There has been an UN Security Council arms embargo on Somalia since 1993, I believe. Violated by many groups, of course.
I seriously doubt the either the TFG or the ICU and its associated clans are looking to issue bonds In London or Geneva. Though, given today's markets, who knows --- maybe the Fed will push Citigroup to buy up some mortgage-backed SIVs for some prime Mogadishu beachfront?
Watcher, are you referring to the UN Monitoring Report for Somalia which highlights evidence of an Eritrean purchase of a small plane from a company in Belarus that was used to fly arms into Somalia? The way I understood it was that it wasn't a "charter" but a purchase, but the end is the same.
Regarding the terrorist label and finances, one of the main pillars (if you can call it that) of the Eritrean economy is a 2% tax on eritreans in diaspora and more importantly, remittances from Eritreans in diaspora to Eritrea. The latter really keeps ordinary Eritreans afloat. If the terrorist label allowed the Treasury to block these remittances, it would be a huge disaster for normal Eritreans.
By the way, this is a pretty good blog on the subject
http://historygeeksblog.blogspot.com...ent-again.html
Well, if the US government is going where it looks like they want to with this "Terrorist" designation, Treasury will be able (if so motivated) to put the squeeze (and it is a really effective squeeze, no doubt about it) on any international bank and/or corporate entity moving money internationally.Regarding the terrorist label and finances, one of the main pillars (if you can call it that) of the Eritrean economy is a 2% tax on eritreans in diaspora and more importantly, remittances from Eritreans in diaspora to Eritrea. The latter really keeps ordinary Eritreans afloat. If the terrorist label allowed the Treasury to block these remittances, it would be a huge disaster for normal Eritreans.
I've actually seen (heard, actually) the effects of Section 311, which allows the Treasury Department to designate a bank a "primary money-laundering concern". There isn't a bank out there ANYWHERE that wants to even get within several country miles of getting slammed with that one by Treasury. Consequently, they'll do literally anything to get out from under than one.
The problem I see with this whole issue of designating nations as 'Terrorist" to allow for imposition of these types of financial countermeasures is that it's pretty comparable to the old adage of "When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail." It's one thing to use it against Iran or the DPRK, but "Eritrea"???
I guess if it's "Do this or send in military forces", well, I'll take this option. The reality is that this is just another level of force projection, only it's financial. But it is very effective.
My viewpoint is that there has to be much more to this story for the US government to go to all this effort. And it is a whole lot of effort.
Btw, the story I read on the aircraft into Somalia wasn't a small aircraft, but a rather large 4 engine Russian made cargo charter that was done very covertly. Was not from the UN Monitoring report.
Also, thanks for the link.
Watcher, let me throw this out and see what you think about this theory. It's a given that Eritrea is trying to oppose and weaken the Ethiopian government. There have been claims made that Eritrea has even tried assassination attempts against Ethiopia. See:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070815...aeritreaunrest
If Eritrea were able to get rid of the Ethiopian government of Meles Zenawi, then what does this do to US policy and objectives in the Horn? What does this do to stability in the region? How would the US government prevent this from happening? Looking at US actions in this perspective might provide some answers.
Just a theory. I really have no information to support it.
Gonna make me work today, huh?If Eritrea were able to get rid of the Ethiopian government of Meles Zenawi, then what does this do to US policy and objectives in the Horn?
Well, my first thought is that "US policy" towards that entire region is substantially being driven by Lord Palmerston's quote of “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
Problem is, we appear to have conflicting "permanent interests". Nobody back here in the US wants to get too tight with any governmental entity in the Horn area where the government has any real "dirty hands" from being involved with ethnic cleansing, no matter how limited. But, then they also apply the exact same rules to nations dealing with Islamic extremists (GWOT).
Well, if you base everything you do as a nation on both those two principles in the Horn of Africa, there's just about nobody out there you can deal with. And I'm hard pressed to see how a policy of "talking to and dealing with nobody" is a better alternative.
My second thought is that the US government appears to have realized to some extent that there are some pretty severe limits to force projection into that entire area. In fact, the extremely limited US involvement with supporting Ethiopia in dealing with the ICU in Somalia looks to have been relatively effective, at least in the sense that we didn't have "Blackhawk Down Part II".
The real problem I see a little further down the road is that any new administration here in the US will automatically decide that US troops in Iraq = Bad, but US forces in Darfur = Good. And they will not realize how this affects everything in the Horn.
Smart As**d Answer: There Is Any?What does this do to stability in the region?
Real Answer: ""Power abhors a vacuum". Say goodbye to the now removed autocrat, say "Hi, good to see you" to the new successor. Truthfully, we're really not going to have too much say, because you know that there's going to have to be retribution if something like that were to happen. National honor, not to mention tribal influences will demand it. And we're hamstrung anyway with our two contradictory principles (noted above) being applicable directly to what can best be described as an "ethnic fault line area".
Short answer: I don't think we can. Our only real chance at having an affect would be if any alleged and completely unverified special operations training programs were happening within the Horn area, and such alleged and completely unverified operations would make all the parties stop and think before they did something really stupid.How would the US government prevent this from happening?
And yes, I really did get a picture of that Unicorn this morning.
Let me pitch an idea back to you. It strikes me that one of the most useful things we could do in the entire Horn area would be to mount an active naval crackdown against piracy, which has seriously increased around Somalia. Such a crackdown could have a really positive effect. You wouldn't be talking about massive military forces, and that could have a substantial amount of positive effects (safer transportation, fishing, aid shipments into Somalia, etc.). Now, the most immediate downside of this would be the potential for a massive outflow of refugees from Somalia wanting to take refuge under the protection of the US led anti-piracy forces.
Good work. Thanks.
An alleged and unverified Unicorn spotting in the horn! These unicorns do get around. It would explain why the E&E haven't come to blow yet...I once had an alleged and unverified sasquatch spotting in the horn, but that's another story...
I think the US government should seize that island between Yemen and Eritrea they fought briefly over a couple of years ago (Sakhalin?) and make it a US Naval base. I'm sure nobody would mind. Seriously, I would love to see the US Navy chase around pirates, but I would think of "black ship down" and would think twice...
I hope the Unicorns have the good sense to keep out of this area.
US foreign policy seems to have reverted to a cold war black & white mode with Islamic replacing Communist and playing the part of black with white being painted liberally using the ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ maxim. Regretfully some, nay most, of those daubed in white paint are in reality an extremely dark grey.
Where to begin? The US giving the nod to Ethiopia to invade Somalia to oust the UIC is unbelievably short-sighted, after 16 years of chaos there was an area of stability creeping out from Mogadishu, piracy was down and the UIC had popular support. Yes the law was Sharia but then the population was predominantly Muslim so this would seem a lot more reasonable – to them - than our legal system. Were there AQ and other terrorist organisations with influence in the country? Sure, ditto for any Muslim country. If removing their influence was the goal it would have been a much better option to pat the UIC on the back for what they had achieved, work with them on piracy, engage them diplomatically, offer financial/reconstruction aid & quietly work towards the removal of those with overt links to terrorism. The current strategy is doomed to failure, the Ethiopian occupying force is universally hated - and their operational tactics are making them more so. The puppet government has no power base. The UIC have not gone away and will return once the Ethiopians withdraw, as they must if they don’t want to just be picked of a few at a time. The AU forces are no keener to deploy than ours would be for obvious reasons, they will not be welcome and the people look back at the UIC rule as the halcyon days.
Eritrea feel betrayed by the UN for not enforcing the terms of the cease fire agreement with Ethiopia (Badme et al) and, while they probably would prefer to not get involved in Somalia, can’t risk the Ethiopians becoming entrenched so will aid anyone fighting them as a matter of national defence (as a side note I suspect they principally blame the US for manoeuvres within the UN on behalf of Ethiopian interests). So now we have Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea in the game.
While international interest in Sudan is principally focused on the humanitarian disaster in Darfur and the attendant destabilisation in Chad, the bigger problem comes in 2011 in the south. After years of fighting the SPLA agreed a truce with the north which lead to an interesting new constitution which encoded a defacto split into north and south. The south kept the SPLA army, had a different banking system and has the right to raise taxes but the key feature is article 222
Despite international sanctions the economy has shown healthy growth helped by becoming a net oil exporter – the constitution has a lengthy section on how this oil is to be divided up. Much of the friction between the north and south has – surprise, surprise – been about oil as the majority of the fields are in the south but the pipeline, ports and refineries are in the north and the perception is the north is trying to grab what it can now prior to risking the south – and its oil - voting for independence. The big questions are will the north really just say OK if the south exercises this option and even if the south does go for it how will it export? Kenya seems the logical route if relations with the north fail. Given the growth in strength of the MB in Egypt and the deteriorating situation in NE Congo (and its relations with Uganda) this whole area needs as little interference from the West as we can manage, fools (and Unicorns) go in …The Referendum on Self-Determination
222 (1) Six months before the end of the six-year interim period,
there shall be an internationally monitored referendum, for
97
the people of Southern Sudan organized by Southern
Sudan Referendum Commission in cooperation with the
National Government and the Government of Southern
Sudan,
(2) The people of Southern Sudan shall either:-
(a) confirm unity of the Sudan by voting to sustain the
system of government established under the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement and this
Constitution, or
(b) vote for secession.
Last edited by JJackson; 09-07-2007 at 12:06 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks