Last time I checked, Afwerki and most in his government were Christian, struggling to suppress their own Islamic insurgency and backing the Sudanese Christian rebels (SPLA) against the Islamic government of Sudan, which by the way the US and Ethiopia supported. Eritrea supports the Islamic factions in Somalia in a proxy war against Ethiopia.
It's a big damn mess, but Eritrea doesn't support terrorists...but I guess it all depends on what you define a "terrorist" as...
Exactly!!! And that is why I chack my wallet these days when someone starts throwing the "T-word" around..but I guess it all depends on what you define a "terrorist" as...
Has "Terrorist" replace "Communist" in our lexicon of the big bad guys?Originally Posted by Beelzebubalicious
Only, now as then, in the words of the
politicians. The Troops then and now use 'bad guys' or other less complimentary appellations regardless of the opposition's ideology which is essentially irrelevant or his tactics which the troops can easily adapt to -- if their seniors let them....
Back when the Islamic Courts were riding high in Somalia (before the Ethiopian intervention), there were a number of reports of Russian made charter flights moving "special shipments" (read: probably weaponry) into Mogadishu (believe it was).Eritrea supports the Islamic factions in Somalia in a proxy war against Ethiopia.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this step is one of those actions where the US government wants to make sure that those type of shipments don't reoccur, and they are trying to "persuade" the air charter companies that such dealings for Eritrea (shipping weapons) wouldn't be such a good idea in the future.
Probably one or more of those companies told them that there's no violation involved, so why should they pass on business. Well, the US government looks to want to give them a legal reason not to do this type of business.
Also, doesn't designating a specific nation as a "terrorist" nation give the US Treasury carte blanc to start designating businesses/governments as being engaged in terrorist/supporting activities, and therefore can limit their access to financial credit markets?
That's a hammer.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks