our knowledge, experience and expertise. We want more countries to develop sustainably, paving the way to a prosperous future.

"This work has reinforced my optimism about Africa's future, as well as my conviction that governance and growth are the key ingredients to effectively reduce poverty across the continent."

Commenting on Tony Blair and the work of the Africa Governance Initiative, Ernest Koroma, President of Sierra Leone, said:

"Mr. Blair has demonstrated an enduring commitment to Sierra Leone and its people. The work comes at a critical stage in Sierra Leone's development. I believe together we have an opportunity to ensure that Sierra Leone puts in place the policies, people and institutions to achieve real and lasting change."

Commenting on the work of AGI, President Paul Kagame of Rwanda said:

"What I would like people to know is that the type of partnership we have with Tony Blair is totally different from the type of consultancy people are used to. We work in very strong partnerships whereby not only gaps are filled where they exist, but there's also the notion of transfer of skills, mentoring, actually doing things that are measurable such that over a period of time, we will be able to know what kind of impact was made."
Cross-posted to:
China Tibet Watch
Congo Watch
Egypt Watch
Ethiopia Watch
Kenya Watch
Niger Watch
Sudan Watch
Africa Oil Watch

Monday, November 02, 2009

Al-Shabab: Somali group with Al-Qaeda ties threatens Israel, Ethiopia, Ghana, Sudan, Uganda and Kenya

A militant Islamic group associated with al Qaeda has threatened to attack Israel, far from its normal base of operations in Somalia. CNN writes that Al-Shabab, which is fighting to control the east African country, accused Israel of “starting to destroy” the Al Aqsa mosque, where standoffs have recently been taking place between Israeli police and Palestinians.

The mosque is part of the complex that Jews called the Temple Mount and Muslims call Haram al-Sharif. The group also threatened other African nations on Friday, including Ethiopia, Ghana, Sudan, Uganda and Kenya.

Source: Afrik.com Monday 2 November 2009 - Somalia: Somali group with Al-Qaeda ties threatens Israel, Ethiopia, Ghana, Sudan, Uganda and Kenya