Did Somalia sell $67billion worth of assets for 10 million dollars?
At least according to Taipan financial news.
http://www.politicsforumpoliticalworld.com/
Quote: Resource Stocks: Blood in the Streets
You may remember Somalia as the scene of the Black Hawk Down incident in 1993. That's when vicious rebels attacked and killed 18 American soldiers in the streets of Mogadishu. Nearly 14 years later, the country is still raging with violence, as tribal warlords battle radical Islamic insurgents for control of the region.
On April 20, USA Today reported that 113 people had been killed in the streets of Mogadishu. And Reuters reports that a mass exodus is underway as more than 320,000 people have fled the city in recent weeks. To make matters worse, Somalia's rugged coast is under siege by a band of bloodthirsty pirates.
On February 25, 2007, Somali pirates seized a U.N. vessel that was delivering 1,800 tons of food to refugees. And on April 4, pirates, armed with assault rifles, hijacked a 900-ton cargo ship and held it for ransom.
Bottom line: Somalia is in a state of absolute chaos.
Of course, commonsense would suggest people stay as far away from Somalia as possible. But because of the global oil crisis, Somalia is starting to look like the "promised land" to desperate oil executives.
Resource Stocks: The Promised Land
Back in the late 1980s, Somalia was considered one of the hottest oil explorations spots on the planet.
And in a 1991 World Bank study, the world's leading geologists put Somalia at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers.
That's because Somalia used to be attached to Yemen, before the Great Rift ripped up the Saudi peninsula from Africa, thus creating the Red Sea (about 300 million years ago).
According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Yemen has proven oil reserves of roughly 6 billion barrels.
And based on Somalia's similar terrain and close proximity to Yemen, experts believe that Somalia is also brimming with sweet crude.
The Los Angeles Times calls Somalia's oil reserves a "prospective fortune." And the Energy Bulletin calls Somalia "oil rich."
"It's there. There's no doubt there's oil," explains Thomas O'Connor, the principal petroleum engineer for the World Bank, who headed an in-depth study of Somalia's oil prospects.
And make no mistake: Big Oil is hungry for Somalia's black gold. In fact, they've been after it for years.
Resource Stocks: Big Oil Heads for the Hills
In fact, as early as 1986, Conoco, along with Amoco, Chevron, Phillips and Shell all obtained exploration licenses from Somalia, reports the Los Angeles Times.
You can be sure, Big Oil was chomping at the bit to drill Somalia's black gold. And they had it right in their hands!
But guess what?
In January 1991, Somalia's dictator, Said Barre, was assassinated by murderous tribal warlords, and Somalia was thrown into absolute chaos.
Big Oil had to pull back on their exploration plans. Of course, the oil lobby put the heat on the first President Bush to do something. And in 1990, Bush sent troops into Somalia.
Unfortunately for Big Oil, Somalia didn't much like the U.S. presence, and in October 1993, under the Clinton Administration, tribal warlords launched a deadly attack on the U.S. Marines in Mogadishu's Bakara Market.
In what became known as the "Black Hawk Down" incident, 18 American soldiers were killed by a mob of vicious thugs.
Much to Big Oil's despair, support for troops in Somalia faded fast... and in March 1994, the Clinton administration withdrew the U.S. military.
With violence raging, and the Said Barre government gone, Big Oil's Somalia contracts were deemed worthless.
Somalia has been a hornet's nest ever since.
Consequently, Somalia's oil-rich fields have been virtually untouched and unexplored by modern technology.
Bottom line: Somalia is now brimming with "sweet crude" just waiting to be turned into big profits! Of course, Big Oil has been standing on the sidelines waiting for order to be restored for nearly 14 years.
But remember: Crisis breeds opportunity, and those who hesitate are lost.
That's exactly what has happened in Somalia...
You see, one tiny 90-cent oil exploration company found a way to exploit Somalia's chaos for a lucrative deal that could make you a bundle. In fact, it could hand you a 789% return in the next six months. In the long run, it could make you 60 times your money. Maybe more.
I'll tell you how to buy shares of this stock in just a moment, but first, let me show you how they literally snatched Somalia's oil fortune right out from under Big Oil's nose.
Resource Stocks: Steal of the Century
As I mentioned, Somalia has been in turmoil since Said Barre was assassinated in 1991.
The country basically split into pieces... with different tribal warlords controlling different parts of the country. In fact, according to Foreign Affairs magazine, Somalia is the only country in the world without a functional central government.
Back in 2004, the United States and the U.N. helped Somalia organize a Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in an effort to unify the country.
After all, stabilizing Somalia is important for the United States oil interests.
Now, almost immediately, the TFG announced to the world that Somalia was essentially open for business.
Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi told reporters the country was prepared to offer oil, gas and mineral concessions to foreign companies, although this invitation came with a warning: all firms were to do business only with the TFG, and not make deals with the various tribal factions.
"Foreign companies should desist in attempts to deal with local authorities... without prior written consent from the federal government," Prime Minister Gedi said.
"Any violation of this will result in negative consequences and the responsibility will lie with the culprits. Until the government puts in place specific legislation for natural resources management, such as a national hydrocarbon law, it will be categorically impossible to give concessions."
Now, with all the uncertainty, Big Oil played it safe, and stayed away from Somalia.
Big mistake!
You see, while Big Oil was standing on the sidelines waiting for the chaos to settle down...
A tiny 90-cent oil exploration company, whom I'll call Oil Raider (not its real name), signed a shocking oil deal with the Republic of Puntland, one of Somalia's tribal regions.
How big is this deal?
Well, Puntland occupies the northeast tip of Somalia. It is right on Africa's Horn, directly across from oil-rich Yemen! Because of its location, experts believe Puntland is sitting on the bulk of Somalia's oil wealth.
In fact, based on oil exploration conducted in the Puntland region during the 1980s by Conoco, it is believed that Puntland hosts a BILLION barrels of recoverable oil !
And get this: Not only did Oil Raider secure an oil deal... it landed an EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT for 100% of the oil AND minerals in Puntland, including oil, coal, uranium, silver, iron ore, copper, lead, natural gas... everything!
And here's the stunning part: The deal only cost the company $10 million...
Think about that...
With oil prices at $67 per barrel, the petroleum side of this deal could be worth $67 BILLION.
And that doesn't even include the potentially massive supply of uranium, silver, copper and other commodities that Puntland is sitting on.
Oil Raider is tiny, with a market cap of $90 million. And now, with a mere $10 million investment, it controls natural resource assets potentially worth $67 billion!
That's 670 times (67B/100M = 670) their current market value.
I think you'll agree: The upside is absolutely staggering!
And it only gets better...
Because Oil Raider has acquired some of the old Conoco sites, drilling could begin very soon. A lot of the legwork and due diligence has already been done.
But while Somalia is in a state of chaos, the Puntland region is a relatively peaceful oasis that sees very little violence.
Somalia Watch reports that Puntland is a "stable, peaceful, self-governing regional State with a well functioning public administration firmly in place." And the U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR) agrees, stating that in contrast to the turmoil in Mogadishu, Puntland remains stable.
In addition, my source in East Africa personally conducted a trip into the heart of Puntland, where he met with the oil minister, the finance minister, and a tribal elder. He also visited Oil Raider's newly acquired sites and reports that there is no fighting in the area.
That means oil operations will not be subject to the same level of instability that the rest of the country is experiencing.
I'll tell you how to grab a few shares of this tiny 90-cent oil exploration company in just a moment. But first, let's take a look at how these guys landed such a lucrative contract.
Resource Stocks: A Suitcase Full of Crisp, Cool Cash
Now, you can be sure... some folks were not happy about this deal. In fact, my sources in Somalia tell me that many people believe the Puntland region got robbed.
The agreement is so unfavorable to Somalia that oil and gas industry experts were bewildered when its news was announced late last year.
Dr. Ali Abullaahi Barkadle, a Somali resource and management consultant living in Melbourne, Australia, says, "The Puntland contract gave an unfair advantage to [Oil Raider] by lumping together mining and oil concessions and giving the whole state -- roughly 212,000 square kilometers -- to a single company was unheard of."
He continues, "It seems the negotiators had a very limited understanding of the mining and oil industry or were in need of quick money."
Omar M. Abdi and Salah Fatah, correspondents for the WardheerNews Group, a Somali news portal, state, "We wonder if any other country has been robbed of its wealth as belligerently as the [Oil Raider] did to Somalia. An interesting analogy to this deal, in our opinion, is when the Dutch bought the island of Manhattan in New York in early 18th century from the native Indians for a bunch of beads amounting to 60 Dutch Guilders, which was later converted to about 24 US dollars."
And international commodity expert and best-selling financial author J. Christoph Amberger agrees: "[Oil Raider] negotiated the most one-sided deal in years. How they did it, I have no idea. They literally took Somalia's oil fortune for pennies on the dollar. I wouldn't be surprised to see early investors capture a 100-fold gain on this. It's got post-communist Russia written all over it."
Now, you may be wondering: How did Oil Raider get the Puntland government to give them potentially $67 billion in oil reserves for a mere $10 million?
Well, Somalia is a poor country. Long-range vision isn't a luxury they can afford. People are desperate and surviving day to day.
So... $10 million in the short term is simply too good to pass up. And there apparently was some additional "incentive" involved in the deal. In fact, my sources in Puntland indicate that in addition to the official $10 million... a suitcase full money found its way into the hands of the Puntland negotiators.
Didn't anybody object to this unfair deal? They sure did. In a letter to the Australian Stock Exchange, Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi stated that the deal between Oil Raider and the Somali state of Puntland was invalid because ONLY the country's Transitional Federal Government (TFG) could negotiate the sale of mineral and petroleum rights.
But then... Mr. Gedi had a remarkable change of mind!
In fact, within days of vehemently opposing the deal, Prime Minister Gedi fully endorsed the deal!
Now, what caused the Prime Minister to suddenly reverse course and endorse the deal?
Again, there's no proof. But my sources believe that a fat envelope full of cash probably found its way into Mr. Gedi coat pocket. (Watch the movie Syriana, and you'll see exactly how these backdoor deals happen!)
But regardless of why Gedi changed his mind... the fact of the matter is this: Somalia sold its financial future for a short-term cash infusion. Of course, Oil Raider did throw in a 10% royalty payment against future revenues.
And here's the good news for you: The tiny 90-cent stock I'm recommending today offers similar riches.
In fact, I believe a bidding war is on the horizon that could send Oil Raider's stock price soaring.
Resource Stocks: A Highly Strategic Location
As I mentioned, Oil Raider secured an exclusive contract for 100% of the oil, gas and natural resources in Puntland.
As you can imagine, Big Oil is pretty upset. And I don't blame them. Think about it: They had Somalia all locked up before dictator Said Barre was overthrown in 1991.
Big Oil knows Somalia is worth a fortune; they already had it right in their hands once... and now, tiny 90-cent Oil Raider has snatched it away.
But make no mistake: Both Big Oil and the U.S. Government want Somalia's oil reserves back.
You see, not only is Somalia's oil worth a billion...
...but Puntland/Somalia provides a highly strategic military location because it's situated on the coast, just miles from Saudi Arabia, and overlooks the daily passage of oil tankers and warships on their way to the Persian Gulf.
Whoever controls Puntland/Somalia... can block or protect the flow of oil to the West.
Resource Stocks: Takeover Bid on the Horizon
Now, because Oil Raider is publicly traded, Big Oil firms like Exxon and Chevron can simply conduct a takeover bid... and Somalia's oil fortune is theirs.
Big Oil is not shy about spending money to get what they want. And years of rising gas prices have filled their pockets with cash.
For a company like BP or Chevron, spending a few billion for a hot property is not a problem -- especially a property that practically guarantees a fresh and plentiful source of oil and gas.
In fact, in 2005, Chevron spent $17.3 billion to purchase Unocal. Conoco spent $35.6 billion to acquire Burlington Resources. And PKZ was ultimately taken over by China National Petroleum Corporation for $4.1 billion, or $55 per share!
Here is their Annual report for the year ended 30 of June 2006
http://www.rangeresources.com.au/fil...eport_2006.pdf
If you scroll down to page 21 on their Income statement, you'll see that the company had a loss of 10 million 744 thousand dollars.
But the funny thing, if you scroll further down to their Balance sheet at page 22, you'll see that they have calculated their Total assets as = 21 billion 591 million 851 thousand.
Remind you this's a company that has a current market value of 90 million dollars and a loss in 2006 report of almost 11 million dollars.
Guess where those assets come from? Yes, its the estimated/realistic value they can yield of the somali resources in short time. Can you focking belive this? This little shi#t company (with a market value of 90 million) has a whole state's resources listed as its own assets in the balance sheet of the annual report, absolutly fantastic.
But I personally don’t think that this's a valid contract here. The Puntland authority isn’t a recognized representative of the Somali people. For one to have a legally binding contract one needs to have the vested authority to act. Once a unilaterally recognized central authority is born, the contracts signed with illiterate, village leaders aka idiots (like this one) will be either withdrawn or renegotiated.
Darfur and Ogaden – Parallel Developments and Treatment
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Orientalist, Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 50, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages.
August 2, 2007
What was accepted for Darfur applies to Ogaden. The world hailed the UN Security Council resolution that was adopted the day before yesterday to create a 26,000-strong “hybrid” UN-African Union peacekeeping force. The force will primarily consist of African troops that will be empowered to “take the necessary action” to prevent attacks against and protect the civilian populations in the vast desert region that has been ravaged by violence since 2003.
However, we are now in the second half of 2007. Four years delay has a cost; no less than 250000 innocent victims of criminal tyrant Al Bashir’s Janjaweed Pan-Arabist gangsters have died because they were not included in the extremist arabizing agenda of the Khartoum loathsome dictator. The decision – despite the awfully inhuman delay – illustrates a great Victory of the Forces of Humanism and Justice, and consists in a terrible blow against the Arab League, and its barbaric leaders who tyrannically impose Pan-Arabist policies on a great variety and number of African populations that have nothing to do with Arabs.
Considering China’s immoral and shameful opposition to this subject, due exclusively to the fact that the Eastern Asiatic giant buys two thirds of Sudan’s Oil, the UN Security Council decision takes a panegyric appeal. After many months of negotiations, whereby the diplomatic weapon of boycotting Beijing 2008 Olympic Games was remarkably used, the UN decision opens the way for the creation of a 26,000-strong “hybrid” UN-African Union peacekeeping force.
The resolution determines the setup of a military force of 19,555 troops plus 6,432 civilian police tasked to take over from the overstretched 7,000-strong African Union peacekeeping operation in Darfur by the end of the year.
The Darfur crisis deterioration at the level of international relations played a particularly important role in the augur decision making; behind the lines of the UN resolution we do not see the Furi African populations (Darfurian is a wrong term used by ignorant people only) and their Drama, but we certainly distinguish the fear of an escalation and eventually a war between Chad, Central African Republic and Sudan. As a matter of fact, the innocent and mercilessly slaughtered Furis started reacting, formed several groups for self-defense, and political self-determination, and crossing the borders of Chad and Central African Republic to avoid detrimental exposure to the criminal, cannibalistic Janjaweed, caused further involvement among other populations, namely the inhabitants of the bordering regions of the aforementioned two African countries.
Sudan’s approval is not an issue anymore; displaying a greater interest and a clearer commitment than his predecessor, the new British premier threatened to seek further sanctions if Sudan failed to co-operate. “This is the world coming together to say that we have a plan now, that we expect the authorities in Sudan to act. We will not tolerate further inaction, and the violence has got to stop now,” he said. He went on: “The plan for Darfur is to achieve a ceasefire, including an end to aerial bombings of civilians; drive forward peace talks starting in Arusha, Tanzania, this weekend on August 3; and as peace is established to offer to and begin to invest in recovery and reconstruction” (
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2176270.ece).
Darfur and Ogaden: colonial parallels
The crises that both regions have undergone for long are of similar, colonial, origin; it was an aberration to form a ‘country’ like the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, a most disreputable and anachronistic – already in the late 19th century – device absolutely unable to replace the Ottoman rule. Part of the colonial Pan-Arabist plot, the ‘Arabic’ Sudan permanently plunged this great African country in underdevelopment, tyranny, and national – cultural disfigurement of the worst sort. Sudan was never Arabic; not a single Arab arrived in Sudan, which was home to three African Christian states in the north of its present territory, namely Nobatia, Makkuria, and Alodia that fell to the rising African Muslim forces only very ‘late’. Nobatia and Makkuria fell in the 13th – 14th centuries to Fatemid and Mameluk Egypt, and Alodia collapsed in the 16th century to the Central African Funj Islamic state, after having been left without help from the Gondar centered kingdom of Abyssinia that was also facing great challenges at those days. The inclusion of Darfur in the ill-fated colonial entity that was prepared for the Pan-Arabist barbarism was a criminal act that was perpetrated without the indigenous population’s involvement and against its will. Nothing brings together the Furis of Sudan’s West and the Bejas of Sudan’s East, and both are irrelevant to the Nuer and the Dinka in the South, and the Nubians in the North. They all deserve their separate, independent and democratic states.
The same occurred to the people of Ogaden; being of Somali origin, and constituting part of a big kingdom that gradually collapsed to the rising colonial powers, mainly Britain and Italy, and to lesser extent France and Germany, the people of Ogaden were never asked about their choices for nationhood, when disreputable British diplomats, officers and statesmen gradually attributed its parts to the chauvinist, anachronistic and barbaric “kingdom” of Abyssinia. The illegal annexation of Ogaden by Abyssinia has not terminated until our days, which means that in some of Ogaden’s territories the dictatorial rule has lasted more than 100 years.
Darfur and Ogaden: tyrannical parallels
Sudan’s arabizing policies match very much its neighbor’s ‘abyssinianizing’ policies; the adoption of the false national name ‘Ethiopia’ that denotes properly speaking the area of the Ancient Sudanese kingdoms of Napata (Kush) and Meroe in today’s Sudanese North consists in a real historical – cultural usurpation. It helps the pseudo-republican Tigray heirs of the monarchical and communist Amhara dictators of Abyssinia to rule over their abode’s outright majority of Ethiopians by pretending the country is ‘Ethiopia’, while the imposed culture is Abyssinian. One of the most typical characteristics relates to the under preparation ‘Ethiopian 3rd millennium’ that starts next month – a purely Semitic Abyssinian cultural issue that is meaningless, unworthy and absolutely loathed by the Kushitic – Ethiopian Ogadenis, Oromos, Sidamas, Afars and others. In a true ‘Ethiopia’ there is no millennium to start in 2007, and only for the Oromos and the Sidamas who accepted Christianity through the preaching of European missionaries the concept of millennium exists. For the majority of the Oromos who believe either their traditional monotheistic religion, Waaqeffanna, or in Islam, the heretic Monophysitic Christian ideas and beliefs of the Abyssinians are alien and false. The same is valid for all the Ogadenis, who are Muslims.
Talking about imposed Culture in Ogaden should not lead us to forget the most dramatic events that have ceaselessly taken place there for many decades, involving tortures, arrests, extrajudicial killings and imprisonment, as well as many other brutal ways by which oppression has been exercised by Haile Selassie’s. Mengistu’s and Meles Zenawi’s tribal soldiers in Ogaden.
Darfur and Ogaden: parallel threats of crisis expansion
In the same way, the Darfur crisis threatened to expand beyond Sudan’s borders in Chad and Central African Republic, Ogaden’s crisis has impact on Somalia, Somaliland, Puntland, and Kenya, and within Abyssinia in other provinces beyond Ogaden. Worse than Darfur, the Ogaden crisis risks igniting Islamic irredentism and extremism, making of the famous conqueror Mohammad Gragn the only laudable model for the Somali, the Ogadeni, and generally speaking the Muslim Eastern African youth.
Even not for a moment did Darfur threaten to ignite Islamic extremism in Sahara; quite contrarily, the Ogaden crisis that has terribly deteriorated since last December risks making of the entire Horn of Africa region the preferred home of the world’s Islamists and Jihadists.
Darfur and Ogaden: parallel international treatment and pacification
In order to avoid the impending deterioration in Somalia and finally pacify the entire Horn of Africa region, the UN Security Council has to adopt a similar resolution as that adopted in the case of Darfur. The world will not have the chance to attest 250000 Ogadenis slaughtered before the UN Security Council members agree on sending a peacekeeping force to terminate the Abyssinian tyranny. And the ONLF and the other Ogadeni political movements, organizations and parties will not be able for long to prevent exasperated Ogadenis from merging with the clandestine Somali Islamic Courts of Justice and get monies and weapons from al Qaeda in order to fight the abysmal Abyssinian pestilence that spread underdevelopment and chaos throughout the countries it illegally annexed.
UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Ogaden now!
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=33999
April 27, 2007
Democracy Now!
Somalia: 'Most Lawless War of Our Generation'
by Salim Lone
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2007/0427-Somalia.html
. . . not just Islamists, which is a codeword for terrorists, but . . . most Somalis will not abide this occupation. . . . So it is not going to be a successful war for the Somali government, for Ethiopia and, of course, for the US, which is the orchestrator of the whole adventure this time.
. . . women are being raped, hospitals are being bombed. This is clearly a huge effort to intimidate and terrorize all those who come from clans who are fighting the government. They want to intimidate the civilians, because most of the death toll is of civilians. So this has been going on, and there has been no call whatsoever for this to stop.
... we are seeing the Security Council completely silent while these atrocities are going on. We are seeing Western governments completely silent. Nothing has come out of Washington. Nothing has come out of London. We now see, for the first time on Wednesday, the ambassador of Germany -- and Germany holds the EU presidency now -- the ambassador released a letter, which he had sent to Abdullah Yusuf, the president of the transitional government. It is a very candid and a very strong letter, and that's wonderful. However, where was Germany? Where was the EU for all this period? Their silence has really given the green light for the Ethiopians to do the terrible things they've been doing.
The death toll now in Somalia is greater than it was in Lebanon. And you will recall, of course, that even then, the big powers -- the US, UK, even initially the UN -- did not demand a ceasefire. But the world media was full of that story, and there were condemnations around the world for what the Israelis were doing. But, of course, Somalis and Africans don't count as nearly much, because there has just been no international outcry at all. . . .
But let's look at the other contrasts, which are very fascinating. In Iraq, the world body, the Security Council, for the first time in many years since the Soviet Union collapsed, stood up to the United States and refused, despite enormous pressure, to authorize a UN war in Iraq. In Somalia's case, it is precisely the opposite.
To begin with, the lawlessness of this particular war is astounding. I mean, this is the most lawless war of our generation. You know, all aggressive wars are illegal. But in this particular one, there have been violations of the Charter and gross violations of international human rights, but these are commonplace. But, in addition, there have been very concrete violations by the United States, to begin with, of two Security Council resolutions. The first one was the arms embargo imposed on Somalia, which the United States has been routinely flaunting for many years now. But then the US decided that that resolution was no longer useful, and they pushed through an appalling resolution in December, which basically gave the green light to Ethiopia to invade. They pushed through a resolution which said that the situation in Somalia was a threat to international peace and security, at a time when every independent report indicated, and Chatham House's report on Wednesday also indicated, that the Islamic Courts Union had brought a high level of peace and stability that Somalia had not enjoyed in sixteen years.
So here was the UN Security Council going along with the American demand to pass a blatantly falsified UN resolution. And that resolution actually was a violation. It contravened the UN Charter. You know, the UN Charter is like the American Constitution. Legislators pass laws, but they have to be in conformity with the Constitution. In this particular case, the Charter is the UN's constitution, and the Security Council cannot -- it's not allowed to really pass laws or rules that violate the Charter.
. . . the Horn of Africa, is newly oil-rich. Kenya has some oil. . . .
FULL TEXT
---
Excerpts of an interview by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! Salim Lone is a columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya and a former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq.
David Leigh and David Pallister, "The New Scramble For Africa," Guardian, June 1, 2005 (
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0603-Scramble.html)
"Backed by the U.S., Ethiopia Invades Somalia," The Wisdom Fund, May 12, 2006 (
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0515-Somalia.html)
[More people have been displaced in Somalia in the past two months than anywhere else in the world, the United Nations has said.--"Somalia is 'worst refugee crisis'," BBC News, April 27, 2007](
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/africa/6598361.stm)
[United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, which is to be discussed by the security council in mid-June. He would like to mount a UN-sanctioned "coalition of the willing" to enforce peace and restore order in Somalia - in other words, the UN would help Ethiopia and the United States achieve what their own illegal military interventions have failed to accomplish: the entrenchment of a client regime that lacks any popular support. . . .
The Somali government is busy crying "al-Qaida" at every turn and offering lucrative deals to oil companies, in a bid to entice greater western support.--Salim Lone, "The only way the US can prop up its client regime in Somalia is through lawlessness and slaughter," Guardian, April 28, 2007] (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2067438,00.html)
[The reality, of course, is that deposing the Islamic Courts council Đ which had reached out to the West, seeking recognition and cooperation Đ and plunging Somalia back into anarchy virtually guarantees that it will indeed become a haven for terrorism, just as in Bush's other "regime change" operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then, the Terror War has never been about curtailing the terrorist threat against Americans. This is blatantly obvious, as every aspect of the "War" has only exacerbated terrorism and anti-American feeling around the world. The Terror War is about securing even more loot and power for elite factions in the American Establishment (and selected foreign cronies). Somalia's oil and its strategic location make it a prime target for the Terror Warriors; hence the invasion and the blood-soaked occupation.--Chris Floyd, "Press Plays 9/11 Card to Justify Somalia Slaughter," lewrockwell.com, May 3, 2007] (
http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd71.html)
[On file are plans - put on hold amid continuing conflicts - for nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields to be allocated to the US oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips.
It was recently reported that the US-backed prime minister of Somalia has proposed enactment of a new oil law to encourage the return of foreign oil companies to the country.--Carl Bloice, "The Hidden War for Oil," Fahamu (Oxford), May 11, 2007] (
http://allafrica.com/stories/200705110629.html)
[Somalia now represents a worse displacement crisis than Sudan's Darfur region.--"Ethiopia seeking Somalia pullout," BBC News, May 15, 2007] (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/africa/6656753.stm)
"US attacks Somali 'militant base'," BBC News, June 2, 2007 (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/africa/6714473.stm)
[The ruins of the old sugar factory in Marere, in the southern interior of Somalia, tower over the wooden shacks and brick huts which shelter the 2,000 or so people still living here. This used to be the second-largest sugar factory in the world, employing more than 20,000 people. Now, its rusting steel frame, chimneys and pipes sunk deep into the tall grass provide a painful echo of the wreck which Somalia has become.
Local people, from teen-agers to elders, now talk of the brief period of rule by the Islamic Courts in wistful tones. For the first time in a generation, there was a level of security in the district that few had believed was possible. The various clan-based militias which terrorised the region, setting up checkpoints and settling disputes with guns, buried their arms.--Steve Bloomfield, "Somalis yearn for Islamic rulers to return and tame the warlords," Independent, June 15, 2007] (
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2659721.ece)
[Amnesty International accused Kenya of blocking 141 trucks of food and other aid headed for more than 200,000 displaced Somalis suffering from "alarming levels" of malnutrition.
Many businessmen and civil society leaders in Mogadishu say that over the past two weeks, they have been unjustly labeled "al-Qaeda" and their homes and offices have been ransacked by Ethiopian and Somali troops.--Stephanie McCrummen, "Ethiopian Premier Admits Errors on Somalia," Washington Post, June 29, 2007]
More Blood For Oil [Ethiopia and Somalia]
by Carl Bloise, Black Commentator
www.zmag.org, January 16, 2007
Forget about all that stuff about Ethiopia having a 'tacit' o.k. from Washington to invade Somalia. The decision was made at the White House and the attack had military support from the Pentagon. The governments are too much in sync and the Ethiopians too dependent on the U.S. to think otherwise.
And, it didn't just suddenly happen. Ethiopian troops, trained and equipped by the U.S. began infiltrating into Somali territory last summer as part of a plan that began to evolve the previous June when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took control of the government. In November, the head of the U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid (until last week he ran the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq) was in Addis Ababa. After that, Ghanaian journalist Cameron Duodu has written, Ethiopia 'moved from proving the Somali government with 'military advice' to open armed intervention.'
And not without help. U.S Supplied satellite surveillance data aided in the bombardment of the Somali capital, Mogadishu and pinpointing the location of UIC forces resulting, in the words of New York Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman, in 'a string of back-to- back military loses in which more than 1,000 fighters, mostly teenage boys, were quickly mowed down by the better-trained and equipped Ethiopian-backed forces.'
As with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the immediate question is why was this proxy attack undertaken, in clear violation of international law and the UN Charter? And again, there is the official line, the excuse and the underlying impetus. The official line from Addis Ababa is that it was a defensive act in the face of a threat of attack from Somalia. There's nothing to support the claim and a lot of evidence to the contrary. As far as the Bush Administration is concerned, it was a chance to strike back at 'Islamists' as part of the on-going 'war on terror.' For progressive observers in the region and much of the media outside the U.S., the conflict smells of petroleum.
'As with Iraq in 2003, the United States has cast this as a war to curtail terrorism, but its real goal is to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic region by establishing a client regime there.,' wrote Salim Lone, spokesperson for the United Nation mission in Iraq in 2003, and now a columnist for The Daily Nation in Kenya. 'The Horn of Africa is newly oil-rich, and lies just miles from Saudi Arabia, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through the Red Sea.'
In a television interview broadcast on the day of the full-fledged Ethiopian assault, Marine General James Jones (who ironically, like Abizaid, recently lost his position), then-Nato's military commander and head of the US military's European army, expressed his concern that the size of the U.S. army in Europe had 'perhaps gone too low.' Jones went on to tell the CSpan interviewer the US needed troops in Europe partly so that they could be quickly deployed in trouble-spots in Africa and elsewhere.
'I think the emergence of Africa as a strategic reality is inevitable and we're going to need forward-based troops, special operations, marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors to be in the right proportion,' said Jones.
'Pentagon to train sharper eye on Africa,' read the headline over a January 5 report by Richard Whittle in the Christian Science Monitor. 'Strife, oil, and Al Qaeda are leading the US to create a new Africa Command.'
'Africa, long beset by war, famine, disease, and ethnic tensions, has generally taken a backseat in Pentagon planning - but US officials say that is about to change,' wrote Whittle, who went on to report that one of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's last acts before being dismissed from that position was to convince President Bush to create a new Africa military Africa command, something the White House is expected to announce later this year. The creation of the new body, he quoted one expert as saying, reflects the Administration concern about 'Al Qaeda's known presence in Africa,' China's developing relations with the continent with regards to oil supplies and the fact that 'Islamists took over Somalia last June and ruled until this week, when Ethiopian troops drove them out of power.'
Currently, the US gets about 10 percent of its oil from Africa, but, the Monitor story said but 'some experts say it may need to rely on the continent for as much as 25 percent by 2010.' Reportedly, nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields were allocated to the U.S. oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in January, 1991.
Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman, said the division for African military operations "causes some difficulty in trying to ... execute a more streamlined and comprehensive strategy when it comes to Africa." According to the plan, the Central Command will retain responsibility for the Horn of Africa for about 18 months while the Africa Command gets set up. The Pentagon's present Horn of Africa joint task force, headquartered in Djibouti, includes about 1,500 troops.
African countries won't see much difference in the US military presence on the ground under the new command, Herman Cohen, assistant secretary of State for African affairs under the first President Bush, is quoted as saying. "They're already getting a lot of attention from the US military.' The Defense Intelligence Agency "has built up its offices throughout Africa in US embassies. Right after the cold war, they reduced a lot, but they've built back up."
"When the Cold War ended, so too did the interest of the USA in Africa...for a while. Particularly following September 11, 2001, the interest of the Bush administration in Africa increased several fold,' says Bill Fletcher, Jr., visiting professor at Brooklyn College-CUNY, former president of TransAfrica Forum. 'Their interest was, first, in direct relationship to the amount of oil in the ground. Second, it was in relationship to a country's attitude toward the so- called "war against terrorism." Irrespective of the character of a regime, if they were prepared to provide the USA with oil and/or support the war against terrorism, the USA would turn a blind eye toward any practices going on.'
"The second piece of this puzzle, however, is that the new interest in Africa was accompanied by a new military approach toward Africa,' says Fletcher. 'This included both the development of the so-called Trans Sahel project, which supposedly concerns training countries to fight terrorism, as well as the deployment of military bases and personnel to Africa. Specifically, and beginning around the time of the initiation of the Iraq war, US military planners began discussing relocating US forces from Europe into Africa, and specifically into the Gulf of Guinea region, a region rich in oil reserves.
"It is clear, once again, that in all of this, the character of any regime is secondary to the regime's compliance with the interests of the Bush administration and their economic/strategic priorities. The net effect of this could be the introduction of US military personnel into extremely complicated internal struggles not only in the Gulf of Guinea region, but in other locations, e.g., Somalia, allegedly in the interest of fighting terrorism and protecting strategic oil reserves."
Describing the Trans Sahel project, which covers a swath of North Africa, Foreign Policy in Focus commentator Conn Hallinan wrote recently, 'The Bush Administration claims the target of this program, called the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative is the growing presence of al-Qaeda influenced organizations in the region. Critics, however, charge that the enterprise has more to do with oil than with Osama bin Laden, and that stepped up military aid to Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia will most likely end up being used against internal opposition groups in those countries, not 'terrorists' hiding out in the desert.'
An apt example of how the charge of terrorism becomes cover for suppression of local democratic or leftist dissent is Nigeria. A major focus of U.S. oil interest is in that country and the Gulf of Guinea region. There, activists reflecting popular demand for retaining more oil revenues for local development and an end to environmental chaos, have been labeled 'terrorist' and are being brutally suppressed by a U.S. trained and equipped military.
Southern Africa scholar George Wright observes that the development of military ties to government and 'rebel' groups in Africa, in pursuit of U.S. geo-strategic objectives, is long standing but has accelerating over recent years. Between 1990 and 2000, military arrangements were concluded between governments or opposition groups in 39 countries on the continent. These involved weapons supplies, military training, shared intelligence and surveillance. The aim, he says, has always been to secure neo-colonial relations with African countries. However, since 9/11, Wright says, the process has been accelerated and taken on an increasingly militarist character 'under the guise of fighting terrorism.'
Fighting proxy war is credible as long as there is a chance of holding sway but history has repeatedly demonstrated when that doesn't work out, the end is often direct involvement. That explains why the 2007 U.S. military sets funding for Special Forces to increase by 15 percent. According to the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, these Special Forces 'will have the capacity to operate in dozens of countries simultaneously - relying on a combination of direct (visible) and indirect (clandestine) approaches.'
The Ethiopian government has said it does not have the resources for an extended stay in Somalia even though the projection is that it will take many months to 'stabilize' the situation in the invaded country. As of this writing, the Bush Administration was having difficulty raising troops from nearby cooperative states to take over the job. Only Uganda seemed a sure bet. Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Africa, Ms Jendayi Frazer, told journalists: "Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni promised U.S. President George Bush in a recent phone call that he could supply between 1,000-2,000 troops to protect Somalia's transitional government and train its troops. We hope to have the Ugandans deployed before the end of January.'
Shortly after the invasion, Frazer told reporters there had been no request for U.S. troops or military assistance so far, but she did not rule out that it could be requested and supplied later if necessary. Later came quickly. On Sunday, U.S. AC-130 gunships began bombarding sites within Somalia and Hawkeye reconnaissance planes took to the air pinpointing locations for attacks by jet aircraft. Although the announced purpose of the bombing was alleged al-Qaeda personnel, media reports indicated the target were 'Islamic fighters', meaning troops of the UIC government. "The US has sided with one Somali faction against another, this could be the beginning of a new civil war ... I fear once again they have gone for a quick fix based on false information, one 'highly respected regional analyst' told the Times of London. 'If they pull it off, however, it could be a turning point. The stakes are very high indeed, now. I fear they are repeating the mistakes of the past, not only in Somalia but in Afghanistan and Iraq and will end up creating a new insurgency which could destabilize this entire region.'
BC Editorial Board member Carl Bloice is a writer in San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a healthcare union.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/MoreBloodOil_Somalia.html
The Great Game in Somalia
Abid Mustafa - 6/7/2006
The recent upsurge in fighting between the various factions in Somalia is a typical example of wars being fought throughout the African continent where the real benefactor is neither the people nor local governments, but major powers. Somalia is another country that has been caught up in a vicious struggle between great powers competing against each other to control the Horn of Africa.
The reason for this interference in Somalia's internal affairs is simple. Somalia is replete with abundance of natural resources. Uranium deposits, oil and natural gas can be found in Somalia. Oil seeps were discovered in the colonial era by both British and Italian geologists. Later, French and American oil companies competed with British and Italian oil companies for concession rights to the exploration of oil. In the years to follow Somalia became a battle ground between Europe and America for the right to control Somalia's oil wealth. Europe led by Britain fought America through supporting local militias and surrogate countries like Kenya, Uganda and Djibouti, while America supported her militiamen through countries like Ethiopia and Sudan. The power struggle between Europe and America contributed to decades of civil war, secessionist movements and break away states.
In the late 80s, under the leadership of Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. Siad Barre was inconveniently deposed just as Conoco reportedly hit black gold with nine exploratory wells, confirmed by World Bank geologists at the time. During the coup, US envoy to Somalia, Robert Oakley took refuge at Conco headquarters. The removal of Baree prompted Bush senior to dispatch 20,000 US troops in 1992 to restore US rule and thereby secure valuable oil concessions granted to US oil companies. The military intervention was touted as a humanitarian intervention designed to save the starving Somalian souls from famine. The military action resulted in defeat for the US as she was unable to accomplish her mission and pulled out.
Nonetheless, America made sure that her retreat would not encourage the Europeans to exert control, and a bitter struggle ensued between these powers via their agents in Somalia and the neighbouring countries. These powers did not allow any stable government to form and encouraged a number of secessionist states such as Puntland, Somaliland and Jubaland to cede from Somalia or at least demand greater autonomy.
Despite the civil war, foreign countries were able to oil sign treaties with the transitional Somalia government. Oil companies from France, the UK, the UAE, and China attained exploration rights granted by the Transitional National Government, the Somaliland government, and the Puntland government respectively. TotalFinaElf, which has been operating in the port of Berbera throughout the civil war, signed an exploration deal with the TNG in early 2001 off the Somali coast during which the government would provide security for TotalFinalElf employees. Rovagold of the UK, Dubai-based Zarara, and two Chinese firms signed exploration deals with the Somaliland government. Chinese firms are reportedly conducting exploration activities in Puntland.
It was not until the events of September 11 that America began take a renewed interest in Somalia. This time America used the pretext of fighting terrorism to pursue her oil interests in the country. Somalia, like other energy rich countries features heavily as part of America's grand plan to control the energy reserves of the world for the next fifty years. However, due to her awful occupation of Iraq, America was unable to give due attention to Somalia until now.
But this time America is supporting both the warlords and the Islamists to manufacture a pretext to invade the country. A top US diplomat in Africa, Jendayi Frazer, acknowledged that the White House would work with those who can help "prevent Somalia becoming a safe haven for terrorists". The statement was in reference to assisting the warlords against the Islamists.
America has been equipping the warlords with weapons. These are the very same warlords who have been accommodated in Yusuf's government as part of a power sharing agreement. These warlords include those who hold the portfolios of security, trade, religion, disarmament and reconstruction. Furthermore the US has also subverted any attempt to interrupt the supply of weapons to both sides. A United Nations report called for a tighter arms embargo on Somalia but this was rejected by the Security Council. The report stated that an unnamed country had been flouting the weapons ban to help local groups fight the Islamic militants. It said that Ethiopia was supplying weapons to Mr Yusuf's interim government, while Eritrea was arming the Islamists.
The American plan is to fragment the country into regions and then encourage the energy laden areas to cede and fall in line with US interests. This bears strong resemblance to America's plan to divide Sudan.
The chances of US success depend upon how she is able to counter threats from other powers. In Sudan countries like France, Britain, China and Russia have made it complicated for America to realise her goal and in Somalia this too may prove to be difficult.
Abid Mustafa is a political analyst who specialises in affairs of Islamic countries and organizations.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=1838&cid=7
United States Back in Somalia – for Peace or Oil?
Since the United States withdrew from Somalia more than a decade, Somalia has been haunted by a melee of different political factions. The transitional government has been too weak to control the country now full of warlords. In the chaos, the Somali government and some American analysts of African policies have revealed that U.S. power has secretly returned to the African country, secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu. U.S. officials have declined to directly address on the record the question, but stressed their worries that Somalia may become al Qaida's new 'terrorist paradise'.
"So far, there has not been any clear evidence of how the United States is supporting the Somali warlords, how much money it has given them and which faction it is in contact with," explained Jennifer Cooke, the co-director of the African Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "But if all this is true, I think the U.S. government is being short-sighted," Cooke told the Washington Observer Weekly. "It will be a short-term operation if it's only for the purpose of countering terrorism. The Americans should have a broader perspective and think about how to establish an efficient government and restore political and economic order in Somalia."
"If the allegations are true, I, personally, do not see the logic in it," said Eric Hagt, Director of the China Program at the World Security Institute. "But I have a few suspicions. Either the U.S. is too impatient to wait for the Somalia transitional government to strengthen to the point it can effectively deal with such issues and so is using warlords in the interim or the U.S. has other motives, such as controlling oil resources there," said Hagt to the Washington Observer Weekly. Hagt met with Somali diplomats during his recent visit to Beijing.
It's justifiable for the United States to counter terrorism in Somalia
Since the former Somali President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991, this African country, with a population of about 10 million, has been in civil war. According to a U.N. Observer Mission's report to the U.N. Security Council, there are now three main forces in Somalia: the transitional government, the warlord alliance and Islamic church forces. Although most areas of the country are administered by the transitional government set up in October 2004, neither the warlord alliance nor the church forces support the government. Mogadishu, the capital, has become the focus of struggle with frequent violence and the transitional government has had to move out of the capital.
In the past two weeks, there have been big clashes in Somalia with 150 people killed and several hundred wounded. The transitional government blamed the U.S. support for the warlords, saying the support fostered the clashes. The U.S. government denied the accusation. The spokesman of the Department of State, Sean McCormack, recently told reporters that the United States "will cooperate with responsible individuals to fight terrorism. What we really worry about is the terrorism taking root in the Horn of Africa. We don't want to see another safe haven for terrorists created. Our interest is purely in seeing Somalia achieve a better day."
"Somalia does have a history of terrorism," one analyst, who wished remain anonymous, told the Washington Observer Weekly. The analyst is now in South Africa and is very familiar with Somalia's political situation. "At least three of the suspects of the explosion at the American Embassy in Kenya in 1998 and the blast in Mombasa in 2002 are from Somalia. In addition, Somalia is full of factions, some of which are protecting al-Qaida members. The Americans' concern is reasonable."
Somalia is located within the strategically important Horn of Africa, a longtime gateway to Africa from the Middle East, and only a boat ride away from Yemen. Visas are not required to enter Somalia due to the anarchy. There is no police force in the country. The Islamic extremist groups have begun to take power in the capital and establish Islamic courts and their own schools and hospitals. The United States believes that it is very likely that the country will become an ideal place for al-Qaida members to plan their plots. Therefore, the United States has begun to secretly support the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism, formed by Somali warlords.
Experts believe that the United States places a lot of importance on the information provided by the warlords. In 2003, Somali warlord Mohammed Dheere even captured the terrorist suspect Suleiman Ahmed Hemed Salim and delivered him to the United States.
"It seems that the U.S. involvement with warlords there (a report which should be noted the U.S. has neither confirmed nor rejected) is both undermining the Somali government and counterproductive to its goals of uprooting terrorism," said Hagt. "The problem is, while the U.S. is taking matters into its own hands by supporting warlords to fight radical Islamists, these warlords are also challenging the fledgling Transitional Federal Government, as there has been significant violence in the streets of Mogadishu these past weeks. "
The Somali Government 'abandoned' by the United States
The Somali transitional government is very dissatisfied with the United States helping the warlords. Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi warned, "This is a dangerous game. Somalia is not a secure place and we need the United States. But we hope that the United States will take more conducive measures. It's obvious that our common goal is to make Somalia stable. But the United States is using a wrong channel."
"I was told by a senior Somalia diplomat in Beijing that the arms embargo on Somalia remains in place," said Hagt. "Many arms do still get through by smuggling to the warlords and other factions, but the level of arms needed by the government to build up the police force is not sufficient. Therefore the government does not have the small arms to equip its police force and security forces to maintain security, nor does it have the means to patrol its coast from piracy, a coast that is the African continents longest."
According to Hagt, such a government will inevitably fail before it's given a chance to succeed, let alone given a chance to deal with terrorism. The current transitional Somali government is a relatively secular minded one and so it does not make sense that it would harbor terrorists.
But Cooke pointed out that "there is also something wrong with" the Somali prime minister's criticism. The Somali interim government has not demonstrated that it has authority over Somalia. It's not even acknowledged as an official government by many other countries.
However, Hagt stressed that although the Somali transitional government is weak, the United States is being short-sighted if it is not willing to wait for the transitional government to establish itself.
"Why not give the transitional government a chance? If the government institutions are weak, why not strengthen them," said Hagt. "Have we learned nothing? The roots of terrorism are many, but its correlation to dissatisfaction with poverty, oppression, disaffection, disenfranchisement, U.S. policies in the ME [Middle East] etc. are real. Undermining a legitimate government and supporting a violent faction within a country will surely destabilize it and could likely lead to Somalia's continuation of a failed state status. Would this not be a good breeding ground for terrorism or other rogue elements?"
The anonymous analyst interviewed by the Washington Observer Weekly disclosed that the past several Somali presidents had received financial support from the United States. They knew very well about the American strategy. The current Somali transitional government was also one of the warlords before taking power in 2004. Once they justifiably became the ruling party, they did not want to see the United States supporting the opposition.
Hagt said the United States may have other motives besides disappointment over the Somali transitional government.
"Somalia is the Horn of Africa, strategically located to guard the mouth of the Red Sea, an alternative corridor to oil transport from the Middle East and beyond," said Hagt. "Second, Somalia has large potential (not proven) oil and reserves that a number of American oil companies were interested in prior to Somalia's descent into chaos in 1991. So, Somalia has been languishing in a failed state status for a dozen years, unaided by the U.S. or anyone else for that matter. And this includes 4 or 5 years since 9/11. So why is Somalia now suddenly a potential hotbed for terrorism, so much so, that the U.S. feels it necessary to cooperate with the warlords to defeat them, and undermine a legitimate government at the same time? It makes little sense unless looking at this from the lens of higher energy prices and the competition over oil. Could it be that Somalia is now under intense scrutiny because of its potential player as an oil supplier?"
Based on his talks with Somali diplomats, Hagt said that Somalia's government has stated openly it will accept any bids to develop its oil reserves. It will go to the highest price. This includes others like China of course. So, could it be that by signaling that America companies will have no favored position, the U.S. has decided to work around this government, even creating a situation of destabilizing the country which will require U.S. presence and intervention and thus a degree of control over energy reserves.
"There may be abundant oil reserves in Somalia," said the anonymous analyst in South Africa. "But many developing projects may have located by American companies. If these companies have been to Somalia to look for oil, they may well be ready to start their projects once the situation becomes stable. Therefore, energy security may not be the Americans' main motive."
Has the United States failed in its efforts to counter terrorism in Somalia?
In the 1993 peacekeeping operation in Somalia, U.S. forces were attacked and defeated by local warlords, known as "Black Hawk Down." Two helicopters were lost and 18 American soldiers were killed in the fight. Since then the United States has withdrawn its troops from the Horn of Africa region and has shied away from a hands-on diplomatic role until recently. The United States is back in Somalia, but with uncertain motives. Experts believe that the development contradicts U.S. anti-terrorism policy no matter what its motives are.
"The United States started to carry out its anti-terrorism policy in 2002 by providing financial support for the warlords," said the anonymous analyst. "But what happened after four years? Al-Qaida is still powerful in this country. With Islamic Jiha working in connection with al-Qaida, they become more active and even stronger. Moreover, public opinion in the country is turning in favor of the Muslim factions. No matter how you view it, the U.S. counter-terrorism strategy has not only failed, but worsened the situation."
Cooke said that the United States has gone into a lot of countries since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. It has either launched military attacks or promoted human rights and democracy. Its counter-terrorism operations are successful militarily. But that is all the United States can do. It feels somewhat that its abilities don't meet its ambitions. It does not know how to combine reconstruction and aid projects with a security strategy, how to put a country back in order and how to help people live and work in peace and contentment.
"The United States should look at the present situation in Somalia and draw a blueprint of how to stabilize the situation there," said Cooke. "The first thing America should do is to summon all the departments, including the Department of State to provide aid, to work out long-term objectives in Somalia. Besides security measures to prevent accidents, the United States should also include human rights and education in the agenda and hammer out a more comprehensive solution. It should never stress only the security issue or it will trigger a negative response from the local people and stronger global anti-U.S. feeling."
"It is really time for the United States to re-think and modify its counter-terrorism policy," the anonymous analyst concluded. "The United States should cooperate more actively with the leaders of local communities and be much better involved in the political agendas of national reconstruction. That doesn't mean that the United States must support the current transitional government. But it should call all the local political organizations together and encourage them to cooperate to stabilize the country."
Yan Li, Washington Observer weekly - Issue No. 177, May 24, 2006
http://www.washingtonobserver.org/en/document.cfm?documentid=52&charid=3