
Jacaylbaro
Nomads-
Content Count
44,142 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Everything posted by Jacaylbaro
-
A Delegation from the World Food Programme visits Las Anod Las Anod(QARAN)-A delegation from the World Food Programme today paid a visit to the Sool region of Somaliland. The delegation from the WFP held talks with senior officials from the region, including the acting Governor of Sool, Mohamed Farah Ahmed and the Mayor of Las Anod, Canaabshe aw Dahir, along with community leaders, activist and the members of the general public. After holding meetings with the members of the regional officials and the general public, the delegation made of a tour of local facilities including the the General hospitals, schools, the airport and the local waste disposal facility. The delegation's tour follows a visit by the United Nations security assessment team to Las Anod and Sool which have paved the way for the implementation of local projects by such as the World Food Programme. Since early October there has been a steady improvement in both the security and social projects in the region which had been facilitate by the Somaliland government, local residents and the international community.
-
Written by Media Monitors Network - CA,USA Dec 15, 2007 at 07:11 PM The article quotes a senior defense official who asserts that "Somaliland is an entity that works." And another unnamed official who confirms the Pentagon's "Somaliland should be independent," "The neocons’ legacy, the DADD syndrome, or the Diplomatic Attention Deficit Disorder, is still propelling Washington’s foreign policy and continues to project America negatively throughout the world, especially in the Muslim world and Africa. As the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, was recently visiting American forces in Djibouti, the Washington Post was reporting how the Pentagon has been spearheading a seemingly dicey initiative to pressure Washington into recognizing the secessionist northwestern region of Somalia known as “Somaliland” as an independent state. In an article titled ‘U.S. Debating Shift of Support in Somali Conflict’ that appeared on December 4, 2007 issue, the Post highlights how some Pentagon officials are convinced it is time “to forge ties with Somaliland, as the U.S. military has with Kenya and other countries bordering Somalia.” The article quotes a senior defense official who asserts that "Somaliland is an entity that works." And another unnamed official who confirms the Pentagon’s view is that "Somaliland should be independent," and that the US should “build up the parts that are functional and box in Somalia's unstable regions, particularly around Mogadishu.” This initiative clearly contradicts the State Department’s wait-and-see approach to this diplomatically sensitive issue. And, handled haphazardly, this could set ablaze the volatile inter-tribal tensions looming in northern Somalia, and, according to the article, “set a precedent for other secession movements seeking to change colonial-era borders,” therefore, “opening a Pandora's box in the region. That said, it is worth noting that aside from the on again, off again, clan-driven skirmishes that make headlines every now and then, throughout the Somali civil war, the northwestern region has enjoyed relative peace and stability. Naturally, this unprecedented aggressive approach by the Department of Defense raises questions worth pondering: When did the Pentagon become the engine propelling the US foreign policy? Why would the Pentagon care whether or not Somaliland becomes an independent state or not? And, more importantly, how prudent is it to take this kind of an approach? In answering the first question, remember how the events of 9/11 have “changed the world” and how as a result the notoriously Islamophobic Neocons ascended to (absolute) power; remember that moment in history when in certain circles it was fashionable to declare diplomacy dead and to claim militarization of the American foreign policy is imperative to the survival of the nation. It is then when the rules of the game have profoundly changed. Today, while the icons of that political machine have disappeared for one reason or another, the policy imprint they left behind would probably take generations to undo. Last summer, US Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, addressed an audience of several hundred, mostly Somali scholars, activists, students, and professionals at a Somali studies conference held in Columbus, Ohio. In her speech, Dr. Frazer said “we were against the Ethiopian invasion”. This, of course, contradicted what the Somali people and the world already knew- that in January 2007 Washington switched hats from a “tacit supporter” of Ethiopia’s aggression to an active partner in the illegal invasion. US Air Force AC-130 gunship has launched aerial attacks against "suspected Islamist terrorists" based in Somalia. So, was Dr. Frazer not being entirely honest? Perhaps not, though her statement was cleverly inserted in a context which could only give the impression that Ethiopia has invaded Somalia in spite of Washington’s objections. After all her statement was consistent with the State Department’s position; alas, that was superseded by the hawkish wishes of the Pentagon. And this brings me to the latter of the two original questions. And the simple answer is the establishment of the Africa Command or AFRICOM as it is commonly known. AFRICOM is a US command center completely devoted to Africa. The primary objective of the command center is to promote US national security by “working with African states and regional organizations to help strengthen stability and security…” and creating an environment in which sustainable economic growth is possible. The command center is supposed to focus on “war prevention rather than war-fighting”. It is no secret that many in the Pentagon consider the Somali port city of Berbera as the ideal location for AFRICOM. However, considering the site-selection criteria jointly developed by the Pentagon and the State Department that include “political stability; security factors; access to regional and intercontinental transportation; availability of acceptable infrastructure; qualify of life; proximity to the African Union and regional organizations; proximity to U.S. government hubs; adequate Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA),” Somalia might not look as a prime candidate. However, detaching the secessionist northwestern region from the rest of chaotic Somalia gives a different picture. This explains why the Pentagon's view is that "Somaliland should be independent." The Pentagon is pressed against time. October 2008 is the deadline when AFRICOM is supposed to be fully operational. In the mean time, Somalia’s situation is worsening by the day. The situation there is now considered the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa. According to the UN, approximately one million civilians fleeing Mogadishu have become internally displaced persons (IDP) threatened by severe food shortage. Oblivious to the scale of this humanitarian catastrophe and how their approach could potentially add another layer of complexity, the Pentagon is eager to accelerate the establishment of AFRICOM, especially now that China is making profound stride in Africa and the European Union is following suit. However, the real set back to Washington is its own self-defeating foreign policy that is treated as suspect everywhere. According to Congressman Donald Payne, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Washington should expect “a lot of skepticism, because there has been so little attention given to Africa…All of a sudden to have a special military command, I think the typical person would wonder why now and really what is the end game?" The neocons’ legacy, the DADD syndrome, or the Diplomatic Attention Deficit Disorder, is still propelling Washington’s foreign policy and continues to project America negatively throughout the world, especially in the Muslim world and Africa. The US foreign policy regarding Somalia ought to focus on ending the Ethiopian occupation and therefore ending their widely condemned human rights abuses, as well as facilitating an all inclusive reconciliation conference before the 2009 general elections. This is congruent, at least in part, with a nine point recommendation articulated in a communiqué issued by the Somali Cause upon the conclusion of its two day conference on December 1, 2007. Somali Cause is a nine member coalition, Eight US based organizations and one Canada based- the Somali Canadian Diaspora Alliance. Source Media Monitors Network - CA,USA
-
For the first time, since it withdrew from the voluntary union with Somalia in 1991, Somaliland is at the centre of a debate by the Bush administration over a possible recognition of its statehood. America appears to be throwing its weight behind Somaliland and in the process it is showing that its worldview is changing. The United States defence chiefs at the Pentagon argue that Somaliland should be independent to maintain its progress on peace and democracy, and that the anarchy Somalia slipped into, since the fall of the former regime in 1991 needs to be contained. Giving rise to this debate are the increasing insecurities in Somalia, the revival of the radical insurgents in Mogadishu and the disintegration of the shaky Transitional Federal Government. Yet, the roots of this debate can be traced elsewhere: they originate from the Bush administration’s current intellectual mindset that guides its national security strategy. The neo-cons in the Bush administration initially applied a worldview that preaches that the primary agents of the international politics are states, particularly major states, and that the only way to secure a national interest is to possess advanced and offensive military capabilities, and to deter unfriendly and rogue states from developing that capacity. In the war against terrorism, Washington used this narrow and unilateralist view. This has led the US into conflicts with states that allegedly sponsor terrorism. The result was a staggering increase in the number of international terrorist operations. Clearly, this vision failed to offer adequate provisions for dealing effectively with the challenges of 21 century to the American interest and world security, which in the main do not arise from states, but from non-state agents and groups within failed states. In response to this shortcoming, we now witness an American shift to a new worldview, which recognises that international politics is not only limited to state-agents, but also involves non-state agents such as political and social groups. This view embraces the use of multilateralism, diplomacy, international law and pragmatism alongside the military option in dealing with global political and security issues. In Somalia, the US has already applied this vision. It has dealt directly with the former Somali warlords in Mogadishu and funded their operations against the Union of Islamic Courts. In fact, the United States financially supported these warlords more than it did the process that led to the formation of the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG). In Somaliland, the US engages with the government of Somaliland on a range of issues including providing technical support to its democratisation and economic development programmes. And now, the Pentagon wants to bring Somaliland on board as a partner in the fight against terrorism, and suggests that Somaliland should be politically recognised. This may be seen as an indication of a new US direction in respect of the Somaliland issue. America’s major aim in the Horn is to prevent the region from becoming a potential breeding ground for international terrorism. Somaliland, therefore, offers a useful means for achieving this objective. Its strategic location on the red sea, overlooking the gulf countries, as well as its peace and security provide Americans with a unique opportunity to achieve their security goals. Unlike the Pentagon, the American State Department is reluctant to soften its rhetoric towards Somaliland. It maintains its official position of leaving the recognition of Somaliland for the African Union to lead on, due to what it describes as being sensitivity over changes in colonial-era-borders, and opening Pandora’s box in Africa. But the State Department’s view is neither historically evidenced nor represents the African Union’s position. In a fact-finding mission report in 2005, the AU said that Somaliland is “historically unique and self-justified in African political history” and that the AU “should find special method of dealing with this outstanding case”. Therefore, recognising Somaliland does not open Pandora’s box, but brings Somaliland and Somalia to their respective original status at the time of the colonial departure, after the union they voluntarily formed in 1960 ceased to exist. All in all, the debate highlights that the United States is paying closer attention to the issue of Somaliland and that Somaliland’s consistent efforts in state- building over the last 16 years are being acknowledged. Dr. Mohamed A Omar London, United Kingdom
-
In October, in my testimony to a House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health hearing on security in the Horn of Africa, I stated: The most significant national interest at stake for the United States in this complex context is to prevent al-Qaeda (or another like-minded international terrorist network) from acquiring a new base and opening a new front in its war against us and our allies… I would be remiss if I did not avail myself of this opportunity to raise the question of the remarkable reemergence of the Republic of Somaliland amid the ruin of Somalia and multiple conflicts wracking the Horn of Africa. With the collapse of the Somali state, the Somalilanders reasserted their independence and created a functional government, complete with all the accoutrements of modern statehood save, alas, international recognition… Surely if America’s national commitment to support and strengthen democracy as a bulwark against extremist ideologies and terrorist violence has any real-world application, it is certainly the case here. The point I made at last year’s hearing on the expanding crisis in the Horn of Africa is even truer today: “The people of Somaliland have made their choice for political independence and democratic progress. While they have stumbled occasionally along the way, their efforts deserve encouragement through the appropriate economic, political, and security cooperation-which, in turn, will anchor Somaliland within America’s orbit as well as international society.” I make no apologies for constantly returning to this theme: it is to me incomprehensible that we continue to express concern about the state of democracy in the Horn of Africa while all but ignoring a New York-sized region that has held internationally-monitored elections for the presidency as well as national and local legislatures. Talk of mixed signals! Last week, in its December 4th issue, the Washington Post carried a remarkable article by Ann Scott Tyson. Under the headline “U.S. Debating Shift of Support in Somali Conflict,” the piece notes that “the escalating conflict in Somalia is generating debate inside the Bush administration over whether the United States should continue to back the shaky transitional government in Mogadishu or shift support to the less volatile region of Somaliland, which declared independence in 1991” and quotes two anonymous Department of Defense officials: “Somaliland is an entity that works,” a senior defense official said. “We’re caught between a rock and a hard place because they’re not a recognized state,” the official said. The Pentagon’s view is that “Somaliland should be independent,” another defense official said. “We should build up the parts that are functional and box in” Somalia’s unstable regions, particularly around Mogadishu. In contrast, “the State Department wants to fix the broken part first-that’s been a failed policy,” the official said. In conclusion, Navy Captain Bob Wright, head of strategic communications for the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) based at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, was quoted as saying “We’d love to [engage Somaliland], we’re just waiting for State to give us the okay.” The next day, December 5th, the Bureau of African Affairs posted to the State Department website a five-bullet point “fact sheet” attempting to explain what passes as “United States Policy on Somaliland”: The United States currently engages the Somaliland administration and has provided assistance, for example to the election effort. Our policy on recognition is to allow the African Union to first deliberate on the question. We do not want to get ahead of the continental organization on an issue of such importance. As indicated in the full quote above, the United States continues to engage with the administration in Somaliland on a range of issues, most directly Somaliland’s continued progress towards democratization and economic development. In FY 2007, the United States provided a total of $1 million through the International Republican Institute to support training for parliamentarians and other key programs in preparations for the upcoming municipal and presidential elections in Somaliland. We expect to provide an additional $1.5 million in continued support for the democratization process in Somaliland following the elections. While we continue to engage with the Somaliland administration, we do believe that the African Union is the most appropriate forum to address the question of recognition of Somaliland as an independent state. We understand that Somaliland is pursuing bilateral dialogue with the African Union and its member-states in this regard. However, as the African Union continues to deliberate on this issue, the United States will continue to engage with all actors throughout Somalia, including Somaliland, to support the return of lasting peace and stability in the Horn of Africa. On the face of it, the Foggy Bottom’s position seems reasonable enough: the United States does not want to be blamed for opening up a veritable Pandora’s Box by backing a secessionist attempt to redraw colonial-era boundaries in Africa which could cause a ripple effect across the continent; better to let the African Union make that call. However, the artful facade the diplomats put up to cover their geopolitical inertia is utterly mendacious, despite the truly diplomatic efforts of Somaliland Foreign Minister Abdillahi Duale to welcome the State Department’s positive comments about the country’s “continued progress towards democratization and economic development. First, as I pointed out in this column nearly two years ago: “From 1884 until 1960, Somaliland existed within its current borders as the protectorate of British Somaliland. On June 26, 1960, Somaliland was granted its independence by the British Crown and was internationally recognized as a sovereign state. When, a week later, the United Nations trust territory that had been the Italian colony of Somalia received its independence, Somaliland joined it to form a united republic. The union, however, was troubled from the beginning…Amid the anarchy that ensued following Siyad Barre’s ignominious flight in January 1991, clan elders in Somaliland issued a declaration reasserting the independence that the northwestern region had briefly enjoyed in 1960.” There is no question of - much less precedent set for - redrawing colonial frontiers. Second, the African Union (AU) itself has acknowledged the unique circumstances surrounding Somaliland’s quest for recognition. The official report of an AU fact-finding mission to the republic in 2005 led by AU Deputy Chairperson Patrick Mazimhaka concluded: “The fact that the union between Somaliland and Somalia was never ratified and also malfunctioned when it went into action from 1960 to 1990, makes Somaliland’s search for recognition historically unique and self-justified in African political history. Objectively viewed, the case should not be linked to the notion of ‘opening a Pandora’s Box’. As such, the AU should find a special method of dealing with this outstanding case.” However, by punting the question to a body like the AU, which decides major political questions by consensus, while simultaneously continuing the delusional policy of recognizing the utterly ineffectual “Transitional Federal Government” (TFG) of Somalia, which asserts sovereignty over the entire territory of the defunct Somali Democratic Republic despite being unable to so much as control its putative capital, the State Department belies any pretensions of neutrality. The Africa Bureau knows very well that there is no way the phantasmal TFG will ever permit an AU consensus to be forged which recognizes the de facto Republic of Somaliland. Thus the State Department’s support for the fictional Somalia’s continued presence at international forums like the AU is fundamentally irreconcilable with functional Somaliland’s ever getting a fair hearing. So the only thing conceivably worse than the State Department being cynically duplicitous in its Somaliland policy is the possibility that its denizens don’t realize this and, hence, are criminally incompetent in their guidance of U.S. policy in the geopolitical sensitive Horn of Africa. Fortunately, the TFG may not be a factor for much longer. Last week, its “president,” Abdullahi Yusuf, was hospitalized in Nairobi, Kenya, and had to cancel a meeting in Addis Ababa with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; should his condition worsen, that charade will be over. The meeting that did take place between TFG “prime minister” Nur Hassan Hussein and America’s top diplomat was farcical to anyone with historical knowledge of the region. The secretary said she hoped “Hussein will draw on his humanitarian background to facilitate delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid.” What “humanitarian background” does Dr. Rice refer to? His role as police colonel under the brutal dictatorship of Muhammad Siyad Barre? His tenure as deputy head of the despot’s “National Salvation Court,” a military tribunal that sent thousands of regime opponents to their deaths? Or perhaps his leadership of the Somali Red Crescent Society where he “did well by doing good” - so well, in fact, that as Somalia descended into chaos and its luckier citizens fled, his children inexplicably found the capital to open a string of internet cafés and currency exchanges in Great Britain to meet the needs of their displaced countrymen? And while the secretary could only “encourage” the self-appointed TFG “to develop a timeline for the remainder of the transitional process by early January” in the hope of staging elections sometime in 2009, Somaliland has already held several sets of the internationally-monitored free polls, the most recent, the parliamentary elections of 2005, was observed and reported on by an International Republican Institute (IRI) delegation led by Ambassador Lange Schermerhorn, a former U.S. envoy to Djibouti who has also served as political advisor to the CJTF-HOA. (I served as an election observer with the ambassador in Nigeria earlier this year.) The failure of the TFG should not be surprising. As I pointed out a year and a half ago, the pretender regime is little more than the product of a well-intentioned effort by the international community to conjure up yet another government for Somalia after the ignominious collapse the previous year of its previous attempt, the risible “Transitional National Government” (TNG), which went through four prime ministers and hundreds of cabinet members in three years before going bankrupt, having misappropriated millions of dollars in donor funds while governing nothing other than what was inside the confines of the four walls of “president” Abdiqasim Salad Hassan’s villa in nearby Djibouti. With even fewer prospects and, if it is possible, even less legitimacy than the TNG, the TFG’s leaders have little incentive to do anything other than leverage the international recognition which is their only real asset with which to enrich themselves. One could hardly find a starker contrast to this than Somaliland. As former World Bank economist William Easterly, hardly someone who looks at Africa through rosy lenses, noted in his realistic, if somewhat pessimistic, volume, “The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good”: In Somalia, the “international community” has sponsored fourteen rounds of fruitless peace talks since the collapse of the government in 1991, not to mention the failed UN/U.S. military intervention. Meanwhile, without outside intervention, foreign aid, or even international recognition, the breakaway Republic of Somaliland in the north of Somalia has enjoyed peace, economic growth, and democratic elections over the same period. Thus, among the many others which could be adduced, there are five compelling reasons for the United States to abandon the bankrupt, State Department-driven policy of preferring self-appointed “leaders” of a failed construct to an effective government of a real country: Counterterrorism. As the Pentagon has now publicly acknowledged (and as I suggested earlier this year), scarce resources would be better spent boxing in the troubled parts of Somalia, rather than vainly asserting the questionable claims by a clearly unpopular regime whose illegitimacy is actually a magnet for extremists. No less a figure than Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates declared last week while visiting Camp Lemonier that his “biggest concern for Somalia is the potential for al-Qaeda to be active there.” Formal ties with Somaliland would permit closer ties between U.S. military and intelligence personnel with their counterparts in the small country’s services. Access to Somaliland territory, including the onetime NATO installation at Berbera, would also expand the scope for counterterrorism and other operations by CJTF-HOA as well as the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) which will subsume it next year. Regional stability. Far from being destabilizing, as I told Congress earlier this year, recognition of Somaliland would “show the countries and peoples of the sub-region our resolve to reward progress as well as give the lie to those who argue that our anti-terrorism and pro-democracy objectives are not subterfuges for an anti-Muslim agenda. (Somaliland’s population is almost exclusively Sunni Muslims and the shahâdah, the Muslim profession of the oneness of God and the acceptance of Muhammad as God’s final prophet, is emblazoned on its flag.)” Furthermore, U.S.-led diplomatic recognition of Somaliland would not only allow the country much-needed access to international institutions and finance for development of the country itself, but also spur regional integration and prosperity. To cite just one example, America’s close partner Ethiopia, whose cut-off from the sea is a factor in the border dispute with Eritrea which I discussed two weeks ago, would benefit directly from access to Somaliland’s 900-kilometer coastline along the Gulf of Aden. Natural resources and economic opportunities. Earlier this year, I reported on mainland China’s play for petroleum resources in Somalia. Establishing formal ties with Somaliland would not only open opportunities for American firms to bid for similar concessions in that country, but also to invest in what could be a significant regional market. Conversely, ties with American commercial interests would also help anchor the strategically-placed country in the orbit of the United States as it joins the global economy. On the other hand, Somaliland’s considerable potential for economic and social progress is jeopardized not only by the maelstrom in neighboring Somalia, but also, as the AU has reported, by “the lack of recognition [which] ties the hands of the authorities and people of Somaliland as they cannot effectively and sustainably transact with the outside to pursue the reconstruction and development goals.” Moral imperatives. As I previously argued, “Somaliland’s trajectory…has been nothing if not extraordinary, being characterized by both social stability and democratic politics-the northern region’s progress standing in stark contrast to the free fall of the rest of the former Somalia. And despite being cut off from international financial institutions, direct bilateral assistance, and other sources of development and investment capital-all for want of diplomatic recognition-the Somalilanders have rebuilt Hargeysa, which was leveled during the Siyad Barre regime’s brutal campaign against them, and resettled close to one million of their displaced citizens.” Somaliland has already had democratic presidential, legislative, and local government elections; even the State Department has acknowledged that its upcoming presidential and municipal elections are more than credible enough to deserve U.S. funding. Global leadership. Despite some major faux pas of American foreign policy in recent years - both in substance and implementation - the world still defaults to looking to the United States to take the lead in critical arenas like the Horn of Africa. A number of governments, both African (including those of Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia) and European (including those of Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden), have either entered into de facto relations with or at least made friendly overtures to the Republic of Somaliland. In June, the German federal parliament even passed a resolution calling upon Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government “to work towards mitigating dangers for Somaliland’s stability that may arise from the current Southern Somali scenario,” including “initiatives to advance the resolution of the question of an international recognition of an independent Somaliland.” However, nothing is likely to advance without American leadership or at least tacit approval - in any event, the opposite of the State Department’s passive attendance on the AU’s capacity-challenged policymaking and implementation processed (see my column last week on “The Challenge of Peacekeeping in Africa”). At the very launch of this column series, I wrote: “Since the disintegration of the Siyad Barre’s oppressive Somali regime into Hobbesian anarchy and warlordism, the international community has staunchly defended the phantasmal existence of the fictitious entity known as ‘Somalia.’ Now, however, is the time for the United States to break ranks and let realism triumph over wishful thinking, not only recognizing, but actively supporting Somaliland, a brave little land whose people’s quest for freedom and security mirrors America’s values as well as her strategic interests.” If anything, that counsel is even truer today than ever before, as many of our military officers have now publicly acknowledged. The only question is whether or not America’s elected political leaders will have the vision and fortitude to finally instruct their unelected diplomatic mandarins on the real stakes: diplomatic, military, and economic. J. Peter Pham, Ph.D.
-
I'm invited tonight ........ i must go
-
Today, the Prime Minister will announce a major shift in strategy on Afghanistan. Could it mark the beginning of the end of a bloody six-year war? Or is it just spin? As the deadliest year in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion in 2001 comes to a close, Gordon Brown is ready to talk to the Taliban in a major shift in strategy that is likely to cause consternation among hardliners in the White House. Six years after British troops were first deployed to oust the Taliban regime, the Prime Minister believes the time has come to open a dialogue in the hope of moving from military action to consensus-building among the tribal leaders. Since 1 January, more than 6,200 people have been killed in violence related to the insurgency, including 40 British soldiers. In total, 86 British troops have died. The latest casualty was Sergeant Lee Johnson, whose vehicle hit a mine before the fall of Taliban-held town of Musa Qala. The Cabinet yesterday approved a three-pronged plan that Mr Brown will outline for security to be provided by Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) and the Afghan national army, followed by economic and political development in Afghanistan. But the intention to engage Taliban leaders in a constructive dialogue, which Mr Brown will make clear in a parliamentary statement today, will be by far the most controversial element of the plan. A senior Downing Street source confirmed the move last night and one Brown aide who accompanied the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Kabul, said: "We need to ask who are we fighting? Do we need to fight them? Can we be talking to them?" Senior government officials said it was an error to see the Taliban as a unified organisation rather than as a disparate group of Afghan tribesmen, often farmers recruited at the end of the gun, infiltrated by foreign fighters. The aim is to divide the Taliban's local support from al-Qa'ida and militants from Pakistan. The shift of strategy will place the onus to deliver on Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, who will take the lead in opening discussions with Taliban leaders through provincial governors. "Musa Qala was a good example of what we are planning – once the town was stabilised, people were ready to appoint judges, local police chiefs, start laying on services and putting in power lines," said the No 10 source. "But the Afghan government has got to demonstrate they can deliver an alternative strategy." The dialogue strategy is the latest attempt by Mr Brown to distance himself from the military legacy of the Blair era and the hardline instincts of President George Bush. At the weekend, the Prime Minister made a surprise visit to Basra in southern Iraq and announced that the British handover of control of the region to local Iraqi forces would be completed within two weeks. British soldiers' combat role will then cease, as they move to an "overwatch" role, and retreat to Basra Air Station. The determination to draw a line under the Bush-Blair years is threatening to heighten tensions between No 10 and the hardline neocons who still dominate the White House. The pace of the Basra handover has already caused dismay in hawkish Washington circles. The administration was also sceptical of the British deal with tribal elders that led to Musa Qala falling into the hands of the Taliban earlier this year and has also been pushing Britain to carry out an opium poppy eradication programme by spraying fields, a policy that Downing Street has said would drive farmers into the arms of the militants. But with Mr Bush in the final year of his presidency, his influence on events on the ground is waning. There are also hopes that since the departure of hawks such as Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Department is prepared to accept change. "There has been full consultation with the White House, and they have been talked through all of this," a senior source at No 10 said last night. Inside the heavily fortified walls of the presidential palace in the capital, Kabul, Mr Brown was given a fresh commitment by Mr Karzai to prevent parts of Afghanistan from returning to the control of the militants who led to the country being used as a training camp for terrorism before the attacks on the US in September 2001. Mr Brown will tell Parliament today that President Karzai is prepared to commit Isaf-trained Afghan forces to build stability in places such as Musa Qala and to reinforce the gains by seeking political agreements with tribal leaders. Mr Brown will promise more taxpayers' money for economic development, including aid to farmers who cease to grow the opium poppies that supply 90 per cent of the world's illegal heroin. President Karzai also will be under pressure to build democratic structures in the formerly lawless regions, such as in Helmand province. Downing Street aides admit that in the past Isaf forces have failed to secure parts of the country. One said: "We need to get to the position where the whole country has the same standard of security." Conservatives reacted with scepticism to the idea of talking to the Taliban. Gerald Howarth, a Tory defence spokesman, said: "Sometimes you do have to talk with the enemy, but Gordon Brown has got to be careful he is not placing too much emphasis on doing a deal with people who are unwilling or unable to deliver." A long and bloody struggle October 2001 The US and Britain begin air strikes when Taliban refuses to give up Osama bin Laden after 11 September. Taliban leader Mullah Omar flees. December 2001 Interim government created under US-backed President Hamid Karzai. January 2002 Peacekeepers arrive in the form of Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). Britain leads force's first mission. September 2002 Assassination attempt made against President Karzai. April 2004 Britain accused by US of bungling its command of international campaign to rid Afghanistan of opium poppy in southern Helmand province amid unprecedented increase in heroin production. January 2006 3,300 UK forces sent to Helmand as Isaf takes over military operations in the south. In May, UK takes charge of Isaf, which is kept separate from US hunt for Taliban leaders and Bin Laden. August 2006 Fighting in Afghanistan described as "worse than the Korean war" by Isaf commander. December 2007 British soldier killed in fight to recapture Musa Qala, an opium bazaar town in Helmand, bringing total British death toll to 86 since 2001. Britain currently has more than 6,000 troops in Afghanistan. Halkan
-
Hada kahor maqlay naag ninkeeda ka wareegi jiray sixirtay suusan uga wareegan mardambe...Well, wuujoojiyay wareegii lakiin xaaka racaayhee...Iyadii uu ku waashay, jikada hadeegasho "naayaa maxaa jikada ka sameenee"; misqusha hadee gasho "naayaa maxaa waqti dheer u qadanee yaa isu qurxinee"...So one night, misqusha ku daahday, irida intuu laad kufuray, beat the shidh out of her, and said "anaaba ii keentay inaa misqusha telephone kula dhuumatid niman la sheekeesatid" Well, i like this part
-
ehem ehem ,,,, yeah it is true. Eid, Christmas and new year all in the same 10 days ......... can't wait.
-
waar iska joog ......... anaguba waanagan soo daamanka weyne
-
not yet in ,,,,,,,,, will be in soon Insha Allah
-
Even Today, They are still speaking
-
awaited hospital opened in Cayn capital Buhoodle
Jacaylbaro replied to Naxar Nugaaleed's topic in Politics
I don't take the comments sxb ,,,,,,,,, the news is what matters. I always knew Somaliland will bring a really big change towards the development of the region. Hambalyo reer Buuhoodle ......... -
So you don't want NFD to be part of the greater Somalia ?? You disappointed me indeed ......
-
Was Igal the best politician somalis had? YES ,,,,,,,, HE WAS
-
Yahoo asks: Why do Soomaali people all look so similar?
Jacaylbaro replied to Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar's topic in General
Mauritius -
awaited hospital opened in Cayn capital Buhoodle
Jacaylbaro replied to Naxar Nugaaleed's topic in Politics
in Isbitaalkan ay hir geliyeen Dhalinyaro ka soo Jeeda Degmada Buuhoodle iyo maamulka Soomaaliland Good job Somaliland and Reer Buuhoodle -
awaited hospital opened in Cayn capital Buhoodle
Jacaylbaro replied to Naxar Nugaaleed's topic in Politics
in Isbitaalkan ay hir geliyeen Dhalinyaro ka soo Jeeda Degmada Buuhoodle iyo maamulka Soomaaliland Good job Somaliland and Reer Buuhoodle -
Hal hal baa loo soo xeroonayaa
-
London: UDUB Chief Whip Abdirahman M. Jama yesterday met with Liberal Democrat M.P. Mark Hunter in the House of Commons. Mr Hunter, who is the Deputy Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party, expressed an interest in visiting Somaliland on a fact finding mission. Although there has been a recent visit to Hargeisa by the British All Party Parliamentary Group led by Alun Michael, Mark Hunter agreed to explore the possibility of a visit under the auspices of Liberal International, which has a much wider remit. Abdirahman Jama made the case for recognition of Somaliland, citing the case of Kosovo which had recently been discussed at the House of Commons, and obtained a commitment from Mark Hunter that the situation in Somaliland would be raised again in the House, with support from the Liberal Democrats for a process leading to recognition. Arrangements were also made for Mr Jama to visit the European Commission in Brussels next week to meet Commission officials responsible for Horn of Africa policy. It is hoped that as a result of the visit a delegation from the Commission will visit Somaliland early in the New Year. Here
-
Yahoo asks: Why do Soomaali people all look so similar?
Jacaylbaro replied to Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar's topic in General
I find all the Chinesse look so similar ..... -
When there is no control of who is giving the Fatwah to the People then you see Strange ones Hope it'll work for you guys ,,,,,,,
-
Originally posted by xiinfaniin: ->> Dubur, there is spelling error in there, Dubur is supposed to read, Duur [jiqda, duurka] . No ,, there is no spelling error sxb Dubur is the name of a place between Sheikh and Burco where there is a road goest directly to the Hawd area. Means dariiqaasuu maray oo uu hawd ka galay ,,, waa meel aan laga filayn ooo ay adag tahay in laga daba tago weliba.
-
Waxaa xaflad balaadhan oo lagu xusayo saxafiyiin laga soo saaray magaalada Hargeisa ay dhigtay safaarada France uu ku leedahay dalka Kenya xafladaas oo ay kasoo qayb galeen suxufiyiin fara badan iyo waliba dad xaalada dalka Somalia wax badan kala socda. Xafladan oo ay safaarada France ay iska kaashadeen UNDP iyo hay’adaha u dooda xuquuqda aadanaha ayaa waxa ay halkaasi kusoo bandhigeen tacadiyada loo gaysto xquuqda suxufiyiinta ka hawlgala gudaha dalka Somalia oo dhibaatooyin badan oo ay kala kulmaan. Suxufiyiintan loo dhigay xaflada ayaa waxaa laga soo saaray xarunta maamulka somalialnd ee Hargeisa iyadoo maamulku uu uqabtay waqti kama danbaysa oo ay kaga baxaan dhamaanba inay ka baxaan maamulka Somaliland suxufiyiintan ayaa ahaa kuwii kasoo barakacay magaalada Muqdisho oo dagaalo ba’ani ka socdaan. Hadaba suxufiyiintan oo ka koobnaa 39 suxufi oo ah kuwii laga soo saaray magaalada Hargeisa ayaa waxa ay soo saareen baaq ay ku canbaaraynayaan soo saarista laga soo saaray magalaada Hargeisa iyo waliba tacadiga loo gaysto suxufiyiinta ka hawlgala dalka Somalia gudihiisa. Sidoo kale suxufiyiintan ayaa waxa ay xafladaasi kaga warameen tacadiyada suxufiyiinta iyagoo kasoo sheekeeyay waqtiyadii maxaakiimta oo ay yiraahdeen waxa aysan siin jirin suxufiyiinta illaalo ama xaq dhawr u gaar ah halka ay dowlada Somalia ay gabi ahaanba xuquuqdoodii hor istaagtay kuwa ka shaqeeya magaalada Muqisho. halkan
-
good ,, don't be tired