NATO Warship Forces Pirates to Release Ship

With the latest captures and releases now still at least 11 seized foreign vessels (13 sea-related hostage cases since yacht SY LYNN RIVAL was abandoned and taken by the British Navy) with a total of not less than 136 crew members (incl. the British sailing couple) plus at least 9 crew of the lorries held for an exchange with imprisoned pirates, are accounted for. The cases are monitored on our actual case-list, while several other cases of ships, which were observed off the coast of Somalia and have been reported or had reportedly disappeared without trace or information, are still being followed too. Over 134 incidences (including attempted attacks, averted attacks and successful sea-jackings) had been recorded for 2008 with 49 fully documented, factual sea-jacking cases for Somalia and the mistaken sinking of one sea-jacked fishing vessel and killing of her crew by the Indian naval force. For 2009 the account closed with 228 incidences (incl. averted or abandoned attacks) with 68 vessels seized for different reasons on the Somali/Yemeni captor side as well as at least TWELVE wrongful attacks (incl. one friendly fire incident) on the side of the naval forces. 
For 2010 the recorded account stands at 29 attacks resulting in 9 sea-jackings. 
The naval alliances had since August 2008 and until January 2010 apprehended 666 suspected pirates, detained and kept or transferred for prosecution 367,  killed 47 and wounded 22 Somalis. (New independent update see: http://bruxelles2.over-blog.com/pages/_Bilan_antipiraterie_Atalanta_CTF_Otan_Russie_Exclusif-1169128.html). 
Not fully documented cases of absconded vessels are not listed in the sea-jack count until clarification. Several other vessels with unclear fate (although not in the actual count), who were reported missing over the last ten years in this area, are still kept on our watch-list, though in some cases it is presumed that they sunk due to bad weather or being unfit to sail – like the S/Y Serenity, MV Indian Ocean Explorer.Present multi-factorial risk assessment code: GoA: ORANGE / IO: RED  (Red = Very much likely, high season; Orange = Reduced risk, but very likely, Yellow = significantly reduced risk, but still likely, Blue = possible, Green = unlikely). Piracy incidents usually degrade during the monsoon season and rise gradually by the end of the monsoon. Starting from mid February until early April every year an increase in piracy cases can be expected. 
If you have any additional information concerning the cases, please send to office[at]ecoterra-international.org – if required we guarantee 100% confidentiality.
For further details and regional information see the Somali Marine and Coastal Monitor at www.australia.to and the map of the PIRACY COASTS OF SOMALIA.

—————- directly piracy, abduction, mariner or naval upsurge related reports ——————–

DUTCH NAVY DESTROYS WORLDBANK AND DANIDA PROJECT BOAT (ecoterra)
The media propaganda distributed by EU NAVFOR (see below) contained a picture, which shows very clearly that the open fishing boat destroyed by the Dutch navy was project property of NECFISH, a Worldbank and DANIDA financed fisheries development project – the North East Coast Fishing Enterprises (NEC-FISH), implemented with the Somali Ministry of Fisheries.
The main aim of this project was to develop fisheries at the North-East coast of Somalia. It had a budget of  US$21.5m provided by the Worldbank and the Danish development agency DANIDA. 
What the navy falsely calls a “whaler” (i.e. a powerful boat used to harpoon whales) is in reality the typical Somali fishing boat used for net-fishing, produced in fibreglass by a Swedish development project, which operated south of Mogadishu and equipped with a robust Volvo Penta inboard engine, which is why the Somalis call it “VOLVA” – a slow but reliable workhorse of the fishermen.
That this boat maybe was misused to transport fuel for skiffs used in piracy attacks will have to be proven by the Dutch.
But even if so, the DUTCH had no right to destroy the boat in one of the typical shoot&explode excercises of the bored navies, which also polluted the sea. 
The boat is official property of the Somali Government and the Somali people and could have easily be handed back to the rightful owners to be used e.g. in fisheries surveillance or to be given to one of the impoverished fishing communities.
ECOTERRA Intl. has repeatedly protested against such wilful destruction and urged the navies to hand over the confiscated boats to the Somali government or to fisheries development projects in Somalia, to stop illegal foreign fishing vessels from entering the Somali waters, to respect themselves the sovreignty of Somalia and to follow strictly the enshrined international laws – not some constructs which do not hold water. While real acts of piracy against innocent merchant vessel must be countered by a moral and legal means, the “prevention model” applied now reminds of the ideas propagated for an “Endloesung” over 60 years ago! 

EU NAVFOR Destroys 2 more Pirate Action Groups (PAG) (EU NAVFOR Atalanta PR)
On 12^th March, after receiving a report from MV E.R. LUBECK (Liberian Flag, German owner), that pirates in 2 skiffs had tried to hijack her, COMEUNAVFOR initiated a surge operation to intercept and disrupt the PAG. 
 The EU NAVFOR Flagship ITS ETNA tasked the EUNAVFOR Swedish and Luxemburg Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) and EUNAVFOR Warship HNLMS TROMP against the PAG consisting of one mother skiff and two skiffs. 
The attack on the LUBECK took place almost one thousand miles from the Somali coast and HNLMS TROMP proceeded at best speed to assist. The EU NAVFOR MPA continued to track the PAG and vectored the warship onto the suspected pirate position.   
On the 14^th of March, on arrival at the scene of action, HNLMS TROMP launched her helicopter, located a skiff and was forced to fire several warning shots before the 10 metres long mother ship (whaler) stopped. A boarding party soon took control of the boat with two persons onboard. HNLMS TROMP continued to search the area and, the following day, found two suspicious skiffs with 7 persons onboard about one hundred nautical miles from the whaler. Some equipment had been jettisoned but ladders and weapons were found onboard the skiffs. All equipment was confiscated and the mother ship was destroyed. 
[N.B.: The Dutch defence ministry states the location differently compared to the EU-spin: "A Dutch navy frigate has disarmed three vessels suspected of piracy near the coast of Somalia, the Dutch ministry of Defence announced on Tuesday", and said:"A 10-metre-long (30-foot) "mother ship" with two suspected pirates on board was intercepted off the Somali coast on Sunday, about 750 kilometres (470 miles) from the Seychelles." "Two other, smaller vessels with the remaining seven suspects on board were apprehended in the vicinity a day later," added the statement. - To make this blurred picture a bit clearer: On a 90 degree line off the Central Somali coastline the Seychelles Archipelago is located in a distance of around 650 nm. The location of the incident therefore was most likely inside the 200nm zone of Somalia, which was also confirmed by local elders, who have in the meantime spoken to the returnees, who as the Dutch MOD statement explained "The suspects were questioned and were due to be freed on one of their own boats on Tuesday, said the ministry. The other two boats were to be destroyed." - "Without direct proof of the act of piracy, there is no need to prosecute," spokesperson Marloes Visser told AFP. - The Dutch Navy thereby committed an act of piracy and armed robbery at sea inside the Somali waters. With this they stand accused of actual crimes together with the Danish and Norwegian navy, who even committed outright murder on Somali and Yemeni nationals. The navies thereby have lost any ethical, moral or legal grounds in their so called anti-piracy activities. A people like the Somalis, who hold revenche dearly enshrined in their traditional regime of justice, will retaliate.] 
At about the same time as the TROMP was disrupting her PAG, and approximately one hundred nautical miles North West of the SEYCHELLES, the Seychellois Coast Guard PB ANDROMACHE was guided by EU NAVFOR MPA onto another mother ship and 2 skiffs, who were believed to have been involved in an attempted hijacking on a Spanish tuna Fishing Vessel TXORI ARGI the day before.  After that attack, the EU NAVFOR MPA monitored the PAG and was able to direct the Seychelles Coast Guard on to the approximate position. 8 suspected pirates have been taken into custody.
No Wonder:The Somalis Now Go After Them:
EU NAVFOR Warship Evades Pirate Attack – and disrupts another Pirate Action Group (EU NAVFOR ATALANTA PR)
Early this morning, 17 March, two small skiffs made a fast approach on the EU NAVFOR Dutch HNLMS TROMP with, what appeared, to be a pirate attack.    
The TROMP fired warning shots as they approached and it was this action that alerted the “would be” pirates to the fact that they were trying to attack a well armed Naval warship. [N.B.: Some media surely turned this again in a way that Somalis, who operate sophisticated radar installations from vessels in captivity would not know whom they attack - well that was also the thought of the pilots of the Blackhawk gunships in Mogadishu and the sailors of USS Cole off Yemen - until it was too late.]
The warship, HNLMS TROMP of the Royal Netherlands Navy, was patrolling the region as part of the ongoing EU counter-piracy mission, when it was approached at high speed by two small vessels, known as skiffs, shortly after 0630 GMT. Warning shots were fired by the naval vessel, which also deployed its helicopter to intercept the suspects who attempted to flee.  An EU NAVFOR Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) from Sweden was also on the scene, tracking a third boat, the suspected pirates’ mother ship, and monitoring the safety of any merchant shipping in the area. 
A search of the skiffs by the EU NAVFOR ship uncovered ammunition and some rocket propelled grenades were also found. Ten suspects were held on board the warship before being released to one of their boats. Having completed the search, the warship destroyed the other two skiffs and reported the incident to the Seychelles Coast Guard, with whom the EU NAVFOR works closely.  This is the 11^thPirate Attack Group that EU NAVFOR has been involved in disrupting in the last 2 weeks.
[N.B.: With no more WFP ships to escort, because the World Food Programme has been banned out of Somalia by Al-Shabaab and stripped of funding by the US, while an investigation concerning fraud is ongoing, the European navies have now resorted to hunting any Somali on the waters. While illegal fishing by foreign vessels in Somali waters is rampant the navy vessels around the Horn have not only not in a single case stopped any fish-poacher while they are preventing the Somalis to go after those, they also stand accused even by high governmental officials from Somalia to protect illegal fishing and not permitted geo- and hydro-graphic exploration operations in the Somali waters and along the continental shelf of Somalia. ]

The Somali Pirates’ Business Model by Mark Leon Goldberg (UN-Dispatch) Last week, a group of investigators dispatched by the Security Council to Somalia released an exhaustive, 100 plus page report on arms trafficking, aid diversion, and other criminal activities in Somalia.  So far, much of the press around the report has focused on allegations that World Food Program aid had beendiverted to suspected militants.  The report also provides evidence that Eritrea has been supporting Somali militants, raising the prospect that Eritrea will once again come under international condemnation. 
I’ll have much more to write about this report soon. In the meantime, I found this short explanation of the pirates’ business model, tucked away in the report’s annex, to be fascinating. 
A basic piracy operation requires a minimum eight to twelve militia prepared to stay at sea for extended periods of time, in the hopes of hijacking a passing vessel. Each team requires a minimum of two attack skiffs, weapons, equipment, provisions, fuel and preferably a supply boat. The costs of the operation are usually borne by investors, some of whom may also be pirates. 
To be eligible for employment as a pirate, a volunteer should already possess a firearm for use in the operation. For this ‘contribution’, he receives a ‘class A’ share of any profit. Pirates who provide a skiff or a heavier firearm, like an RPG or a general purpose machine gun, may be entitled to an additional A-share. The first pirate to board a vessel may also be entitled to an extra A-share. 
At least 12 other volunteers are recruited as militiamen to provide protection on land of a ship is hijacked, In addition, each member of the pirate team may bring a partner or relative to be part of this land-based force. Militiamen must possess their own weapon, and receive a ‘class B’ share — usually a fixed amount equivalent to approximately US$15,000. 
If a ship is successfully hijacked and brought to anchor, the pirates and the militiamen require food, drink, qaad, fresh clothes, cell phones, air time, etc. The captured crew must also be cared for. In most cases, these services are provided by one or more suppliers, who advance the costs in anticipation of reimbursement, with a significant margin of profit, when ransom is eventually paid. 
When ransom is received, fixed costs are the first to be paid out. These are typically: 
• Reimbursement of supplier(s) 
• Financier(s) and/or investor(s): 30% of the ransom 
• Local elders: 5 to 10 %of the ransom (anchoring rights) 
• Class B shares (approx. $15,000 each): militiamen, interpreters etc. 
The remaining sum — the profit — is divided between class-A shareholders. 
Wonder if they teach that at Wharton? 

‘Time to beat piracy’ campaign announced (bymnews)
Union representatives meeting in Berlin, Germany, have voted to launch a new campaign to persuade all governments to commit the resources necessary to end the increasing problem of Somalia-based piracy. 
Seafarers’ delegates at ITF meetings in Germany authorised the Federation to build a campaign that is hoped to deliver half a million signatures to governments by World Maritime Day, September 23rd. The campaign will call on them to close the circle on protection of ships, and for those states now ducking their responsibilities to stand up and follow the example of those which are actively involved in combating the threat. 
The petition will call on nations to: 
Dedicate significant resources and work to find real solutions to the growing piracy problem. 
Take immediate steps to secure the release and safe return of kidnapped seafarers to their families 
Work within the international community to secure a stable and peaceful future for Somalia and its people 
Speaking from Berlin, ITF Maritime Coordinator Steve Cotton said: “This decision has empowered us to build a worldwide campaign to put pressure on all governments to close the gap in their anti-piracy efforts. At the end of last year* we warned that a point had been reached where the affected area had become too dangerous to enter, except in exceptional circumstances. We also highlighted the scandalous negligence of countries making billions from ships they are doing nothing to protect. There has been no improvement since then.” 
He continued: “The reality is that seafarers are risking their lives transporting the world’s goods through areas that are daily growing more dangerous. That situation is not going to change without dramatic efforts to address the problems of Somalia and its people and grasp the nettle of confronting and prosecuting piracy.” 
The Berlin meeting also agreed to support the inclusion, where appropriate, of armed military personnel on ships in addition to the commitment by flag states of naval vessels. The ITF remains firmly opposed to the arming of seafarers. It is also gravely concerned by attempts to prevent the payment of ransoms and considers that it is the duty of shipowners and flag states to take all necessary measures to swiftly reunite seafarers with their families when they are held hostage. The ITF also stated that it is unforgiveable that the major flag of convenience states have done little more to fight piracy than sign pieces of paper. They have taken no other concrete action, nor have they used their flag state jurisdiction to enable the prosecution of any pirates.
The ITF will now work on an e-petition website and a cross-industry international campaign intended to deliver a powerful message to governments on World Maritime Day
 

Kuwait: NATO Pays Special Attention To Persian Gulf 
NATO attaches special attention to Kuwait, Gulf region (KuwaitNewsAgency)
-Deputy Chief of the National Security Apparatus Sheikh Thamer Ali Al-Sabah hailed distinguished relations between Kuwait and NATO in all areas, mainly military and academic ones.
He said he would lead a Kuwaiti security and military delegation to the NATO Defence College within a couple of weeks in order to get acquainted with key activities carried out there.
Since 2004, there has been continuing cooperation and coordination between Kuwait and the NATO, he said, lauding the level of bilateral strategic relations. 
KUWAIT: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) pays a special attention to Kuwait and the Gulf region, seeking closer cooperative ties with Kuwait in military and academic areas, a visiting NATO general said here yesterday.
In a lecture at the Kuwaiti Diplomatic Institute, Lt Gen Wolf-Dieter Loeser, the Commandant of the NATO Defense College (NDC), stressed the significance of deepening bilateral relations between both sides….
He believed that fresh strategic concepts need to be introduced, calling on Kuwait to join this important alliance. The NATO general is here to hold talks with Kuwaiti military and security officials on cooperative relations between Kuwait and NATO.
He added that many plans and measures had been taken by the NATO to fight
terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change, energy security, piracy and organized crime. He noted that bilateral cooperation could be further reinforced and cemented through the Istanbul Initiative, of which Kuwait is a member.
The Commandant of the NATO Defence College (NDC) reiterated NATO’s declared goals of ensuring security and stability in the region. For his part, Director of the Kuwaiti Diplomatic Institute Ambassador Abdel-Aziz Al-Sharekh said the NATO general’s lecture at the institute came within the framework of growing and promising relations between Kuwait and other GCC member countries, and the NATO.
It also comes at a time when there is mounting interest in the security situation in the region, he added. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the lecture, Deputy Chief of the National Security Apparatus Sheikh Thamer Ali Al-Sabah hailed distinguished relations between Kuwait and NATO in all areas, mainly military and academic ones.
He said he would lead a Kuwaiti security and military delegation to the NATO Defence College within a couple of weeks in order to get acquainted with key activities carried out there. He added that Kuwaiti academic students would also visit the college soon to learn from its professors. 
Since 2004, there has been continuing cooperation and coordination between Kuwait and the NATO, he said, lauding the level of bilateral strategic relations.

Partnership Station: U.S. Incorporates African Navies In Broader Nexus 
APS East 2010 Deployment Concludes (UnitedStatesAfricaCommand – AfricaPartnershipStation)
-”While APS has been active in East Africa for a few years,” explained APS East Commander Captain James E. Tranoris, “this year marks the inaugural deployment of an international staff to execute the mission.” 
-Staff officers from Brazil, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, Tanzania, and the United States worked directly with the commander to plan and execute the APS East mission….
“From Naples, the ships steamed to Souda Bay, Greece, and then through the Suez Canal to our first Africa Partnership Station engagement in Djibouti,” said Major Eliud Keter of the Kenya navy and operations officer for APS East. “During this deployment, Swift and Nicholas covered a total of 12,500 nautical miles and conducted 11 ports of calls; namely, Mombasa, Kenya; Dar es salaam, Tanzania; Durban and Cape Town, South Africa; Maputo, Mozambique; Port East, Reunion; Port Louis, Mauritius; and Port Victoria, Seychelles.” 
MOMBASA, Kenya: Africa Partnership Station (APS) East, an international cooperative initiative aimed at strengthening maritime safety and security, concluded its 2010 deployment with a close-out review by high-level naval leadership from Kenya, Namibia, Tanzania and the United States on March 12, 2010 in Mombasa, Kenya. 
Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, hosted the event to provide APS East partner countries an opportunity to hear first-hand accounts of the training and collaborative activities from the multinational staff that executed the mission. 
….
Fitzgerald went on to say that APS East is a great illustration of collaboration and highlighted that this year’s two training platforms, high speed vessel Swift (HSV 2) and frigate USS Nicholas (FFG-47….
Among the partners in attendance were Major General Samson Mwathethe, commander of the Kenya navy and Major General Said Shaaban Omar, commander of the Tanzania People’s Defence Force. Additionally, Captain Paulus Amungulu, chief of staff of the Namibian navy, was invited as an observer in hopes that Namibia will consider including staff on future deployments. Major General Mwathethe was invited to give a keynote address. 
“The Kenyan government appreciates everyone involved on the APS staff for all of their hard work during this mission,” stated Mwathethe. “Swift and Nicholas started this mission with eight Kenya navy sailors. The Kenya navy has greatly benefited from this program, because Kenya lacks the platforms to complete this type of training.” ….
APS got its start back in 2006, when 11 Gulf of Guinea leaders met in Benin and agreed to an action plan to build maritime safety and security in four areas: maritime professionals, maritime domain awareness, maritime infrastructure, and maritime response capabilities. The initiative first began with deployments in West Africa, later expanding to include East Africa in 2008.
“While APS has been active in East Africa for a few years,” explained APS East Commander Captain James E. Tranoris, “this year marks the inaugural deployment of an international staff to execute the mission.” 
Staff officers from Brazil, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, Tanzania, and the United States worked directly with the commander to plan and execute the APS East mission….
In their review brief, the international staff discussed the lengthy planning process that began with an initial planning conference in May 2009. Two more planning conferences, which included a familiarization visit on Swift, and a staff training conference in Naples, Italy, all took place before the deployment kicked off in late December 2009. 
The ships and staff sailed for over a two and a half month period, planning as an international staff, teaming on in port and at sea training, conducting meetings with maritime leaders, and engaging the public with community relations projects. 
“From Naples, the ships steamed to Souda Bay, Greece, and then through the Suez Canal to our first Africa Partnership Station engagement in Djibouti,” said Major Eliud Keter of the Kenya navy and operations officer for APS East. “During this deployment, Swift and Nicholas covered a total of 12,500 nautical miles and conducted 11 ports of calls; namely, Mombasa, Kenya; Dar es salaam, Tanzania; Durban and Cape Town, South Africa; Maputo, Mozambique; Port East, Reunion; Port Louis, Mauritius; and Port Victoria, Seychelles.” 
When it came time to discuss partner-country training, the training officer, Major Jumaa Kassi of the Tanzania People’s Defence Force, revealed that a total of 562 maritime professionals participated in the classroom and practical training courses offered in port and an additional 58 international sailors completed at sea training. 
During the deployment, Swift and Nicholas brought with them teams of maritime experts who provided training and engaged in exercises with the maritime professionals of the APS participating nations. In addition to the port visits, Nicholas conducted at sea instruction. The trainees spend their time not only learning basic watchstanding principles, leadership skills, damage control and engineering, but also building relationships with sailors from around the globe. ….
At the conclusion of the brief, Commander Misero Mujui of Mozambique and APS director of staff, left the guests with parting thoughts. 
“Generally, very few common African citizens on the east coast know much about this Africa Partnership Station initiative and how it affects their country or their daily personal lives,” explained Mujui. “During this deployment we were able to educate and inform African citizens at all levels of society of the important role maritime safety and security plays in improving their nations’ security, stability and prosperity.” …. 

CHINA’s SOMALI SECURITY
Yai Baojian, fleet commander in the South China Sea Fleet, allays concerns that two new warships escorting UN food aid [... where there is no more food to be escorted] in piracy-infested waters project China’s blue water navy.
“So long as they stay in Somalia waters, away from Panganiban reef, we could defuse the controversy over the Spratleys with just one preposition… call the area South of China Sea,” commented Ambassador Jose A. Zaide in the Manila Bulletin.

——— ecology , ecosystems, marine environment, IUU fishing and dumping, UNCLOS ———— 

The Hidden Side of Somali Piracy by María Femés
In recent times, the world has witnessed a growing phenomenon in the Horn of Africa: Piracy. Something that was considered a relic of the past has returned in strength, mobilizing governments, navies, and security companies determined to fight without reserve. As a result, Somalia has become the demonized “producer of pirates.” But we know very little about the reasons why this phenomenon has arisen in a country where the pirates are miserably dressed men in arms, with poor handling outboard engine ships equipped with a simple GPS. 
Censored News
It is very striking that Project Censored, an academic program at the University of Sonoma in San Francisco, which produces an annual listing of the most censored news, has in third place this year, a story that shows the flip side of Somali pirates.
This report, reveals that many pirates are actually bankrupt, outraged local fishermen who have rebelled against the continued abuse of their fishing grounds by large foreign vessels illegally fishing and infecting their waters and coasts with radioactive and toxic discharges, in front of a passive Mogadishu government.
Somalia is a country of approximately 9 million people and extremely poor. Its population has been steadily ravaged by famine. With nearly 1,900 miles of coastline, Somalia has no coastguard almost two decades since the end of civil wars, some externally induced, that collapsed its government.
Pollution and Resource Depletion
In 1991, Somalia’s government collapsed; the country depleted of food resources and its waters polluted by nuclear waste in what might be called “the other piracy.” 
Western fleets engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) activities in Somali waters, have harvested an estimated $327 million annually in fish and seafood, the main source of protein in one of the poorest nations in the world, thus ruining the legitimate livelihood of its inhabitants and fishermen.
In 1992, European Union member countries and another 168 nations signed the Basel Convention of Transboundary Movements Control of Hazardous Wastes and their storage, which led to sending hazardous waste to war zones. 
Although claims of discharge of toxic waste and illegal fishing exist, and can be documented dating back to the early 1990s, the strongest evidence emerged in 2004 when a tsunami hit the country, blowing rusty trash bins of toxic waste onto the shores of Puntland in northern Somalia, according to the United Nations Program for Environment (UNEP). 
UNEP spokesman Nick Nuttall told the Arabic news channel Al-Jazeera, that when the containers were broken and opened by the pounding waves, they uncovered a “frightening activity” that had taken place for over a decade.
“Somalia is being used as landfill for hazardous waste since the early 1990s,” said Nuttall. According to him, “there is uranium radioactive waste, the main garbage, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. There is also industrial waste, hospital wastes, chemical wastes and whatever you want.” 
According to sources, by 2004, the coastal population had already begun to fall ill. At first, the inhabitants had strange rashes, nausea, and babies born with malformations. But after the tsunami of late 2004, washing hundreds of these barrels and their contents up onto the beaches, people began to show symptoms of radiation, and more than 300 people died. 
Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, U.N. envoy to Somalia, said, “Someone pulls nuclear materials here.” When asked if European governments had decided to do something to remedy this, he replied, “Nothing. No cleaning, no compensation and no preventive action.” 
Lack of Lasting Solutions
The U.N. has done nothing to stop the continued devastation of Somali marine resources and the discharge of toxic waste. This is the context in which the pirates appeared—disenfranchised fishermen, plus gangsters, and opportunists.
In this scenario, it is not surprising that apparently some “pirates” have the support of a majority of the population. The Web site of the independent Somali press Wardha News conducted a survey into what the population thinks about Somali piracy, and 70 percent said they “strongly support piracy as a form of national defense of the country’s territorial waters.”
As time goes by, the situation is likely to become more complicated. International authorities will sooner or later have to consider that the piracy problem in the Indian Ocean goes far beyond sending naval vessels or private security companies to fight with fire and sword.

EU confirms support for bluefin tuna trade ban (EurActiv with Reuters)
European Union ambassadors agreed to propose protecting bluefin tuna as an endangered species on Wednesday (10 March), a move that would effectively ban international trade in the species.
Background
In February, the European Commission proposed including bluefin tuna in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (EurActiv 23/02/10).
This would mean a strict regulation and a ban on international trade in the fish although the Commission proposes that the listing should not take place immediately, but within 12 months of the March CITES meeting, which takes place from 13 to 25 March.
Most European countries have already expressed support for a ban, with Malta and Cyprus seen as the last EU opponents. 
Spain, Italy, France and Greece, which feature among Europe’s largest fishing fleets, initially challenged the plan, saying transition measures were needed for fishermen to adapt to the ban.

Commission backs bluefin tuna trade ban (euractiv)
Save our elephants, we’ll help you save tuna, Africa tells EU
The agreement reached by EU governments, based on a proposal from the European Commission last month, will be formally adopted by EU energy ministers meeting in Brussels today (11 March).
The EU agreement comes ahead of a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) that will take place from 13 to 25 March to consider a number of species, including bluefin tuna, elephants and polar bears.
Scientists say stocks of the Atlantic bluefin – which can fetch $100,000 each at market – have fallen by more than 80% over the last 40 years to around 3.2 million.
The ambassadors attached a number of conditions to the EU’s support, including a one-year delay to the ban on fishing that normally follows an ‘endangered’ listing, and an opt-out for “artisanal” fishermen using small boats to supply local markets.
Governments also promised to consider paying financial compensation to EU fishermen affected by a possible ban on catching the fish which is used mainly in sushi – a concession designed to win the support of countries with domestic tuna fisheries.
Malta voted against the proposed ban while Sweden and Austria abstained, EU sources said.
Environmental groups said the EU had not done enough to reduce oversized bluefin tuna fishing fleets, and had even subsidised expansion.
“Over eight years the EU bluefin tuna fishing industry received subsidies totalling 34.5 million euros. Of this, 33.5 million euros was for the construction and modernisation of vessels, with only a tiny proportion for decommissioning,” said Markus Knigge of the Pew Environment Group.
The group will publish a report tomorrow revealing that 36 French and Spanish vessel owners convicted of illegal fishing activities collected 13.5 million euros in EU subsidies between 1994 and 2006.
On Wednesday the EU also confirmed its opposition to a resumption in the international ivory trade. A nine-year ban on ivory sales was agreed in 2007, but Tanzania and Zambia are accused by other African nations of seeking to resume the trade.
The ambassadors did not support an endangered listing for the polar bear, arguing the main threat to the animal comes from the loss of sea ice due to climate change, a source in the meeting said.

Positions
Greenpeace EU oceans policy director Saskia Richartz said: “With this agreement, the EU adds critical mass to the global call to save bluefin tuna. But, unlike the US and other countries, the EU wants to defer the trade ban until early next year. The only thing this could achieve is to allow more time for the fishing industry to sell this year’s catch.”

ECOP-marine campaigner Maria Delgado sees it similar and supports the position of ECOTERRA Intl., which demands an immediate, worldwide trade ban, because some Bluefin tuna populations already have collapsed and nobody has been able so far to even breed any bluefin tuna. The tuna “farming” practised today is only catching from the wild and keeping them behind cages and therefore only serves as fig leave while the migratory populations in the wild collapse due to criminal and reckless overfishing by an industry with Mafia structures of organized crime reaching into the highest echelons of political parties in Europe and Japan, where the subsidies for the modern vessels and hunting technologies are scooped off the taxpayer. While drastic measures to safe the bluefin tuna from getting extinct can no longer be debated but must be implemented immediately, the nature protection organization also asks for a moratorium on the Indian Ocean Yellow fin tuna catches, where vast areas of man made dead seas – deprived of any oxygen, like off the mouth of the Ganges in the Arabian Sea – have shrunk the marine habitat of the migratory species and fisheries wars like off  Somalia cost many lives and billions of dollars.

Blue Fin Tuna Decline and Fall by Andy Soos (ENN)

An EU agreement has been reached on the protection of species in danger of extinction: the red tuna, the elephant and the polar bear (EFE)

————————— anti-piracy measures ——————————–
 

EU NAVFOR Transferes 11 Suspected Pirates to Seychelles for prosecution (EU NAVFOR PR)
17 March saw the culmination of highly successful EU NAVFOR pirate disruption activities by the EU NAVFOR French warship NIVOSE against Pirate Action Groups (PAG) operating in the Somali basin, approximately 350 nautical miles off the Somali Coast. [N.B.: According to other sources - including the French Navy the group was arrested inside the 200nm zone of Somalia.]
The PAG activities on 4 March led to an immediate response by EU NAVFOR warships and Maritime Patrol Aircraft and the EU NAVFOR Flag ship ETNA despatched NIVOSE to seek out the PAGs operating in the area.  On 5 March, NIVOSE intercepted a PAG and boarded two skiffs and a mother ship. The mother ship (whaler) was destroyed and she took on board two skiffs and detained 11 suspected pirates in an area clearly linked to the unsuccessful attack on the Spanish FV Intertuna 2. With the evidence gathered and presented to the Seychelles authorities, it was approved for the 11 detainees to be flown from Djibouti to the Seychelles for prosecution. 
At 14.45 local time the 11 detainees arrived at Seychelles International airport. The detainees were handed over to the Seychelles Authorities. Present at the airport was Deputy Commander EU NAVFOR RAdw Bauza. After the detainees left RAdm Bauza was interviewed by the press and stated: “Today is a good day but you mustn’t forget the people at sea and the Seychelles Coastguard which are doing a wonderful job”.
 

An international fleet of warships is attacking and destroying Somali pirate vessels closer to the shores of East Africa and the new strategy, combined with more aggressive confrontations further out to sea, has dealt the brigands a setback, officials and experts said Thursday.
The new tactics by the European Union naval force comes after Spain — which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, and whose fishing vessels are frequent pirate targets — encouraged more aggressive pursuit of pirates and the coalition obtained more aircraft and other military assets, said Rear Adm. Peter Hudson, the force commander.
The EU Naval Force attacked 12 groups of pirate vessels, which normally includes several skiffs and a mother vessel, this month, more than last year. Half of those attacks were on the high seas and half close to shore, reflecting the new strategy to intercept pirates before they reach deep water and international shipping lanes.
Hudson told The Associated Press that the force wants to “get up close … before they can attack some ships” and use the additional aircraft to spot pirate vessels and send warships to intercept them.
With calmer waters, March is typically a busy month for pirate attacks. But only two ships have been taken in the first two weeks of the month, down from four hijackings over the same period last year, said EU naval spokesman Cmdr. John Harbour. The number of unsuccessful attacks also dropped. About half of last year’s 47 successful hijackings happened during March, April and May.
Citing operational security, Harbour would not say how close to the coast the ships now get but noted that the EU Naval Force has the right to go into Somali waters, or within three miles offshore. [N.B.: ... only according to Harbours own laws. Future work, which international courts will have to do to sort out all the legal and governmental mess inflicting harm on Somalia, will prove him wrong. However, in the old days such statement by a British naval commander and the ongoing blunt violation of country's sovereignty would have been taken as an outright declaration of war - while it seems that today many believe they can get away with any act concerning Somalia.]
Hudson said it is too soon to tell whether the gains of the new strategy will hold. He said an improved level of co-operation between EU forces, NATO and U.S. naval forces based out of Bahrain is also helping.
Some experts agree the international forces have led to a drop in pirate attacks in a period when they would normally be firing at numerous vessels, climbing aboard on ladders and taking the crews hostage at gunpoint.
“They are at the moment effectively suppressing what would otherwise be chaos,” said Graeme Gibbon Brooks of Dryad Maritime Intelligence in Britain.
If the pirates aren’t detained for prosecution — and most are not — they are disarmed and put back out to sea on one craft. Harbour said that while the aggressive tactics are not a long-term solution, they force pirates to find new vessels and weapons before they can launch more attacks.
Until stability returns to Somalia, young men will continue to risk drowning or imprisonment for the multimillion dollar ransoms that ships can fetch, experts say. There are few other job prospects in the impoverished nation, which has not had a stable government for 19 years.
“The big question is, what is happening about fixing Somalia?” asked Alan Cole, a lawyer who heads the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime’s anti-piracy initiative. “Right now I’m just chasing leaves falling off a tree.”
Eleven out of the 81 suspected pirates detained by the EU this month are being held for prosecution, said Harbour. Many European countries whose vessels have been attacked by pirates are reluctant to bring suspects home for trial in case they try to claim asylum.
Most of the hundreds of Somalis who are in prison on piracy charges are in Kenya, which has 18 convicted pirates and 107 suspects on trial, Cole said. They are also imprisoned in the semiautonomous northern Somali region of Puntland, in the Seychelles, Maldives, Yemen and Somaliland.

The Pirates’ Toll: Insurance and Razor Wire by Scott Eden (TheStreet)

He also says, “Regardless of the financial costs of piracy, it’s still first and foremost a human issue — period. The pirates are taking the ships because they know that the people, the crews, are what’s being paid for to be released.” 
The World’s Navies Respond to Somali Piracy 
But the full meaning behind this insight would only come in time. Before the hijacking, Christodoulou was more concerned with the fiscal health of his company, Industrial Shipping Enterprise Corp., or ISEC, which he had taken over as CEO in 2007, hired by its seed-capital investors to prepare it for an eventual IPO, at which he had some experience. 
Though his name might suggest deep nautical genetics, or whitewashed villages rising from a turquoise sea, Christodoulou was born and bred in New Jersey, the son of a printer. (He looks the part, though. Burly as a stevedore, he seems to prefer heavy woolen turtleneck sweaters. You wonders where’s the corncob pipe.) He came to shipping in the late 1990s while working for a private equity firm that had transacted some business with the company that would become General Maritime (GMR). He got to know its founder, Peter Georgiopolous, who brought him on as chief financial officer. He helped take it public in 2001. He did the same, a few years later, for OceanFrieght (OCNF). In between, he worked as a shipping-industry banker for a boutique investment bank called Dahlman Rose. 
ISEC, however, was a long way from the New York Stock Exchange. It employed five full-time people, Christodoulou included, outsourcing most of its tasks. Annual revenue approached $8 million, and it owned just two ships — a pair of sibling double-hulled “product tankers,” the kind of vessels outfitted to carry anything wet, save for crude oil. Built in 1986, the sisters had aged. Christodoulou’s ultimate goal was to renovate and expand ISEC’s “fleet,” if that term was yet quite applicable, but any IPO dreams had been deferred in the late summer of 2008, with a global financial crisis and recession just then expanding into bloom. 
In September 2008, when ISEC scored a cargo — $600,000 to carry 25,000 tons of palm oil from Indonesia to Spain — Christodoulou’s main goal was to get through the rest of the year unscathed. He focused his attentions on the Biscaglia’s latest voyage. 
“DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT” 
The fastest way to point B would take about 28 days and would mean a transit through the Gulf of Aden, a.k.a. “Pirate Alley,” often abbreviated “GOA” by shipping people, and known in the Somali language as Khaleejka Cadan. Four times the area of Texas, the Gulf of Aden is 200 miles wide and 550 long — a crocodile’s mouth of water formed by the jaws of the Arabian Peninsula coast to the north and the Somali Horn of Africa to the south. It funnels all Mediterranean-bound traffic up the sluice of the Red Sea; in either direction, almost anything that wants to use the Suez Canal — where ships ride the lochs over the sands of the Sinai — must therefore traverse the Gulf of Aden.
The whole connected waterway — GOA, Red Sea, Suez, Med — is one of the busiest shipping lanes on earth. The goods of the East en route to the merchants of Europe (and vice versa) — it isn’t so much the descendent of the Silk Road as the current iteration of it. A guesstimated 20,000 to 25,000 merchant ships move through the waterway each year (no one knows for sure how many, not even the Suez Canal), including as much as 20% of the world’s ocean-going oil. For the pirates of Somalia, this presents a rather target-rich environment. 
Christodoulou and ISEC therefore faced a choice: either send the Biscaglia through the Suez, risking an attack or worse, or take the long route around Africa, around the Cape of Good Hope, up the west coast of the continent and on to Spain. It would add something like 8,000 miles and three weeks to the trip — at the time, about $350,000 more in fuel costs than the Suez route. Of course, bypassing the canal would save ISEC about $250,000 — the amount in fees the Suez charges for a ship of the Biscaglia’s size. 
It’s well understood among shipping people that if the industry were to collude, and everyone agreed to bypass the Suez, freight rates would rocket; the longer voyages would pull ships off the market, squeezing supply. “Piracy could be considered a good thing,” says a shipping-stock analyst, “if you look at the supply-demand balance.” 
But the longer journey would take money out of ISEC’s pocket in other ways. Because the company hired out its ships on the spot market as opposed to fixing them into long-term charters, the longer the delay on one trip, the more it would reduce the available days for the Biscaglia to earn money on future voyages: the cost of the lost opportunity. ISEC figured that number at about $400,000, according to the going spot rate for a Biscaglia-size product tanker, which was then a little north of $20,000 a day. 
Further, ISEC wasn’t exactly in a position of cash strength. Things were tight. It owed a bank. The bank wanted a debt payment by the end of the year. ISEC needed the voyage’s $600,000 in revenue to make the payment. If the ship had to circumnavigate a continent, it likely wouldn’t discharge its palm oil — and receive its $600,000 — until January. Going around Africa, then, could possibly mean delinquency. 
Piracy vs. delinquency, the odds of a hijacking against the probability of missing a debt payment, “which would send up red flags at the bank at a time when we didn’t want to send up red flags”: this was the calculus of the moment. And the calculus said: via Suez. 
Back then, in the fall of 2008, piracy in the GOA had only just begun to make headlines in the U.S. By far the most famous pirate incident to date, the bloody attempted hijacking of the Maersk Alabama, when Navy SEAL sharpshooters killed three pirates holding the ship’s captain hostage in a lifeboat after a botched raid, wouldn’t occur for another five months. [The aftermath of the rescue is pictured above; the orange craft is the Alabama's lifeboat.]
Colleagues in the industry pooh-poohed Christodoulou’s fears. “Don’t worry about it. It’s a few ragtag guys. Nothing’s going to happen.” They pointed out the miniscule odds of a ship getting hit. If twenty-some-thousand craft sail through Pirate Alley in a year, and a few dozen are hijacked, the result of the obvious math ought to ease any ship owner’s mind. (Even considering the huge upsurge in Somalia-based piracy since 2008, the odds of capture remain microscopic. If the number of annual GOA-Suez transits are to be believed, in 2009, a ship had a 0.002% chance of getting hijacked.) 
And yet, Christodoulou says, “There was just something in the pit of my stomach saying, ‘You know what? I don’t think so. Let me really look at this.’ I studied every attack that had occurred within the last two years.” 
BELT AND SUSPENDERS 
To that point in 2008, 57 ships had reported to the International Maritime Bureau (a group that monitors high-seas crime for the International Chamber of Commerce) that Somali pirates had attacked them; 38 had been hijacked. 
Of those, perhaps a dozen were still anchored off the coast of Somalia, engines idle in a kind of pirate-induced doldrums, awaiting ransom deals as their owners negotiated with the pirate bands for their release. 
Christodoulou took precautions, what he likes to call a “belt-and-suspenders approach.” First, ISEC went all-in on insurance, paying up for every sort of policy on the market that promised to guarantee against piracy-induced losses. (Some of it purchased from Hiscox, the huge British underwriter, one of the largest syndicates at Lloyds’ of London [pictured above].) He bought loss-of-hire insurance, to cover the income the Biscaglia wouldn’t be earning should pirates hold the ship for who knows how many weeks. He bought a kidnap-and-ransom policy, new to the maritime insurance trade, previously the domain of the famous, the super-rich, and those with business to conduct in places like Colombia. (Some shippers consider K&R insurance unnecessary, since war risk premiums are thought to be enough to cover ransom payouts.) Total cost for the voyage’s insurance: $50,000. 
He hired security guards (three of them): $40,000. He armed them with a so-called long-range-acoustical device, the amplifiers that somehow beam ear-splitting noise directionally over thousands of feet and into the ears of pirates or rioters or protesters, who — the manufacturer’s marketing literature assures — will then double over in skull-clutching anguish: $5,000. (But he didn’t arm the guards or crew with actual arms. Putting guns aboard ships remains taboo in the merchant-shipping business, not because of any pacific worldview on the part of ship owners, but for fear of the liability-lawsuit nightmare should a firefight erupt between pirates and the crew and any seafarer-workers get hurt, or worse. This taboo, however, might be changing.) 
He had reams of concertina wire wrapped around the perimeter of the Biscaglia’s deck: $10,000. 
Totting it all up, Christodoulou says ISEC spent about $100,000 to protect itself from pirates and any potential damages caused by them.
There were other safeguards as well. The Biscaglia would take part in a convoy led by a French naval frigate. The ship would try to pass through the highest-risk part of the GOA at night; hardly any pirate attacks happen nocturnally. While in the GOA, the captain of the Biscaglia would ask the engine room to give him all she had: the ship’s highest speed through the danger zone. All hands on deck. Water canons and fire hoses and at the ready.
“But the most important thing,” Christodoulou says now, was his decision to “empower” the ship’s officers and crew. At the cusp of the danger zone, the men on the Biscaglia — most of them from India — would vote on whether to steam ahead or abort and head south for the tip of Africa. “It was their decision, not mine, to asses the risk at that time based on what they were seeing and hearing.” If there were a sudden burst of pirate activity in the neighborhood, for example, the captain could make the call to split. 
In the event, at the cusp of the GOA, the men of the Biscaglia chose “go.” 
Thirty-six hours later, at five minutes past midnight on the day after Thanksgiving, Christodoulou was awoken by a phone call from his outsourced technical manager (responsible for ship logistics like food and fuel), based in Singapore. Latitude 13:54 North, longitude 49:09 East, in the heart of GOA, the Biscaglia, the manager said, had been “unlawfully boarded.” 
Despite all the carefully planned “defensive and counter measures,” Christodoulou says, “at the end of the day, a loud speaker and a water hose are no match for an AK-47 and a rocket-propelled grenade.” 

————– no real peace in sight yet ————–

UN: No Side Strong Enough to Stabilize Somalia (VOA) 
A United Nations report on Somalia says no side in the country’s conflict has the strength to impose its will on the others and stabilize the chaotic, war-torn nation.
The report, compiled by the U.N. Monitoring Group on Somalia, was presented to the U.N. Security Council Tuesday after portions were leaked to news organizations last week.
The authors say the Somali transitional government is weakened by corruption “at all levels” and that its soldiers are mainly loyal to individual government officials or military officers.
They say insurgent groups like al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam are better organized and disciplined but lack popular support and are equally likely to suffer internal divisions.
The report makes recommendations for improving the situation, including sanctions against designated individuals and entities, and a review of a 1992 arms embargo that the authors say is routinely violated.
The Monitoring Group also calls on Eritrea to stop subsidizing members of Somali opposition groups and allow the inspection of any facilities allegedly used for training Somali insurgents.
The U.N. and United States have repeatedly accused Eritrea of arming the insurgents.  Tuesday’s report said Eritrea appears to have scaled down its military assistance while continuing to provide political, diplomatic and possibly financial support.
The Security Council discussed the report in a closed-door session Tuesday.  Afterward, the chair of the council’s Somalia Sanctions Committee, Mexican ambassador Claude Heller, said the council generally backs the report but has not taken any decision yet on the authors’ recommendations.
He said there is a consensus for an independent probe into allegations of corruption in the World Food Program’s Somalia operations.  The report says up to half of all food aid for Somalia is diverted to militants, corrupt food transporters, and local WFP personnel.
The report also warns that the conflict is having an increasing impact abroad.  It says Somalia’s neighbors are already involved in the conflict or soon will be, and that al-Shabab is recruiting funds and fighters in Somali diaspora communities. 
It says the “most obvious” symptom of the war and its economic effects is Somali piracy.  The report accuses senior figures in Somalia’s Puntland region of allowing the pirates to remain free and says some have accepted campaign contributions from pirate leaders.
The report also says weapons continue to enter Somalia at a steady rate despite a 1992 arms embargo.  It says the primary sources of supply are Yemen and Ethiopia, but that U.S. and Ugandan contributions to the government have also entered Somali arms markets.

President blasts U.N. report by Jeffrey Gettleman (New York Times)
Somalia’s president on Tuesday blasted a recent U.N. report that characterized the government’s security forces as ineffective and corrupt and said that as much as half the food aid to the country was routinely stolen.
The president, Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, said that much of the information in the report “was not trustful” and “based on people on the street, not reality.”
His comments added to a growing chorus of criticism surrounding this report, mainly from the parties that have been accused of wrongdoing, including Somali politicians and businessmen and the U.N. World Food Program.
The report, by the U.N. Security Council’s Monitoring Group on Somalia, made a number of stinging allegations: that officials in Somalia — one of the most violent and needy countries in the world — were collaborating with pirates; that the Somali security forces were “ineffective, disorganized and corrupt”; that U.N. contractors were helping insurgents; and that huge amounts of food aid was stolen.
Several independent experts on the country said that while the report might have had some minor faults, it captured the larger picture accurately.
“There is broad consensus among Somali watchers that the overall findings of this report are right, though in a report of that size, of course there are going to be a couple mistakes,” said Ken Menkhaus, a professor of political science at Davidson College.
Rashid Abdi, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, a nongovernmental group that aims to prevent or resolve deadly conflicts, called the report “a very solid piece of work,” adding that most of the allegations were “nothing new, but things we have been hearing for some time.”
Clearly, Somalia can be a difficult place to find the truth.
Nearly 20 years of unabated chaos have eviscerated all national institutions, and the current conflict between a weak transitional government and militant Islamists has left most of the country a no-go zone to outsiders. It has grown so dangerous that the United Nations has been forced to rely largely on Somali contractors and local aid organizations rather than its own staff members to monitor the enormous aid operation.
Some of the fiercest criticism of the report has come from U.N. officials defending the World Food Program, the biggest aid agency in Somalia and a lifeline to millions of Somalis.
One U.N. official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said that the report overstated the amount of money the World Food Program paid to Somali transport contractors, and that it exaggerated the percentage of the transport budget that went to three businessmen in particular.
The official also argued that there was “no evidence” that one of the contractors had staged a hijacking of his own food trucks in 2008, as the report said, and that the contractor nevertheless had paid back all the food that disappeared that day.
The official went on to criticize several other aspects of the report and said that a bonding system put in practice in 1997 — under which Somali contractors are required to replace or pay for any missing food — had drastically reduced the amount of food aid that was pilfered.
The report was commissioned by the Security Council as part of an effort to monitor an arms embargo on Somalia and other peace and security issues.
In 2006, the same monitoring group said that hundreds of Somali jihadists had traveled to Lebanon to fight alongside Hezbollah, a claim that was widely dismissed as fiction.
However, the investigators behind that report are no longer with the group, and Menkhaus and Abdi, among others, said that Matt Bryden, the current coordinator, had spent many years in Somalia and was a seasoned Somali hand.
Bryden defended the report this week in a series of e-mail messages. He said that some of the material provided to the group about the missing food supplies “involves inconsistencies” and that his team “received different answers at different times” from the parties involved.
He also rejected the complaints from officials with the World Food Program. “The figures we have used in the report concerning the value of contracts and the percentage awarded to the three named contractors were provided to the Monitoring Group by WFP officials,” he said. “WFP would therefore appear to be contradicting itself.”
This week, Somali officials from Puntland, a pirate haven in northern Somalia, denied the allegations that they were collaborating with pirates and called the report “a feeble attempt to defame” the Puntland president.

Somali Starvation Shows Security Council Schizophrenia, Humanitarian Window Eyed by Matthew Russell Lee (ICP)

Days after the UN Security Council expressed concern about its Somalia Sanctions report of food aid being diverted to Al Shabab, some Council members realized that merely blocking the World Food Program from working with three allegedly Al Shabab affiliated transportation companies had led to starvation.

While the Sanctions Committee’s mandate was scheduled to be extended on March 19, now that will be March 22 or later. Inner City Press is told by numerous Council delegations of a discussion of a “humanitarian window” in which needed food aid could be delivered in Somalia, without regard to sanctions.

One delegation explained this to mean that the Sanctions Committee would “look away” for a period of time. “Willful blindness,” it was called.

The U.S., which vociferously denies leaking the Sanctions report to the New York Times in Nairobi, has Al Shabab on its terrorism list. No Security Council resolutions, or lapse in UN sanctions regime, can change that.

The consideration of a humanitarian window seems to be an acknowledgement, if only implicitly, that the UN Sanctions regime has caused humanitarian harm to civilians. Does the U.S. / Obama Administration acknowledge that? One would need to hear from Ambassador Susan Rice, but hasn’t. 

Footnote: earlier this week, Inner City Press asked Mexican Ambassador Claude Heller, chairman of the Somalia Sanctions committee, about starvation in Somalia and the leak of the Sanctions report.Heller said that there was strong criticism of the leak inside the Council; Inner City Press was later told that Russia and the U.S. were the most vehement.

Ambassador Rice previously denounced the leak — to Inner City Press — of a draft North Korea sanctions resolution. Some believe that the U.S. — not necessarily the mission — leaked the Somalia Sanctions report to the NY Times in Nairobi. Would the U.S. Mission know if this were true?

* * *

Staged Leak of UN Somali Sanctions Report Echoes Bogus  Shabab in Lebanon Claim of 2006 by Matthew Russell Lee (ICP)

A Somali firm fired back Thursday night at the staged leak of a UN sanctions report to the New York Times and then other media. Deeqa Construction and its principal Abdulkadir Nur issued a two page denial, via a public relations firm after first having hired a Washington law firm. Click here to view.

Noteworthy in the coverage in the New York Times and then wire services of the report by the UN Somalia Sanctions Committee was the failure to mention that this same committee (and newspaper) reported in 2006 that many Somalis had been trained in South Lebanon alongside Hezbollah. This report gave rise to denials and derision and has never been substantiated. But this week’s leak was taken at face value.

The report was shown in a coordinated, almost choreographed process of leaking, although in more than one city, in which reporters were shown but not given a copy of the report, allowed to record themselves reading the document but not taking notes on it. This is not investigative journalism, it is being a ventriloquist. Although some at least held out to see the whole report, and not only the portions, doled out in Naibori, which support the US’ cut of aid to WFP.
Inner City Press is rarely an apologist or defender for UN agencies like the World Food Program. In fact, Inner City Press is inclined to believe that WFP and UNICEF would allow diversion of aid, just as up to 25% of aid after Cyclone Nargis was allowed to be stolen by the Than Shwe military regime in Myanmar, with the UN covering it up.

But these reports of diversion in Somalia, with the aura of the Al Shabab Islamist insurgency, have resulted in the cutting of aid by the U.S. and reportedly the UK, and increased starvation of Somali civilians. At a UN stakeout on camera, Inner City Press asked U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice for specifics, but none were provided. Click here for that story.

Earlier this week, Inner City Press timely submitted this question to the UK’s David Miliband, again without promised response. Click here that (non) story. Not all leaks are created equal. Scooter Libby feeding the New York Times’ Judith Miller lies about Iraq was not investigative journalism, but the manipulation of elite media by those in power. And this? 

A Talk with Somali President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed by Muhammad Nassar (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Somali President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmad denied that there exists a US proposal for direct military intervention in his country. However, he affirmed that he does not object to a US military support to strengthen the government institutions. To justify his stand, he said that it would be an indirect US support for Somalia.
In an interview that Asharq Al-Awsat conducted with him during his visit to Dubai to attend a conference, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmad said Somalia turned into an ideal environment for Al-Qaeda and its ideas. He added that all attempts to remove him from power will fail because Somalia’s history is full of failed attempts of this kind, as he put it.
However, the Somali President stated that he extends his hand to all Somali parties that are opposed to him, without exception, including the Mujahidin Youth Movement. He said it is no secret that the armed parties in Somalia embrace the thought of Al-Qaeda and receive support from it and from some states, which “do not want the war in Somalia to end.”
The Somali president noted that the most dangerous thing in Somalia is that crimes are committed and Muslims and innocent people are killed in the name of Islam. “All parties are asked to stop the Somali people’s suffering”, he added.
Sheikh Sharif called on the Arab and Islamic states to take a firm stand to stop the bloodshed in Somalia. He said: “These armed groups emerged as a result of the vacuum and internal conflict in Somalia that lasted a long time.”
He added: “In order to deal with this problem, we must reinforce the government’ role because the absence of authority gives these groups an opportunity to continue their activity. Therefore, it is very important to strengthen the state institutions.”
He continued: “In addition, the dialogue must be advanced forward and the needy and affected people must be provided with relief aid. The Somali people suffer from famine and health problems, and when humanitarian aid is provided for them, their suffering will ease.”
Asked if military support is important in controlling the situation, the Somali president said military support is important in order to reinforce the government institutions. He noted that he does not object to asking the Americans for military support. He said: “I do not object to seeking military support from the Americans.”
He said there is no direct US intervention in Somalia and that there is no US proposal for direct military intervention. He added: “What we are taking about is support for the government to reinforce the state institutions. This is what I meant and what I seek.”
In reply to a question as to whether the Americans bombed the positions of the armed movements that are behind the violence in the country, Sharif said: “With regard to the Al-Qaeda members, if their positions are pinpointed and movements monitored and the Americans want to target them, this is something that we may discuss.” Nevertheless, he pointed out that “the government is interested in reaching a solution with” the other armed movements in Somalia.
The Somali president affirmed that he is ready to talk to all Somali parties that are opposed to him with the aim of reaching a settlement to put an end to the massacres in Somalia.
He said: “I will sit with any Somali party that wants to sit with us, be it the Mujahidin Youth Movement or others, to reach a solution that will stop the bloodshed.”
But he refused to say which Somali parties are the most difficult ones to reach a solution with. He remarked: “We seek to enter dialogue with all parties. Therefore, I will not name any party.”
Sharif was in Dubai to attended a tow-day conference called “Somalia … The Voice of Wisdom and Shariaa” [Islamic law], which was called by Sheikh Abdullah Bin-Bih who presented a document to halt the violence in Somalia. All conflicting Somali parties, except the Mujahidin Youth Movement, supported the document, and this stand prompted figures who attended the meeting to describe it is positive.
The Somali president said he affirms his commitment to applying the Islamic Shariaa in running Somalia and added that he is ready to sit at one table with all conflicting parties in Somalia, without exception. He noted that Somalia “legalized” the Shariaa laws and turned them into a constitution for which the Somali Parliament voted unanimously and which the president signed.
Sheikh Sharif refused to explicitly accuse certain states or parties of supporting militants in Somalia saying: “Their support is well known, and so is Al-Qaeda and its ideas. There are states, which believe that the continuation of violence in Somalia serves their interests, but I do not want to name these states at present.”
He said that, as president of Somalia, he will not lose hope. However, he admitted that great difficulties face his government.
He said: “There are difficulties, and the parties that rebelled against the government are intransigent. These parties continue their attacks on the government, not only to take power, but also to cause bloodshed. But I tell them that taking power does not require bloodshed, as Somalia is rich with experiences showing that these attempts are futile because they fail.”
Sharif referred to states, which, he said, support the armed parties in Somalia. However, he refused to name them and said that what takes place in Somalia affects world security.
He warned: “The parties that support these ideas will suffer adversities, and the same ideas will shift to their countries. We urge these states to stop backing these movements because the Somali people wish to live in peace and security. Our people are Muslim, and there is no place for extremism in Somalia.”
Sharif said that the armed parties, which carry out operations against the government and civilians “are affiliated with groups based in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.” He added: “These groups’ aim is to continue the war and worsen the situation.”
Noting that these parties have no project to make a change in the country, he said: “The difficulty is that they do not seek security and stability in Somalia and want to enforce the Shariaa. Application of the Shariaa needs security, peace, and an authority to enforce it. The Muslims in Somalia are violated, and these are not the ethics of Muslims.” 
Sheikh Sharif expressed his conviction that the situation will improve. He explained that he wants security and stability to return and the government institutions to end the armed movements’ activity. He stated: “These groups receive support and they benefited from the absence of a central government in Somalia for a long time. Therefore, they found an opportunity to establish themselves, transfer Al-Qaeda leaders and other foreign elements from abroad to Somalia, and train Somali youths who did not manage to gain a true knowledge of religion.”
Asked whether Somalia is an ideal environment for Al-Qaeda, Sharif said: “Somalia turned into an ideal environment for Al-Qaeda. We may say this, because, for many years in the past, there was no government to establish security in the country. These ideas do exist but are concealed. Today, these groups’ relationship with Al-Qaeda is obvious, and their acts are similar to the actions that Al-Qaeda carries out in several states, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.”
When asked if he would give up power in favor of the opposition in exchange for a political program to end the violence, how would you deal with such an offer?
Sharif said: “I am not interested in power as much as I am interested in saving the Somali people. But there is a group that tells me that I must leave in order to calm the situation. This is rejected.”
He added: “We must agree with any party that seeks to take power on means to allow all parties to share power. I have the right to run [in elections] and govern, and they too, as Somalis, have the same right.”
He continued: “I do not exclude anyone from power and do not allow anyone to exclude me from power. When we negotiate, we will reach a solution. But let us say in the beginning to these groups: Stop the war and come with your demands, so that we may negotiate.”
The Somali president expressed his optimism that the conference, which he attended in Dubai, will “have a distinctive effect in Somalia, motivate Somali Ulema to respond to this initiative, and prompt these groups to stop the bloodshed to which they are accustomed.”
He said: “Sheikh Bin-Bih issued a powerful appeal to stop the bloodshed, which has not stopped one single day. This was a good initiative on his part, and I hope that all Muslim Ulema will support it. Wrong ideas cannot be changed by force alone. They also need a change of thought and cooperation between the Muslim Ulema.”
The Global Center for Renewal and Guidance was established in London in 2007, under the chairmanship of Somali scholar Abdullah Bin-Bih. Its aim is to contribute to resolving the crises that face the Muslim world by explaining the Shariaa provisions regarding concepts and practices that are carried out by some of the parties to these crises and by conducting mediation efforts in this respect.
The conference, which was chaired by Sheikh Bin-Bih, was attended by the vice president of the World union of Muslim Scholars, the head of the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance, and former Deputy Speaker of the Saudi Shura [consultative Council Dr. Abdullah Omar. It was also attended by former Sudanese President Marshal Abdul-Rahman Siwar al-Dhahab, Representative of the UN secretary general [in Somalia] Ahmad Ould-Abdullah, and Deputy Chief of the Organization of Islamic Conference Ambassador Abdullah Alim.

Somalia’s Ambassador to Kenya defamed with fabricated UN report by Nuradin M Mukhtar (mareeg)

Ahlu Sunnah members reject agreement with TFG (garoweonline)
A section of Somalia’s Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jama’a militia group has vowed not to recognize a deal signed by their fellow group members with the weak UN-backed Somali government in Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa. 
Led by the group’s foreign relation officer, Sheikh Bashir Abdi Olaad  and his colleague Sheikh Abdiqadir Abdirahman (Abu-Zakriya), the section said ‘ the deal a betrayal to the unity of the group and we feel that this agreement is intended to disintegrate the group,” Sheikh Bashir told reporters in Abudwaq town in central Galgadud region. 
“This agreement was a betrayal which is meant to hijack the group. We are making it clear that we do not recognize but also we are not opposed to the government,” Abu Zakariya said. 
On Monday, deputy Prime Ministermar Sharif Xasan led his side  in signing a power-sharing deal with Ahlu Sunnah’s overall chairman Ma’alin Mohammud Sheikh Hassan at the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa . 
In the agreement, Ahlu Sunnah would be given five ministerial positions, top appointments in the military, the police, and the intelligence service in return to its support to ward off militants threatening to topple the fragile UN-backed government. 
The pact was endorsed by African Union, the Arab League, UN Special Envoy and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
The fragile government is holed up in the few blocks of Mogadishu and guarded by some 5,300 AU peacekeeping troops with much of the country’s south and central falling under the hands of powerful insurgents.

Deputy Speaker accuses Speaker over non-cooperation (garoweonline)
Somalia’s second deputy Speaker of the Somali parliament Osman Elmi Boqore accused his speaker Sheikh Adan Madobe of non-cooperation in the matters concerning the legislature.
Bogore said Sheikh Madobe makes unilateral decisions, adding that he requested President Sharif Sheikh Sheikh Ahmed to intervene and solve the issues.
“The speaker does not consult with deputies including me, he unilaterally make decisions which I receive through media,”
“I sent a protest note to the president to solve this matter, which seems to be getting out of hands. I am waiting for reply,” he added.
Boqore said he had similar disagreement with Sheikh Madobe even at the time of Col. Abdullahi Yussuf’s government.
On the other hand, Boqore accused the speaker of refusing to reopen the parliament because the lawmakers have prepared a motion against him.
Sheikh Madobe, who is currently out of the country for official duties in Turkey, is yet to reply the accusations.

Government Says Will Search Why Some of the MPs Went Abroad (shabelle)
Prof. Abdirahman Haji Aden known as “Ibbi”, the fishing and deputy prime minister of the transitional government of Somalia told reporters in Mogadishu that the government will get to the bottom of the question why some of the transitional parliamentarians left from the country. 
The minister said that the legislators were sent abroad for training but it is unclear why they had then gone to other countries.
“Some of them had returned while some others went far away abroad, we shall ask the ministry of constitution of Somalia to know where they had gone,” said Prof. Ibbi. 
The statement of the minister comes as there had been allegations that some of the transitional government officials took part in the corruption concerning food aid from the UN for Somalia, whose investigators also said that members of TFG bought visas and followed other special interests.

ANOTHER ROUND IN THE TUG OF WAR BETWEEN SOMALILAND AND PUNTLAND FOR THE NUGAL VALLEY
Puntland gov’t, Elders sign agreement (garoweonline)
Traditional Elders and elites from different quarters have welcomed agreement signed between the government of Puntland state and representatives and elders from disputed the regions of Sool, Sanag and Ayn in the Puntland State House in Garowe, the administrative capital of Puntland. 
Garaad Abdullahi Ali iid, a well-known elder in the regions told Garowe Radio that the signed agreement would pave the way for better cooperations between the government in Garowe and the people of the occupied regions. 
“This agreement would improve the relation between elders and the government. Truly, it would be a big blow to the enemies of Puntland people and government,” 
“I am advising Puntland government to settle every dispute through mediation,” he added. 
The signing of the agreement was attended by Puntland Senior government officials led by the President Abdirahman Mohamed Farole,Vice President and some Cabinet Ministers. 
Puntland Information Minister Abdihakim Ahmed Guled expressed his government’s gratitude and happiness of the signing of the agreement. 
Garad Mohamud Mashqare who spoke for the elders termed the agreement as milestone and victory for the people of the occupied territories. 
The agreement stated that ‘in accordance to the constitution of Puntland State of Somalia, the regions of Sool, Sanag and Ayn are territories of Puntland State of Somalia’ and it is the responsibility of Puntland government to return the occupied districts.
The Traditional elders have been urged to continue with the awareness campaign, conflict resolution, mobilizing and uniting the people, which were termed as vital for the returning of the occupied districts.

Inside Al Shabab: How the Somalia militant group rules through fear by Scott Baldauf (ChristianScienceMonitor)
As the Somalia government fends off militant group Al Shabab, the Al Qaeda-linked insurgency shows its power through intimidation of a whistle-blower.
On Oct. 27, 2008, Ali Abdullahi Egal saw the Al Qaeda-linked militant group Al Shabab stone to death a 13-year-old girl, Aisha Duhulow, under the charge of adultery. The act was not only brutal, but also, in his view, un-Islamic. 
The girl had apparently been raped, was not given the right to a legal advocate, and Al Shabab didn’t even bother to produce four eyewitnesses before declaring her guilty. 
When Mr. Egal, a human rights activist, reported this event to local and international news organizations two days later, it produced an outcry, and helped set in stone Al Shabab’s image as a cruel and totalitarian regime in control of large portions of southern Somalia. Within a day, Egal received his first death threat, and then his second. 
“They called me on the telephone and threatened me,” says Egal, now living in a variety of safe houses in neighboring Kenya. “They said, ‘You are working with the kaffir [unbelievers], you work for the CIA and Israeli intelligence.’ ”
Later, when he reached Kenya, he received a chilling e-mail: 
“We have noted that you escaped from us and fled from Kismayo. After that we realized that your family also moved from the village in order to run off from us but you are being awaited in any of the refugee camps in Kenya and you will not survive. Even if you reach Nairobi, it will not help you as you were sentenced to death. Therefore, the Islamic fighters will retaliate against you and you will not know which date it is.” 
The e-mail was signed by the senior Al Shabab leader of Kismayo, Sheikh A.G.Y. Abu Hamza.
After two years, Al Shabab’s hold over the port city of Kismayo and much of southern Somalia has only strengthened, and its threat to the Western-backed Somali government in Mogadishu is matched only by its brutal treatment to those Somalis it sees as enemies.
Some of the heaviest fighting of the year erupted last week in Mogadishu as militants advanced on government-held territory, killing more than 50 people and sending hundreds fleeing. Some 3.7 million Somalis – nearly half of the population – already need aid. Fighting continued into this week, with the government struggling to hold the capital with the help of more than 6,000 African Union peacekeepers. 
Since 2007, at least nine Somali journalists have been killed by Al Shabab, while dozens of others have fled Al Shabab-controlled areas after repeated death threats. Harsh sentences for criminals – amputation for thieves, stoning for adulterers, decapitation for various other enemies – have become public events in football stadiums, scenes reminiscent of when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
A government pushback?
But the coming months may see a change, if not in the power balance in Somalia, then at least in the level of violence, as thousands of freshly trained Somali troops return from Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, and Uganda to take up positions with the weak Transitional Federal Government in Mogadishu. 
These troops have also been joined by recently mobilized militias of an anti-Al Shabab religious society called Ahlu Sunna Wal Jamaa, which has opened up new fronts against Al Shabab and its allied Islamist militia, Hizbul Islam. Ahlu Sunna Wal Jamaa’s powerful militia signed a formal agreement on Monday with the UN-backed government to offer ground support in exchange for senior government positions. 
In Mogadishu, officials loyal to President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed talk openly about a coming government offensive against Al Shabab. Already the number of attacks between the two factions has increased, with reports of hundreds of Al Shabab fighters from Kismayo – led by Alabama-born commander Abu Mansour al-Amriki – to reinforce the front lines of Mogadishu, while tens of thousands of Somalis moved in the opposite direction, seeking safety in displacement camps.
‘I dream that they will kill me’
For Egal, however, such displacement or refugee camps offer no safety. His wife, children, and parents have gone into hiding far from Kismayo, and he hasn’t heard from them for months. He has received refugee status from the United Nations, and has applied for political asylum – like some 18,600 other Somalis – to live in another country. He has also been offered shelter inside a protected UN facility, but Egal refuses to enter it, worried that he might be spotted there by an Al Shabab sympathizer among the other residents. 
“I have no work, no relations to give me support,” he says. “I don’t sleep in any one place more than once. Every night, I dream that they will kill me.”
Egal’s caution is understandable, even in Nairobi. In the Somali-dominated neighborhood of Eastleigh, the majority of residents are either Somalis of Kenyan nationality or refugees who fled the war. But the number of radical mosques that support Al Shabab is growing, and at Friday afternoon prayers, sermons extolling support for Al Shabab’s social revolution in Somalia can be heard blaring from mosque loudspeakers. 
While Egal stays in hiding, he still harbors a grudge against Al Shabab and the foreign militants who increasingly come to Somalia to carry out their own idea of jihad. 
“People are coming from other countries like America and Britain and the Arab countries to fight jihad against the unbelievers, but this is a country full of Muslims,” he says, incredulous. “If they want jihad, why don’t they do it in their own country? Why do they want to destroy my country and kill my children?”

Al Shabab Detains Three Journalists from Markabley Radio Station in Somalia
IPI Calls for an End to Al Shabab Suppression of the Media by Naomi Hunt (IPI)
Al Shabab militants in the southern regions of Somalia arrested three journalists from Markabley Radio this week, according to the National Union of Somali Journalists. Two of the three remain in custody, and the station has been taken off the air in response to the detentions.  
Mohamed Abdikarim and Mohamed Salad Abdulle, both reporters for the Bardera-based Markabley Radio as well as for other news outlets, were arrested in separate instances in Baladhawo town and Kismayo city on Monday 15 March, NUSOJ said in a statement yesterday.  
Station director Ahmed Omar Salihi, who also reports for Mogadishu-based Shabelle Radio, was arrested yesterday and detained overnight before being brought before a Gedo court and released, local press freedom observers reported.  
Abdikarim was detained in the town of Baladhawo after he aired a recording of local elders who were calling on the Somali government to better protect them from harassment by security forces on the Kenyan border, Ibrahim said. Al Shabab, which controls that region, apparently took offence at the reference to the Transitional Federal Government.  
Abdulle, a stringer for Markabley Radio as well as the Somali Broadcasting Corporation and Radio Somaliweyn, was arrested in the port city of Kismayo after broadcasting a meeting of Hizbul Islam, NUSOJ coordinator Mohammed Ibrahim told IPI by phone from Mogadishu. Hizbul-Islam is an Islamist militia and Al Shabab’s main rival in the area.  
Station director Salihi was arrested in Bardera the following day after refusing to allow Al Shabab representatives to listen to Abdulle’s recorded voice, NUSOJ reported. Salihi, who also serves as the head of NUSOJ’s Southwest Branch, was detained overnight and released at around noon today.
“My station unintentionally released a minor government story – that is why I was arrested,” Ahmed Omar Salihi told Radio Shabelle.* 
Following discussions between Salihi and other staff members, Markabley Radio decided to end its broadcasts for now, in protest at Al Shabab pressures and because it is impossible to avoid reporting news that mentions the government, Salihi reportedly told NUSOJ coordinator Ibrahim.
“IPI strongly condemns the arrest of Mohamed Salad Abdulle and Mohamed Abdikarim, and calls on the Al Shabab administration to release them – along with Ali Yusuf Adan, who was detained on 21 February,” IPI Press Freedom Manager Anthony Mills said. “Journalists have a right to report on matters of public interest. The Al-Shabab militia continues to show contempt for any form of free media.”
Al Shabab, which currently holds most of southern and central Somalia, as well as large portions of the capital Mogadishu, have controlled Bardera city since the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops in early 2009.
Al Shabab ordered Markabley Radio to close in December 2008.  The broadcaster was shut down for having breached earlier orders not to air music or other content deemed “un-Islamic.” The station began broadcasting again three days later, after promising to abide by Al Shabab’s edicts. 
Somali radio journalist Ali Yusuf Adan, who was detained on 21 February by Al Shabab militia soldiers after filing two reports on executions by the ultra-conservative militants, is still in prison, according to Somali media reports.
Adan, 47, who worked for the private broadcaster Radio Somaliweyn in the west of the country, was detained 100 km northwest of the capital, Mogadishu, and taken to prison in the port town of Merka, 100 km south of the capital.  Although Al Shabab did not announce a reason for the arrest, fellow Somali journalists believe Adan was targeted for his reports on the alleged execution of a man who arrived late to mandatory Saturday prayers.

NATO provides airlift support to African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM/ISRIA)
In response to the African Union request for strategic airlift support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), the USA has conducted airlift missions under the NATO banner in support of the Ugandan troop rotations.
The airlift, which commenced on 5 Mar 2010 and was completed on 16 Mar 2010, was undertaken by USA contracted DynCorps International, transporting 1700 Ugandan troops from Uganda into Mogadishu and re-deploying 850 Ugandan troops out of Mogadishu.
NATO began providing support to the African Union in May 2005. The NATO approach in Africa is based on the recognition of the African Union’s desire to provide African solutions to African problems. As such, all assistance is based on specific requests from the African Union.
Part of this policy is the NATO standing agreement to provide Strategic sealift and airlift support for African Union Troop Contributing Countries willing to deploy to Somalia, recently extended by NATO until 31 January 2011. Besides NATO’s significant airlift contributions to the AU mission in SUDAN (AMIS), before this last airlift request, the first and only support to AMISOM was given in June 2008 to transport a battalion of Burundian peacekeepers to Mogadishu.
SHAPE delegated the authority to Joint Command Lisbon to have the operational lead for NATO engagements with the African Union and they provide the majority of the personnel to support the mission.
 

————  reports, news and views from the global village with an impact on Somalia ——————- 

Pentagon presence in Horn of Africa exposes U.S. lies by Abayomi Azikiwe (WW)
In a March 12 interview, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson attempted to place the current Obama administration policy toward Somalia and the Horn of Africa in a non-military context. Carson did admit that support from both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations was approximately $185 million over the last 19 months. 
“We have provided limited military support to the Transitional Federal Government through the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM),” Carson noted. He continued, “We have supported the acquisition of nonlethal equipment to the governments of Burundi and to Uganda in particular as well as Djibouti, ranging from communications equipment and uniforms to transportation and support for Ugandan military training of TFG forces.” (U.S. Department of State) 
Carson answered a March 5 New York Times report that quoted Pentagon sources saying the U.S. planned to launch aerial bombardments of Somalia in an effort to retake large sections of the capital of Mogadishu and the country as a whole from the control of the Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam resistance groups. 
Carson said: “The United States does not plan, does not direct, and it does not coordinate the military operations of the TFG, and we have not and will not be providing direct support for any potential military offensives. Further, we are not providing nor paying for military advisers for the TFG. There is no desire to Americanize the conflict in Somalia.” 
Nonetheless, Gen. William Ward, who heads the U.S. Africa Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that any effort by the TFG to retake Mogadishu would be “something that we would look to do in support, to the degree the transitional federal government can in fact re-exert control over Mogadishu, with the help of AMISOM and others.” (Xinhua News Agency, March 9) 
Ward said that the current offensive by the “transition government to reclaim parts of Mogadishu, I think it’s something that we would look to do and support.” Along with Ward, Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, identified other countries on the continent where so-called “counter-terrorism” operations are taking place. 
According to journalist Rick Rozoff, “The U.S. military has already been involved in counterinsurgency operations in Mali and Niger against ethnic Tuareg rebels, who have no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda, not that one would know that from Levin’s comments.” Former U.S. diplomat Daniel Simpson was quoted recently in regard to the Pentagon’s involvement in Somalia as saying that the operation was designed to “test out AFRICOM ground and air forces in Djibouti for direct military action on the continent.” (Rozoff, scoop.co.nz, March 12) 
Ward also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Africa Partnership Station, which is a U.S.-led effort designed to supposedly respond to requests by African states for assistance with security issues, was now conducting its fifth deployment on the continent. He continued by stating that the Africa Partnership Station “has expanded from its initial focus on the Gulf of Guinea to other African coastal nations.” (John Kruzel, Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs) 
The articles written in the New York Times and other sources provide proof that the U.S. is escalating its military involvement in Africa. An attempt to dominate the global oil industry could be one of the strong motivating factors in the current U.S. policy. 
Moreover, the U.S. imperialists do not want to see a government come to power in Somalia with the capacity to stabilize the political and military situation inside the country and also be independent of the foreign policy imperatives of the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon. 
U.S. military intervention in Somalia during 1992-94 resulted in a tremendous defeat at the hands of the Somali resistance forces, who forced a withdrawal of the Marines and a political humiliation for the Bill Clinton administration. 
The Bush administration’s engineered invasion by Ethiopia in December 2006 — as well as several aerial bombings — was also defeated by the Somali people, resulting in the withdrawal of the U.S.-backed forces in January 2009. The TFG and AMISOM hold out the only present hope for the imperialists to dominate this area of the Horn of Africa.
(*) Abayomi Azikiwe is the Editor of the Pan-African News Wire 

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE WATER REGIME OF THE JUBA?
Chinese Company to Build New Power Station in Ethiopia (Ezega)
The Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo) signed contract with Gezhouba Group Company (CGGC), a Chinese company, for the construction of Genale Dawa 3 Hydropower Project, reports Capital.
Genale is located on the border between Oromia and Somali regional states. The power station is projected to generate 254 MW of electricity and will cost US$408 Million to build. 
After Gilgel Gibe II tunnel collapse, the corporation is struggling to meet the growing power demand of the country that currently exceeds 1,200 MW. EEPCo’s can only supply about 1,000 MW from its six operational hydropower plants currently, including the recently inaugurated Tekeze power station. 
The potential power production of the country has been estimated to be about 45,000 MW. Of this, only 870 mw has been developed and another 3,270 MW is under construction. 
Another new hydropower station under construction is Beles. It will be ready in May of this year and will have a capacity of 460 MW, reports Capital. 
Stations under construction include Gibe IV/V, Beko Abo (Caradobi), Halele Worabesa, Chemoga-Yeda and Genale. They will have a combined generating capacity of 6,000 MW. 
About 12 billion dollars has been earmarked for the nation’s 25-year Power Sector Master Plan of which 70 percent is allocated for generating power.
[N.B.: The river Dawa together with the river Webb form the river Juba. The traditional water regime of the Juba River, which is the lifeline of Southern Somalia safeguards that the "Dheshek-System" - an agricultural system using the flood-waters twice a year like in the classical system along the river Nile - functions as perpetuum mobile. But with more and more dams being build on the Ethiopian side and the off-take of water for artificial irrigation by foreign investment firms in industrial agriculture before it even reaches the Juba, experts fear that the river ecosystem and the livelihoods for hundred-thousands of Somalis downstream will be in jeopardy and destroyed.]

Making Unneeded Enemies in Somalia by Ivan Eland (AntiWar)
Although the Clinton administration’s debacle in Somalia in the early 1990s is most famous – as depicted in the Hollywood blockbuster Black Hawk Down – more recent American meddling by the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations may have worse long-term effects. [N.B.: ... and let us not forget one Clintonian is back in business!]
Even though George H.W. Bush’s and Clinton’s original intentions of protecting international food aid using U.S. forces might have been high-minded, they then engaged in mission creep – with Clinton eventually taking sides in the Somali civil war, chasing around a warlord who was in U.S. disfavor, and ignominiously withdrawing U.S. forces when the warlord killed a small number of U.S. Rangers in the “Black Hawk Down” incident.
Yet this embarrassing effort at failed Somali nation-building may pale in comparison to the potent ill consequences of meddling in that country by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In early 2006, a fundamentalist Islamist movement called al-Shabaab had little Somali public support until the United States began backing corrupt and vicious warlords against the group. When interference by a foreign power caused the popularity of al-Shabaab to spike, Bush the Younger made things worse by sponsoring an invasion of the country by another foreign power – Ethiopia. Al-Shabaab survived this onslaught and threatened to oust the weak Somali government in the summer of 2009 after the Ethiopians withdrew their forces. The U.S. then hurriedly shipped millions of dollars of weapons to a government that is on life support and controls very little of the country, and only part of the capital of Mogadishu. As long as the United States intervenes in Somalia even indirectly, al-Shabaab can portray itself as battling the evil foreign infidels. 
Had the George W. Bush and Obama administrations left Somalia alone after the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administration disaster, al-Shabaab would likely be only a local Islamist group without much Somali popular support. Traditionally, most Somalis have been moderate Muslims. Now the group controls most of Somalia and, in its animosity toward the United States, allegedly harbors high-level al-Qaeda operatives. Also, there is talk of a new “axis” between the al-Shabaab and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group that sent the Christmas suicide bomber on the flight to the United States shortly after the U.S. sponsored a Yemeni government offensive against Islamists in that country just across the Gulf of Aden. 
And these are not the only times that the United States has inadvertently created potent enemies. The CIA’s greatest “covert” success – helping the fundamentalist Islamist mujahideen defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan – was also its greatest failure. During the Cold War, the CIA encouraged Saudi Arabia to promote radical Islamism abroad as a counter to communism. In Soviet Afghanistan, the United States had funded the most extremist Islamist groups through the Pakistani intelligence services. That policy came back to severely bite the U.S. on 9/11 – with an attack by al Qaeda, an anti-U.S. radical Muslim group originating from the anti-Soviet U.S. effort that was motivated to strike by U.S. interventions in and occupation of Islamic countries and was harbored by a Islamist Taliban Afghan government also arising from the U.S. effort. Was a communist defeat in backwater Afghanistan worth almost 3,000 dead in New York and Washington, the intense fear generated, the resultant erosion of the American Republic’s unique civil liberties, and the current U.S. nation-building quagmire to keep the Taliban from returning to power? No. 
Yet even before this sorry episode, U.S. government overseas interference was laying the seeds for future antagonisms with Iran and Iraq. In 1953, the U.S. overthrew the freely elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadegh in favor of the autocratic shah, who became a longtime U.S. client. When Iranians became fed up with his despotic rule and overthrew him in the late 1970s, the new Islamist government had resented U.S. support for the shah and thus became an implacable U.S. foe. Because the new regime had held U.S. diplomats hostage for a long time and hated the United States, when aggressive Saddam Hussein attacked Iran, the U.S. provided militarily usable items, valuable satellite intelligence, and military planning expertise to him (some accuse the Carter administration of actually encouraging Saddam’s invasion of Iran in the first place). The bloody eight-year war ended with the advantage going to Saddam. Even after this war ended, the U.S. still backed the emboldened Saddam until he invaded Kuwait. The legacy of grinding economic sanctions and two U.S. wars against Saddam is a second U.S. occupation that is still sitting on a powder keg of ethno-sectarian animosities. 
One might make the accusation of cherry-picking U.S. foreign policy failures and ignored the successes, but these failures are very significant and should be a cautionary tale as the U.S. sinks deeper into the Somali quicksand. The United States is aiding the upcoming offensive of an ineffectual and corrupt “friendly” Islamist government to retake the capital Mogadishu from the “unfriendly” Islamist al-Shabaab. Is this Afghan déjà vu all over again?

EU Military mission to Somalia by Toby Vogel (EuropeanVoice)

The European Union is on the brink of launching a new military mission, to train around 2,000 Somali security forces in Uganda. A decision is expected from member states in the coming weeks, and the EU Training Mission (EUTM) could start as soon as 1 May. 
Around 150 military personnel – with between 20-30 planners and trainers each from France, Spain, Germany and Italy – will provide training in urban warfare and the search for improvised explosive devices to recruits on the side of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government, which is resisting Islamist insurgents. 
A mission of this sort was proposed almost a year ago by France, which has already trained Somali forces in Djibouti. But planning was held up by member state concerns – including over the risks of trainees deserting to better-paying militias, misappropriation of funds, or human rights abuses by trained soldiers. 
Concerned aid workers 
Since January, when member states’ foreign ministers approved the mission’s broad outlines, details have been refined on vetting of trainees, monitoring and mentoring of soldiers once they return to Somalia, and the funding and payment of salaries. But aid agencies with headquarters in the EU have expressed anxiety that their staff could become a target for insurgent attacks once the EU starts training government troops.
[N.B.: Besides this well founded fear of aid agencies, the EU mission is also ill-advised and ill-designed because it will just train another bunch of potential merchenaries for any side, which pays best. There is no guarantee whatsoever that any of these soldiers would ever risk his life for anything else than money or a religious belief. What most observers, however, overlook is that the excercise is not geared to help Somalia but to position the new EU landforces at a location which gets prepared for the next armed conflict in Sudan, which seems pre-programmed already.]

DEVELOPMENT: ‘Aid Industry is Part of the Problem’ by Ida Karlsson (IPS)
Aid organisations perpetuate humanitarian disasters. That is one of the conclusions made by war correspondent Linda Polman in her latest book as she describes the world of humanitarian aid.
When there is a major disaster, large and wealthy aid organisations come pouring into the area, according to Polman who has seen the results in a range of crisis areas. 
“Should international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) carry on providing relief if warring factions use aid for their own benefit, thus prolonging the war?” she asks. 
‘With Friends Like These (De crisiskaravaan) – The untold story of humanitarian aid operations in war zones’ investigates the effects of emergency aid on the course of wars and on the crises themselves. She criticises the aid industry‘s multi-billion dollar operations, which she describes as a business in a market of supply and demand, dressed up as Mother Teresa. 
“Aid has always been a subject of abuse. Money is disappearing into the wrong pockets,’’ she says. 
Polman talks about “contract fever” and how aid organisations focus on winning and extending contracts and follow the flow of funds. As donors look for other disasters and other countries, the crisis caravan – international humanitarian organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the International Committee of the Red Cross – set off again. 
The salaries and the danger-and-discomfort bonuses in the aid sector are said to be fostering an international jet set. “In humanitarian territories, restaurants, squash courts and golf and tennis facilities are often reconstructed sooner than bombed-out schools and clinics,” she writes in her book and notes “wherever aid workers go, prostitution soars”. 
She also describes how aid is used and abused by governments and rebels. 
“The military regime is making a lot of profit from the aid in Darfur. Aid organisations pour millions of dollars a year into Sudanese government coffers, because they have to pay tax on every morsel they hand out in aid.” 
According to Polman, over 70 percent of the Sudanese government’s money is spent on the army, which sets fire to villages in Darfur and forces people to flee. 
She also recalls the situation in a refugee camp in Goma in 1995, in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, when Hutu extremists were sustained and nursed by humanitarian aid and therefore could continue the war in Rwanda. 
“While the West thought it was helping victims of the genocide, it turned out it was the perpetrators who the aid organisations were looking after so well.” 
According to her many humanitarian organisations simply ignore the complicated context they are working in – even when wrongful use is made of their assistance. 
However, director general of the Dutch section of MSF, Hans van de Weerd, says his organisation disagrees with the general tone of Polman’s book. 
“The book lumps all humanitarian aid into one big group. We do not recognise our work at all in the series of incidents mentioned. With our own teams we closely monitor the situation in the field to ensure that aid gets to the most vulnerable people,” he told IPS. 
He says that MSF is aware that humanitarian assistance can be manipulated. The organisation has carried out several studies to get a better understanding of the diversion of aid in Chad and Darfur, among other places. 
“If we notice that our assistance is no longer reaching those most in need, if we can no longer operate in a neutral or impartial manner, we have to revise our activities or even decide to stop providing help,” he says. 
Last week the World Food Programme, the food aid branch of the United Nations, released a report showing that it is very likely that half of the 250 million dollars spent in Somalia has disappeared into the pockets of war lords, which means a serious injection into the war economy. The report is now in the hands of the United Nations Security Council. 
According to a 2005 study by the Centre for Civil Society Studies at John Hopkins University in the U.S., the non-profit sector is an enormous economic force and the fifth largest economy in terms of GDP after the U.S., Japan, Germany and Britain. 
“About 37, 000 aid organisations in the world spending 130 billion dollars makes it an industry,” Polman says. 
She welcomes the possibility of humanitarian organisations being tried by the International Criminal Court. “I would applaud at least the possibility of the option because of the role international aid organisations play in wars.’’

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has returned to the Netherlands with the same message as when she left: Islam needs its own period of ‘Enlightenment’. Ms Hirsi Ali is back for one week to promote her most recent book, Nomad. It’s her first substantial visit since leaving the Dutch parliament four years ago to live in the United States. 
Her main point still is that Muslim integration into Dutch society can only succeed if Muslim immigrants fully embrace Dutch values and leave their own values behind. The two systems of thought cannot be combined. 
“The idea that the two can be combined is why the problem has lasted so long, and become so entrenched as to be nearly intractable: people have contradictory expectations.” 
Wilders good
In her criticism of Muslim integration, the former Dutch conservative VVD party MP echoes many of the ideas of Geert Wilders, once her VVD colleague and now leader of his ‘own’ Freedom Party (PVV). Mr Wilders’ party is likely to become one of the largest, if not the largest, in the country after the general election on 9 June.
He is currently on trial facing charges of inciting hatred toward Muslims. Ms Hirsi Ali disagrees. She says that on the contrary, Mr Wilders is preventing violence by allowing a segment of the population to channel their anger by voting rather than rioting. Wilders is good for the Netherlands she says. 
But she also criticises the Freedom Party leader for raising false expectations. 
“I have also learned that you have to translate political proposals into policy, and my critique for Geert Wilders is that his proposals have raised expectations that cannot be translated into policy.” 
Ms Hirsi Ali portrays herself as more pragmatic than Mr Wilders. 
Still controversial
Ms Hirsi Ali’s future remains uncertain. The publication of her latest book here in the Netherlands, and the publicity tour she has organised, reveal her ongoing interest in Dutch affairs. 
And, in case anyone forgot, she can still stir things up. An avowed atheist, she says the government should promote the Enlightenment – the period in and around the 18th century when many in Europe began to emphasise the importance of science and reason over religion – as an alternative to Islam.  
“And for those who really cannot live without God, better a caring Jesus than a warlord like Mohammed.” 
Nomad is Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s third book.
Once a rising star 
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is living proof of what an individual immigrant from a Muslim background can accomplish. 
Born in Somalia, but raised in three other countries, she gained refugee status in the Netherlands in 1992, under what were later revealed to be false pretences. 
After learning Dutch and pursuing higher education she first went to work for the Dutch Labour Party’s research institute.
The conservative VVD party recruited her as a candidate for parliament, where she handled integration issues for three years. She herself nearly faced charges similar to those facing Mr Wilders, after she called the Muslim prophet Mohammed a paedophile. 
She received protection from the government after making the film Submission with Theo van Gogh, who was later murdered by a Muslim extremist. Revelations about lying to gain refugee status indirectly led to the fall of the government, and she emigrated to the United States.
Four years later, Ms Hirsi Ali has tempered her approach, if not her ideas. She continues to live under constant protection in the US, at her own expense. But she enjoys greater anonymity and a freer lifestyle than she had in the Netherlands.

Martyr video claims Toronto man ‘succeeded’ by Stewart Bell (NationalPost)
Attack In Somalia while Hardline Islamist fighters from Al-Shabab parade in the streets of Mogadishu. The rebel group has instituted a strict Muslim state in parts of Somalia.

ETHIOPIA: Traffickers exploit World Cup fever (IRIN) 
Human traffickers and smugglers in Ethiopia have taken advantage of the upcoming World Cup, duping victims into believing that South Africa has created huge employment opportunities, says a government report, Illegal Migration: Causes, Consequences and Solutions to human trafficking and smuggling in Ethiopia. 

UNSG proposal on advisory panel, an infringement on Lanka’s sovereignty: Rohitha Bogollagama (Asiantribune.com):

Sri Lanka reiterates its position that the proposed move by the UN Secretary General to appoint a Panel of Experts to advise him on accountability issues relating to Sri Lanka is an infringement on the sovereignty of an independent Member State, Minister for Foreign Affairs Rohitha Bogollagama has said today. 
“These issues can be dealt with by Sri Lanka that already has full-fledged local mechanisms like the judiciary, commissions of inquiry to undertake such inquiries,” he said addressing the media persons. 
Further, the situation in Sri Lanka is not on the agenda of either the Security Council or the General Assembly or its subsidiary body, the Human Rights Council. Therefore, this proposed measure can only be construed as an “intrusive unilateral initiative” by the UN Secretary General, he pointed out. 
Recognizing these clear violations (attempt to violate the UN Charter and interfere in the internal affairs of a Member State), the Chair of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement on behalf of the 118 Member Non-Aligned Movement unequivocally expressed the Group’s concern on the announced intention to appoint a Panel of Experts by the UNSG to advice him on accountability issues relating to Sri Lanka, he said. 
The Minister further said that the NAM letter was based on the principled positions of the Movement as contained in the Sharm El Sheikh Final Document adopted by the 15thNAM Summit, vis-à-vis respect for national sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs of States, impartiality, non-selectivity and transparency in addressing human rights issues. 
“Hence, what should underline the thinking of the UN is the necessity to provide the Government with the space needed to establish a domestic mechanism to look into such issues with national reconciliation as the guiding principle. The President had assured the UN SG in the telephone conversation on this issue that such a domestic mechanism would be established,” he said. 
Channel 4 issues 
Talking on Channel 4 issues, Mr. Bogollagama regretted the Channel’s continued engagement in partial and subjective reporting on events related to Sri Lanka. Having found common cause with those diaspora elements of the LTTE and others inimical to Sri Lanka’s national interests, Channel 4 has been faithfully answering the call by keeping the focus on Sri Lanka negative and vindictive. 
Countering Channel 4 News Report on General Sarath Fonseka, the Minister said his arrest was well within the law of the country. The Supreme Court had issued notices to the respondents when the petition filed by the spouse of General Fonseka challenging the legality of the arrest in a fundamental rights application on February 23 and the application for the bail has also been refused by the Supreme Court, he said. 
Lankan delegation to Brussels 
On the visit of Sri Lanka delegation for discussion on GSP+ issue, the Foreign Minister said the delegation comprised senior officials of the Government– the Attorney General, the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance & Planning, the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice & Law Reforms and the Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs– who undertook an official visit to Brussels from March 14 to 18 on the instructions of President Mahinda Rajapaksa strongly engaged with the international community, including with Sri Lanka’s key trade and economic partners. 
The delegation on March 15 met with the European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht. This meeting was followed by an in-depth and substantive discussion on GSP+ related concerns with the officials handling Trade and External Relations matters in the Commission. 
“During discussions, the delegation pointed out that Sri Lanka has a long-standing democratic tradition. It is therefore inevitable that with the end of the extraordinary situation of terror faced by Sri Lanka for almost three decades, there would now follow a progressive return to normalcy, accompanied by on-going efforts towards the further strengthening of good governance, while having regard to transitional law enforcement and security challenges. This return to normalcy in turn provides a necessary basis for a continuing engagement with the European Union. The delegation observed that there has already been significant progress on several areas such as the re-settlement of the Internally Displaced and the rehabilitation of former child soldiers.” 
The delegation also met with the Director General of ECHO, the Humanitarian Aid arm of the European Commission, Dr. Peter Zangl. In a meeting with the Director General for External and Politico-Military Affairs of the European Council Robert Cooper, the delegation underlined the importance Sri Lanka attaches to widening and deepening her ties with the European Union. 
The delegation has also met with the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator of the Council of the European Union Gilles De Kerchove, the President of the International Crisis Group (ICG) and former High Commissioner for Human Rights of the UN Louise Arbour, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). The European Parliamentarians have been strongly supportive of Sri Lanka Government’s efforts to retain the GSP+ facility. 
The Chairman of the ‘Friends of Sri Lanka’ group and longstanding member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Geoffrey Van Orden, in a letter addressed to 27 Ambassadors of Member States of the EU, called on the EU countries to “take account of the wider situation and improvements on the ground” in deciding on the GSP+ issue in relation to Sri Lanka, the Minister said. 
“ I wish to reiterate that the GOSL has adopted a consistent policy of engagement with the EU on the GSP+ issue with a view to retaining it, in a manner respectful of our national interest. In this regard, I have always emphasized that Sri Lanka should maintain a consistent dialogue with the EU on issues of concern. This visit is a reflection of the consistency of this policy. It is my firm belief that the amicable settlement of differences is in the best interest of both parties,” he said. 
On release of hijacked Lankan crew members 
When the Saudi Arabian vessel ‘MV Al Nasr Al Saudi’ was hijacked with 13 Sri Lankan crew members by pirates on the Somalia coast on March 1, the Minister said he immediately called for a report from the Sri Lanka Embassy in Riyadh and the Consulate General in Jeddah and requested the Missions to obtain all details pertaining to the crew members and extend all possible assistance to ensure their welfare and expedite their release. 
The Sri Lanka Embassy in Riyadh took prompt action and contacted the Saudi Navel authorities and other connected organizations. The Consul General in Jeddah has also held a series of meetings with the General Manager of the company which owns this ship, he said. 
Following these meetings, the General Manager of the shipping company had stated that the family members of the thirteen Sri Lankan crew members had been apprised of the incident through their local representative in Sri Lanka, M/S. Viththy Marine in Colombo, including the actions being taken by the shipping company to secure the release of the crew, he said. 
In addition, the Captain of the vessel had also spoken with the Company officials and had informed that since all the crew members were on board the vessels, they had all necessary basic facilities and that they were in good health. On the request of our Consulate, the company had also made arrangements to credit talk time through a satellite phone to enable the crew members to speak to their families in Sri Lanka. The company had also handed over the salary dues of the Sri Lankan crew for the past two months to our Consulate in Jeddah to be sent to their families in Sri Lanka, the Minister said. 
Currently the company is awaiting the arrival of a professional negotiating team from UK to arrive in Jeddah in order to commence negotiations with the pirates following their demand for US$20Million as ransom for the ship and the crew. “I have instructed our Consulate in Jeddah to liaise with the company and ensure that all necessary action is taken to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the crew and expedite their release. I have also instructed the Consular Affairs Division of this Ministry to assist the families of the crew and provide then with information on this matter on a regular basis,” he said.

Danish Court Refuses To Hear Iraq War Case Against NATO Chief 
Danish court throws out Iraq complaint against NATO chief (Expatica)
Denmark’s Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a request by 26 Danish citizens to prosecute former prime minister and current NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen for sending troops to Iraq.
The nine judges threw out the petition saying troops were deployed as a result of a “political foreign affairs decision” in circumstances in which the constitution allowed the government to “act in the name of the kingdom,” according to a written explanation given by the court.
The group of 26 plaintiffs calling themselves the Committee of the Constitution 2003 wanted Rasmussen to be put on trial for what it describes as “the illegal decision of the government and parliament of March 21, 2003 to lead a war of aggression against Iraq.”
It said the war had violated article 19 of the constitution which only allowed a defensive war against a foreign state or a commitment in a conflict “legitimised” by the United Nations.
Denmark deployed forces in Iraq from 2003 to 2007 when it withdrew its battalion of 430 troops in the south of the country.

Operation Enduring Occupation by Dahr Jamail  (t r u t h o u t)
Plain Speak 
The 2008 National Defense Strategy reads:

US interests include protecting the nation and our allies from attack or coercion, promoting international security to reduce conflict and foster economic growth, and securing the global commons and with them access to world markets and resources. To pursue these interests, the US has developed military capabilities and alliances and coalitions, participated in and supported international security and economic institutions, used diplomacy and soft power to shape the behavior of individual states and the international system, and using force when necessary. These tools help inform the strategic framework with which the United States plans for the future, and help us achieve our ends.

It adds:

… Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the US. To accomplish this, the US will require bases and stations within and beyond western Europe and Northeast Asia.

In light of such clear objectives, it is highly unlikely that the US government will allow a truly sovereign Iraq, unfettered by US troops either within its borders or monitoring it from abroad, anytime soon. 
The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the Iraqi and US governments indicate an ongoing US presence past both the August 2010 deadline to remove all combat troops, and the 2011 deadline to remove the remaining troops. 
According to all variations of the SOFA the US uses to provide a legal mandate for it’s nearly 1,000 bases across the planet, technically, no US base in any foreign country is “permanent.” Thus, the US bases in Japan, South Korea and Germany that have existed for decades are not “permanent.” Technically. 
Most analysts agree that the US plans to maintain at least five “enduring” bases in Iraq. 
Noted US writer, linguist and political analyst Noam Chomsky, said, “Bases [abroad] are the empire. They are the point of projection of power and expansion of power.” 
Chalmers Johnson, author and professor emeritus of UC San Diego commented, “In a symbolic sense [bases] are a way of showing that America stands there watching.” 
Longtime defense analyst from George Washington University, Gordon Adams, told The Associated Press that in the broader context of reinforcing US presence in the oil-rich Middle East, bases in Iraq are preferable to aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. “Carriers don’t have the punch. There’s a huge advantage to land-based infrastructure. At the level of strategy it makes total sense to have Iraq bases.” 
According to Professor Zoltan Grossman of The Evergreen State College, who has been researching military bases and participating in the global network against foreign bases for several years, the US has no intention of releasing control of its bases in Iraq. The Pentagon, he believes, has many old tricks to mask a military presence and armed pressure. 
In an interview with Truthout he observed:

Since the Gulf War, the US has not just been building the bases to wage wars, but has been waging wars to leave behind the bases. The effect has been to create a new US military sphere of influence wedged in the strategic region between the E.U., Russia and China. The Pentagon has not been building these sprawling, permanent bases just to hand them over to client governments.

Grossman’s prediction for Iraq:

Look for a Visiting Forces Agreement – of the kind negotiated with the Philippines – that allows supposedly ‘visiting’ US forces unrestricted access to its former bases. Similarly, constant joint military exercises can keep US troops continually visible and intimidating to Iraqis. Even after 2011, nothing in the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement prevents US bombers (stationed in Kuwait and elsewhere) from attacking Iraqi targets whenever they want, just as they did between 1991 and 2003. Nothing prevents the type of missile or Special Forces attacks like we’re seeing in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Nothing prevents CIA or contractors from participating in Iraqi missions or intelligence operations.

Adding credence to this, we have Article 6 of the US/Iraqi SOFA discussing “agreed facilities,” Article 27 mentions “mutually agreed … military measures” after 2011 and Article 28 talks of a scenario where Iraq is able to “request” US security in the International Zone (Green Zone.) 
Gray Language 
Chapter six of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report stated:

In February 2009, President Obama outlined the planned drawdown of US forces in Iraq to 50,000 troops and the change in mission by August 31, 2010. By this time, US forces will have completed the transition from combat and counterinsurgency to a more limited mission set focused on training and assisting the Iraqi Security Forces ($2 billion has already been set aside for this for FY2011); providing force protection for US military and civilian personnel and facilities; and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations and supporting US civilian agencies and international organizations in their capacity-building efforts.

The report further clarifies that US troop drawdowns “will occur in accordance” with the SOFA, but that “the pace of the drawdown takes into consideration Iraq’s improved, yet fragile, security gains” and “provides US commanders sufficient flexibility to assist the Iraqis with emerging challenges.” 
On May 15, 2006, Gen. John Abizaid, overseeing US military operations in Iraq at the time, said, “The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil.” 
On March 12, 2010, Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo, the commander of US troops in Northern Iraq, told reporters during a conference call that it might be necessary to keep combat troops involved in the security mechanism that maintains peace between Iraqi national and Kurdish regional forces beyond the August deadline. 
The National Security Strategy for US Missions abroad proposes to “Ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade and pressing for open markets, financial stability, and deeper integration of the world economy.” This fits perfectly with the policy outlined by the Quadrennial Defense Review Report, which says there is a stated ability for the US military to fight “multiple overlapping wars” and to “ensure that all major and emerging powers are integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the international system.” 
Such gray language and loopholes in policy documents have been common since the US invaded Iraq seven years ago. This has not changed with the SOFA. 
“The likelihood of the US planning to keep troops in Iraq after December 31, 2011 has to be measured in the context of the history of US violations of other countries’ sovereign territory, airspace, etc.,” Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, explained to Truthout. “At the moment, this is perhaps most obvious in Pakistan – where the US has been routinely attacking alleged Taliban or al Qaeda supporters with both air and [limited] ground troops in Pakistani territory despite the stated opposition of the Pakistani government which is nominally allied to the US.” 
“The early public discussions of ‘re-missioning’ combat troops, changing their official assignment from combat to ‘training’ or ‘assistance,’ thus allowing them to remain in Iraq after the August 2010 deadline for all combat troops to be removed from the country, provides the model for how such sleight of language will occur,” Bennis said, adding, “It may or may not be linked to a future ‘need’ for US troops to remain to protect the increasing numbers of US government civilians assigned to Iraq as the official number of troops decreases.” 
Bennis explained that the language of the SOFA is grounded in the claim that Iraq is a sovereign nation and that the government of Iraq is choosing freely to partner with the US government. But the reality, according to Bennis, is that the SOFA was negotiated and signed while Iraq was (and continues to be today) a country occupied and controlled by the United States. Its government is and was at the time of the SOFA’s signing dependent on the US for support. 
In Article 27 of the SOFA, the text stated, “in the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may be mutually agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat.” 
While the agreement is ostensibly binding only for three years, Article 30 permits amendments to the SOFA, which could, of course, include extending its timeframe – and with the Iraqi government still qualitatively dependent on US support, this appears likely. The same is true for Article 28, which states, “The Government of Iraq may request from the United States Forces limited and temporary support for the Iraqi authorities in the mission of security for the Green Zone.” 
She concluded:

There is no question that the US has wanted for many years to establish and maintain military bases in Iraq, whether or not they are officially designated as “permanent.” I do not believe the Pentagon is prepared to hand them all over to Iraq, despite the language in the agreement mandating exactly that. Instead, I think the formal arrangement following expiration of the current SOFA may be through some sort of officially “bilateral” agreement between Washington and Baghdad, allowing for the US to “rent” or “lease” or “borrow” the bases from an allegedly “sovereign” government in Iraq on a long-term basis. The likelihood of this increases with the growing number of statements from US military and political officials hinting broadly at the possibility of a long-term presence of US troops in Iraq after December 31, 2011, “if the sovereign government of Iraq should request such an idea …

Faculty Director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University in New York, Professor Michael Schwartz, has written extensively on insurgency and the US Empire. 
He pointed out to Truthout that President Obama’s “… actions have made it very clear that he is unwilling to sacrifice the 50,000-strong strike force, even while he has also said he would abide by the SOFA and remove all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. In the meantime, Gates and various generals have released hedging statements or trial balloons saying that the 2011 deadline might be impractical and that various types of forces might stay longer, either to provide air power, to continue training the Iraq military, or to protect Iraq from invasion. Any or all of these could translate into the maintenance of the 50k strike force as well as the five ‘enduring bases.’” 
That the Obama administration intends to maintain a significant military presence in Iraq after 2011 is obvious from its continued insistence that in Iraq “democracy” must be guaranteed. 
Schwartz explained:

In Washington speak this means that the government of Iraq must be an ally of the United States, a condition that has been iterated and reiterated by all factions (GOP and Democrat) in Washington, since the original invasion. Given the increasing unwillingness of the Maliki administration to follow US dictates (for example, on oil contracts, on relations with Iran, and on relations with Anbar and other Sunni provinces), the removal of troops would allow Maliki even more leeway to pursue policies unacceptable to Washington. Thus, even if Maliki succeeds himself in the Premiership, the US may need troops to keep the pressure on him. If he does not succeed himself, then the likely alternate choices are far more explicit in their antagonism to integration of Iraq into the US sphere of interest … the Obama administration would then be left with the unacceptable prospect that withdrawal would result in Iraq adopting a posture not unlike Iran’s with regard to US presence and influence in the Middle East.

His grim conclusion:

All in all, there are myriad signs that withdrawal of US troops might result in Iraq breaking free from US influence and/or deprive the United States of the strong military presence in that part of the Middle East that both Bush and Obama advocated and have struggled to establish. Until I see some sign that the five bases are going to be dismantled, I will continue to believe that the US will find some reason – with or without the consent of the Iraqi government – to maintain a very large (on the order of 50k) military force there.

Expanding the Base 
The US embassy in Iraq, already the largest diplomatic compound on the planet and the size of the Vatican City, is now likely to be doubled in size. Robert Ford, the deputy chief of mission in Baghdad, told reporters in January, “If Congress gives us the money we are asking for, this embassy is going to be twice the size it is now. It’s not going down, it’s getting bigger.” 
In 2005, The Washington Post reported:

An even more expensive airfield renovation is underway in Iraq at the Balad air base, a hub for US military logistics, where for $124 million the Air Force is building additional ramp space for cargo planes and helicopters. And farther south, in Qatar, a state-of-the-art, 104,000-square-foot air operations center for monitoring US aircraft in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa is taking shape in the form of a giant concrete bunker … the US military has more than $1.2 billion in projects either underway or planned in the Central Command region – an expansion plan that US commanders say is necessary both to sustain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide for a long-term presence in the area.

Lt. Gen. Walter E. Buchanan III, who oversees Central Command’s air operations pointed out, “As the ground force shrinks, we’ll need the air to be able to put a presence in parts of the country where we don’t have soldiers, to keep eyes out where we don’t have soldiers on the ground.” 
In 2007 in a piece titled “US Builds Air base in Iraq for the Long Haul” NPR reported, “The US military base in Balad, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, is rapidly becoming one of the largest American military installations on foreign soil … The base is one giant construction project, with new roads, sidewalks, and structures going up across this 16-square-mile fortress in the center of Iraq, all with an eye toward the next few decades.” 
It is so big that, “There is a regular bus service within its perimeter to ferry around the tens of thousands of troops and contractors who live here. And the services are commensurate with the size of the population. The Subway sandwich chain is one of several US chains with a foothold here. There are two base exchanges that are about as large as a Target or K-Mart. Consumer items from laptop computers to flat-screen TV’s to Harley Davidson motorcycles are available for purchase.” 
The report added, “Several senior military officials have privately described Balad Air Base, and a few other large installations in Iraq, as future bases of operation for the US military.” The term used is “lily pad,” a description of the military jumping from base to base without ever touching the ground in between. 
In September 2009 The New York Times reported about Balad:

It takes the masseuse, Mila from Kyrgyzstan, an hour to commute to work by bus on this sprawling American base. Her massage parlor is one of three on the base’s 6,300 acres and sits next to a Subway sandwich shop in a trailer, surrounded by blast walls, sand and rock. At the Subway, workers from India and Bangladesh make sandwiches for American soldiers looking for a taste of home. When the sandwich makers’ shifts end, the journey home takes them past a power plant, an ice-making plant, a sewage treatment center, a hospital and dozens of other facilities one would expect to find in a small city. And in more than six years, that is what Americans have created here: cities in the sand…. Some bases have populations of more than 20,000, with thousands of contractors and third-country citizens to keep them running.

Camp Anaconda, as the Balad base is named, also has an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The bottling company there provides seven million bottles of water a month for those on base. This base also contains two fire stations and the single busiest landing strip in the entire Defense Department. 
A 2006 Associated Press story, “Elaborate US Bases raise long-term questions,” gave the following account:

[At Balad] the concrete goes on forever, vanishing into the noonday glare, 2 million cubic feet of it, a mile-long slab that’s now the home of up to 120 US helicopters, a “heli-park” as good as any back in the States. At another giant base, al-Asad in Iraq’s western desert, the 17,000 troops and workers come and go in a kind of bustling American town, with a Burger King, Pizza Hut and a car dealership, stop signs, traffic regulations and young bikers clogging the roads. The latest budget also allots $39 million for new airfield lighting, air traffic control systems and upgrades allowing al-Asad to plug into the Iraqi electricity grid – a typical sign of a long-term base. At Tallil, besides the new $14 million dining facility, Ali Air Base is to get, for $22 million, a double perimeter security fence with high-tech gate controls, guard towers and a moat – in military parlance, a “vehicle entrapment ditch with berm.”

Truthout contacted renowned journalist and filmmaker John Pilger for his views:

Like Afghanistan, the occupation of Iraq is more a war of perception than military reality. I don’t believe the US has the slightest intention of leaving Iraq. Yes, there will be the “drawdown” of regular troops with the kind of fanfare and ritual designed to convince the American public that a genuine withdrawal is happening. But the sum of off-the-record remarks by senior generals, who are ever conscious of the war of perception, is that at least 70,000 troops will remain in various guises. Add to this up to 200,000 mercenaries. This is an old ruse. The British used to “withdraw” from colonies and leave behind fortress-bases and their Special Forces, the SAS.
Bush invaded Iraq as part of a long-term US design to restore one of the pillars of US policy and empire in the region: in effect, to make all of Iraq a base. The invasion went badly wrong and the “country as base” concept was modified to that of Iraq indirectly controlled or intimidated by a series of fortress-bases. These are permanent. This is also the US plan for Afghanistan. One has to keep in mind that US foreign policy is now controlled by the Pentagon, whose man is Robert Gates. It is as if Bush never left office. Under Bush there was an effective military coup in much of Washington; the State Department was stripped of its power; and Obama did as no president has ever done: he brought across from a previous, discredited administration the entire war making bureaucracy and gave it virtually unlimited power. The only way the US will leave is for the resistance to rise again, and for Shiites and Sunni to unite; I think that will happen.

Captain, My Captain 
On March 4, 2010, as a guest on NPR’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” Thomas Ricks, who was the military correspondent for the Washington Post, referring to President Obama’s promises to withdraw from Iraq, said, “I would say you shouldn’t believe [it] because I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think we’re going to have several thousand, several tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq on the day President Obama leaves office.” 
Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the US Army, stated last May that his planning for the Army envisions combat troops in Iraq for a decade as part of a sustained US commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East. “Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction,” he said, “They fundamentally will change how the Army works.” 
Senior CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who served under seven presidents – from John Kennedy to George H. W. Bush – explained to Truthout, “Since 2003 I’ve been suggesting that the Iraq war was motivated by the acronym OIL: oil, Israel, and Logistics (military bases to further the interests of the first two).” 
In January 2008, McGovern wrote of statements signed by George W. Bush when he was in the White House:

Contrary to how President George W. Bush has tried to justify the Iraq war in the past, he has now clumsily – if inadvertently – admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed primarily at seizing predominant influence over its oil by establishing permanent (the administration favors “enduring”) military bases. He made this transparently clear by adding a signing statement to the defense appropriation bill, indicating that he would not be bound by the law’s prohibition against expending funds:
“(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq,” or 
“(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

At the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on November 20, 2006, in a speech titled “A Way Forward in Iraq,” Sen. Barack Obama, who had not yet become the commander in chief of the US military, declared:

Drawing down our troops in Iraq will allow us to redeploy additional troops to Northern Iraq and elsewhere in the region as an over-the-horizon force. This force could help prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, consolidate gains in Northern Iraq, reassure allies in the Gulf, allow our troops to strike directly at al Qaeda wherever it may exist, and demonstrate to international terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region.

On March 16, 2010, Gen. David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, told lawmakers that the US military may set up an additional headquarters in northern Iraq even after the September 2010 deadline. Petraeus said that putting a headquarters in northern Iraq was “something we are looking at.” 
What reason is there to doubt our commander in chief ‘s assertion that there is need to maintain an (approximately 50,000 strong) US “strike force” in or near Iraq to guarantee US interests in the Middle East, to allow Washington to move quickly against jihadists in the region and to make clear to “our enemies” that the US will not be “driven from the region”?

China refutes British report on human rights  (Xinhua)
China on Thursday refuted Britain’s latest annual report on human rights, calling the report “an ideological political show.” 
“China’s human rights cause is progressing continuously and it is obvious to any person without prejudice,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regular press conference. 
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband launched the 2009 Annual Report on Human Rights Wednesday afternoon in the wake of his visit to China this week. The 192-page report named China as one of 22 “countries of concern.” 
Qin said most of the countries listed in the report were developing countries. 
“Why doesn’t the report talk about some Western countries that have also violated human rights? This is simply an ideological political show,” he said. 
“China has been committed to promoting and protecting its people’s human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Qin said. 
He said Chinese people of various ethnic groups enjoyed fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution according to law and the level of their enjoyment of human rights had increased significantly. 
In its rapid economic development, China had also stressed the rule of law and social progress, and the government was committed to building a fair, just and harmonious society, he said. 
He acknowledged that differences still existed among nations on human rights issues due to different levels of cultural and economic development. 
“China stands for narrowing the differences through dialogue on the basis of mutual respect and equality,” he said. 
China opposed pressure and confrontation, double standards on human rights issues and interference in other nation’s internal affairs, he added. 
The other 21 “countries of concern” were Afghanistan, Belarus, Colombia, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.

Non-Lethal Weapons Change Warfare by Richard L. Scott (military-technologies)
Which is better in war? Wipe out a nation completely and start fresh? Merely disarm the enemy through aggressive tactics? Or subdue through nonaggressive means altogether?
Philosophers from Niccolo Machiavelli to Carl von Clausewitz to Sun Tzu have been debating the most effective means to approach warfare for centuries.  
Today, the United States has been actively fighting two wars with high casualty rates for both sides. It would be valuable for the commander in chief and senior military leaders to consider the merits of a nonlethal approach to warfare. 
The term “nonlethal weapon” generally refers to weapons intended to be less likely to kill or to cause great bodily injury than a conventional weapon, i.e., guns, missiles, bombs, etc. 
Nonlethal weapons can include chemical and biological agents, electroshock devices, acoustic devices, optical munitions, blunt or rubber projectiles, traction modifiers, nets or rapid-hardening rigid foam, radio frequency or microwave technologies, computer viruses, noxious smells, and acoustical interference technologies. 
It wouldn’t be difficult to have soldiers learn to use these weapons more regularly, as these types of weapons are already used in any number of operations. 
Experience points to the fact that nonlethal weapons (NLW) are not only appropriate for use, they could be the most effective strategy and save thousands of lives. 
Consider, for example what happened in Somalia in 1995. Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni forcasted the need to fill the void between verbal warnings and lethal force for unarmed hostiles while extracting United Nations peacekeepers (over 6,000 soldiers) from Somalia. He used intelligence operations to ensure the local population was informed that his forces were armed and ready with nonlethal grenade launchers and other equipment such as shotguns that fired pepper spray. 
As a result, not a single shot was fired and all troops and equipment were withdrawn without suffering a casualty. “Our experience in Somalia with nonlethal weapons offered ample testimony to the tremendous flexibility they offer to warriors on the field of battle,” Zinni explained later. 
So what prevents the military from using more tactics such as the one Zinni used? A general lack of understanding of the methods used by of torturers among watchdog groups. 
Groups such as the International Committee of the Red Cross have strongly opposed the proliferation of many nonlethal weapons, even going so far as campaigning to have banned them outlawed altogether, mainly due to abuse of such nonlethal weapons. 
However, as the broad definition of nonlethal weapons shows, it is a user’s intent, not the tool, that is problematic. After all, there is no shortage of objects that can be used as instruments of torture. 
The effectiveness of nonlethal weapons reducing noncombatant deaths and collateral damage and bridging the gap between lethality and a show of force depends on intention, not capability. 
Moreover, soldiers understand the types of wars being fought and the enemy they are facing. Ground forces are expected to demonstrate maturity and discipline and feel confident handling their weapon systems, but confidence can only be attained as a result of training. 
Only through familiarization, qualification, testing, simulations, and exercises will forces confidently and responsibly employ NLWs. 
Senior military planners need to consider the ramifications of sending soldiers into a hostile environment armed only with lethal weapons. The resulting destruction means dealing with political, economic, social, infrastructural, and information challenges. NLWs allow for intangibles that lethal weapons do not. 
Some still assert that a nonlethal approach to warfare is foolish. But this is an age when stories and images are transmitted in real time all over the world by way of cellular telephones, satellite communications, Internet access, and 24-hour news outlets. Having so many casualties caused by the US is what seems foolish. 
When combined with well-trained and well-placed ground troops, using more nonlethal weapons could have a profound effect on how wars are fought. 
Miscommunications and misunderstandings might not yield more than a bruised or hurt ego, and mistakes will not result in death. Reestablishing structures and services would demand minimal resources, communities would remain intact, and coalition efforts could be directed toward investments and improvements, rather than rebuilding and damage control. 
If the US integrates NLWs into its doctrine and operations, it is likely that our allies and other nations will follow. And that would be a good thing. If the US casts doubt on the efficacy of NLWs in irregular warfare, it is likely to significantly impede further NLW development. 
Neither the president nor the National Security Council has weighed in on the debate and issued a formal policy on NLWs. The Department of Defense issued the Directive Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons in 1996, and although it is a well-intentioned effort, support from the president or National Security Council would deliver a significant boost for NLW proponents and support US efforts to demonstrate restraint, and would reduce the catastrophic effects associated with war. 
(*) Richard L. Scott is the fire support officer for the 21st Calvary Brigade (Air Combat) at Fort Hood, Texas.

————————

We do not send pictures with these reports, because of the volume, but picture this emetic scene with your inner eye:
A dying Somali child in the macerated arms of her mother besides their bombed shelter with Islamic graffiti looks at a fat trader, who discusses with a local militia chief and a UN representative at a harbour while USAID provided GM food from subsidised production is off-loaded by WFP into the hands of local “distributors” and dealers – and in the background a western warship and a foreign fishing trawler ply the waters of a once sovereign, prosper and proud nation, which was a role model for honesty and development in the Horn of Africa. (If you feel that this is overdrawn – talk to people who lived in Somalia in the 70s and 80s and come with us into Somalia and see the even more cruel reality today for yourself!) 
- and if you need lively stills or video material on Somalia, please do contact us.   

———–