Turkish Bulk Carrier Captured By Pirates Off Kenya

With the latest captures and releases now still at least 23 seized foreign vessels (25 sea-related hostage cases since yacht SY LYNN RIVAL was abandoned and taken by the British Navy) with a total of not less than364 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 64 attacks resulting in 30 sea-jackings as well as the sinking of one merchant vessel (MV AL ABI) by fire from the Seychelles’s coastguard boat TOPAZ and the wrongful attack by the Indian navy on a Yemeni fishing vessel.
The naval alliances had since August 2008 and until March 2010 apprehended 826 suspected pirates, detained and kept or transferred for prosecution 419,  killed at least 53 and wounded over 22 Somalis. (Actual 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: RED / 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 ——————–

Piracy: Why Kenya should care by Eric van der Linden
Recent reports have given the impression that Kenya is a “dumping ground for pirates”, accepting piracy suspects for trial, with no Kenyan interest at stake and no support provided by those who transfer suspects. This does not correspond to reality.

When beauty is traded for money – the story of a pirate wife by Kassim Mohamed (RNW Africa Desk)
A young girl, barely looking 15 years old, adorned in a shimmering golden outfit, ushers me into a beautiful villa located on spacious ground. Her name is Halima Hassan, the lady of the house. 
I am in Eyl, a small town in Somalia’s semi-autonomous region of Puntland. The people of this village used to live off fishing, but now it is the epicentre of the infamous ship hijacking business. In a visible symbol of this shift, abandoned wooden boats adorn the sandy beaches while just 300 meters away are the flashy homes of the newly rich. 
The house of Halima Hassan’s pirate husband is one of them. “My husband is deeply involved in this piracy business,” she explains as her face lights up into a broad smile. “He’s 70 years old and we got married last year when I was 14.” Anticipating the next question, she goes on: “My parents have no money, that’s why I got married to him.” 
A village elder confides to me: “I have been called upon many times to facilitate negotiations between pirates and parents. The pirates bring with them Khamis (a robe worn by Muslims), gold-coated walking sticks, perfumes, camels and money and other highly valued products.” 
According to the old man, piracy off the coast of Somalia has killed the area’s moral fabric as beauty is being traded for money. “To meet the pirates’ standards the girls must be extremely beautiful,” he says. “The more beautiful they are, the greater the prospects of getting a pirate husband and a greater reward for the parents.” 
But Halima sees nothing wrong with how she was married off, or where the money comes from. “This is a good business,” she says pointing at two four-wheel drive Toyota Prados parked in her spacious compound. “If it were not for piracy, where could I have got this? It’s a good business,” she repeats without any sense of irony. 
Gilded cage
But not every pirate wife is comfortable with the lifestyle. 
Twenty-four year old Fatuma lives just a short walk from Halima’s villa. Her house is large but not as flashy as Halima’s. She is also married to a pirate. “Sometimes I ask myself what my children feed on, but there’s nothing I can do,” Fatuma says with an emotional voice. “Neither religion nor culture allows piracy, that’s why I think it’s bad.” 
She thinks that her husband may have ventured into piracy before they got married in January 2007 but never told her as this could have sparked a feud between the young couple. 
Though the fortunes from piracy trickle down to both Halima and Fatuma, their opinions on the practice are worlds apart. The relaxed Halima argues: “I think piracy should continue. I don’t want it to stop because I only depend on what my husband brings home. I’m not educated, and so he’s my only source of livelihood.” 
Fatuma looks at her jewellery. “Yes I’ve got a lot of wealth including gold chains, but I just don’t want to live this kind of life.” But there is no escape. “I don’t have a way out,” says Fatuma holding her baby tightly. 
While Halima clearly enjoys her lifestyle, Fatuma despises the gilded cage she now finds herself in.

NATO’s Immediate ‘Response Force’ Conducts Maritime Exercise (NATO PR)
NATO‟s Response Force (NRF) will conduct a maritime exercise in the Northern and Baltic Sea during April
to ensure they are „fully prepared‟ to respond, as required, to operations or crisis situations wherever in the world they
may occur. The exercise, which is code-named Brilliant Mariner, will take place between 12 – 22 April 2010.
6,500 military personnel from 11 NATO nations (France as Maritime commander, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia,
Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, UK and USA) will participate in the Brilliant Mariner exercise, together
with one Partnership for Peace country (Sweden). The exercise will involve 40 warships (including an aircraft carrier,
frigates, tankers and mine counter measure vessels), 4 submarines and 30 aircrafts.
Exercise Brilliant Mariner is coordinated by the staff of the Allied Maritime Command, Northwood, London, with a
realistic exercise scenario presenting a number of challenges for the commanders at sea, including asymmetric
threats, maritime security operations, embargo operations and terrorist incidents*.
Speaking about the exercise, NATO‟s maritime commander, Admiral Sir Trevor Soar commented “Exercise Brilliant
Mariner is an opportunity to really put NATO forces through their paces. As well as operational training, an important
aspect of the exercise is the humanitarian aid training that the forces will carry out. This will ensure that, if called,
NATO forces can make a real difference in a crisis situation”.
Rear-Admiral Jean-Louis Kerignard, commanding the French maritime force, will be conducting the exercise from the
flagship FS Mistral : “As Maritime component commander during Exercise Brilliant Mariner, we will work closely with
all the participating nations in order to certify our readiness for NRF15. The scenario we are going to deal with
provides the naval units with a great opportunity to train with efficiency, in order to overcome the threats we are liable
to face together”.

India and NATO by Michael Rühle (*) (defpro)
“India is simply too big to be just another partner country” to NATO
Last February, in a speech at the annual Munich Security Conference, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen argued that the Alliance should turn into a consultation forum for global security issues. Such a role, he argued, would require the transatlantic security alliance to develop closer relations with all major global players, including India and China.
Only a few years ago, any mentioning of India and China as potential NATO partners would have led to raised eyebrows not only in Delhi and Beijing, but also in many NATO member countries. Not this time. In the days just after the Munich conference, there were a few, predictably cautious reactions in India and China. All in all, however, the Secretary General’s suggestion did not spark a lot of debate, let alone controversy.
And why should it? This is not a veiled attempt to draw India and other rising powers into the Alliance’s political and military orbit. And neither is it an attempt to outflank the United Nations as the ultimate arbiter of global security. The suggestion to use NATO as a consultation forum is much less grandiose, and much more pragmatic: in an age that is increasingly shaped by the forces of globalisation, managing common security challenges requires a much tighter network among the key players.
Afghanistan is a compelling case in point. NATO’s leadership of the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has not only brought the Alliance to China’s borders, it has also created much greater interdependence between NATO and India. As a major international donor, and given her considerable civilian presence in Afghanistan, India has a strategic interest not only in the security that ISAF forces provide, but also in the stabilising influence which NATO’s engagement brings to the region around Afghanistan. NATO’s long-term success in Afghanistan, in turn, hinges on the success of the civilian reconstruction efforts that India and others provide. Afghanistan has thus become a prime example of how new challenges create new dependencies and relationships.
NATO has made a sustained effort to adapt its policies and structures to these new realities. Today, the 28 member Alliance entertains diplomatic and military relations with over 30 non-members throughout the world. The scope and intensity of these relationships vary according to the specific interests of each partner country. Some countries prefer to keep things low-key, with ad-hoc staff-level talks or by attending seminars or courses.
Others limit their interaction with NATO to political dialogue. Still others opt for a much closer military partnership, to be able to take part in demanding operations alongside NATO Allies. But all these relationships with NATO are voluntary and “à-la-carte”. They do not include the mutual defence commitment that binds the Allies, but neither do they compromise a partner country’s particular foreign policy, for instance its non-aligned security tradition.
Still, many Indian analysts harbour doubts about the possible implications for their country’s international position if it should develop closer ties with NATO. As one eminent Indian analyst put it a recent conference in Delhi, India is simply too big to be just another partner country to the Atlantic Alliance. And while most members of the Indian strategic community readily admit that NATO’s Afghanistan mission coincides with India’s own strategic interest in stabilising that country, they do not necessarily conclude from this that India and NATO should develop closer cooperation. On the contrary, many seem to believe that NATO’s eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan will mean the end of its interest in Asia. Finally, since India enjoys close bilateral relations with all major NATO allies, some see little added value of building closer ties to the Alliance.
Are these valid arguments? First, any concern that India could be relegated to the status of a junior NATO partner is misplaced. China’s staff level contacts with NATO have certainly not hindered that nation’s rapid ascent. And neither has the stature of countries like Japan, Egypt or Australia suffered from their cooperation with NATO. Hence, India will not need to compromise the fundamental tenets of its foreign and security policy. Second, even after the end of its engagement in Afghanistan, the Alliance will remain interested in the stability of the wider region, and in developing the political and military ties which it already has there at the moment.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the case for closer cooperation between India and NATO does not rest solely on Afghanistan. Because there is a growing need for nations and organisations to cooperate more closely in many other areas, too. Much of the consultation will take place in the United Nations. But challenges such as energy security, nuclear proliferation, failing states and piracy all compel nations to look for additional frameworks which allow them not only to talk together, but also to work together, including militarily.
NATO is one such framework – and the only one with six decades of experience in multinational military planning and cooperation. For the Alliance, sharing this unique experience more widely is both natural and inevitable. And in this respect, NATO’s recent cooperation with the Indian navy in counter-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia will likely be followed by closer cooperation in other areas as well.
In sum, the issue is not whether India and NATO should consult and cooperate, but how this can best be done. Should we continue on an “ad hoc” basis, with the limited effectiveness that is inherent to improvisation? Or should India and NATO opt for a more regular dialogue, in which they learn about each other’s perceptions, policies, and procedures, and are able to quickly operationalise that knowledge in tackling common challenges? To this author, the choice is clear: exploiting NATO’s potential as a forum for consultation and cooperation is a “win-win” situation, both for India and for the Alliance.
(*) Michael Rühle is the Deputy Head of Policy Planning, NATO. 

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

Somalia blames piracy on toxic waste dumps by Sam Bond (edie)
African leaders meeting to discuss maritime security have said there are numerous social and environmental problems at the root of the rise of piracy off the east coast of the continent – including contaminated land.
Somalia, seen as Africa’s piracy capital, has been largely lawless since the early 1990s. 
With no effective patrols of its borders, say the country’s leaders, its vast coastline has become a dumping ground for unscrupulous ship operators who unload their cargo of toxic waste on Somali shores to avoid the costs of proper disposal. 
Speaking at a meeting of the African Union in Ethiopia this week, Somalia’s Deputy Prime Minister Abdulrahman Adan Ibrahim Ibbi said: “If the international community wants to limit acts of piracy, it has to help Somalis keep illegal foreign fishing and toxic waste dumping away from their coasts. 
He also claimed that the tsunami of 2004 had exposed many poorly-buried illegal caches of waste when it washed away tonnes of sand and soil. 
Mr Ibbi called on other African states to share the cost of cleaning up sites allegedly contaminated with toxic and nuclear waste. 
Somali pirates have often accused their victims of dumping waste or illegal fishing to justify their capture. 
They sometimes claim that the ransoms they demand are to compensate for the misdeeds of the crews they hold hostage, in an attempt to give their actions a veneer of legitimacy. 
While those companies and governments that pay ransoms are usually tight-lipped when it comes to disclosing the figures paid, it is believed that pirates in the regions receive around $60m per year through their activities. 
 

Wind Farms Can Affect the Global Climate Negatively (ENN)

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

Somali Minister Mocks International Anti-Piracy Efforts by  Peter Heinlein (VOA)
Somalia has chided wealthy donor nations for failing to provide the resources needed to combat piracy in its coastal waters.  Our correspondent reports on comments made by a senior Somali official to an anti-piracy conference at African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa.
Somalia’s transitional government says it could halt piracy off the coast of the Horn of Africa within months, if given the proper tools and international support. 
Speaking to an African conference on maritime security, Somalia’s Deputy Prime Minister Abdulrahman Adan Ibrahim Ibbi ridiculed international anti-piracy efforts, calling them “a waste of money.” 
Most of the conference was held in secret.  But Ibbi told VOA that African delegates applauded his argument that a well-equipped Somali coast guard could stamp out regional piracy for a tiny fraction of the cost of what he called the largely ineffectual international naval presence.
“The international community is paying millions of dollars for its own navy expenses in Somali sea waters,” said Abdulrahman Adan Ibrahim Ibbi. “Why don’t they pay one percent of that expense to the Somali government to recruit their own coast guard to eradicate this piracy, because we can do it, and we know we can do it and they know we can do it?”
Ibbi says a Somali coast guard would not need much money or a big force to patrol the high seas.  All it would need, he said, is the equipment to battle the pirates at their base of operations.   
“What we are asking is small speedboats where we can put big guns, so we can fight close to the land, not on the sea,” he said. “We can go close to the land because we know the area.” 
The Gulf of Aden off Somalia’s northern coast is a vital shipping route.  An estimated 20,000 ships travel its waters each year, most of them en route to or from the Suez Canal.  In 2008, the most recent year for which figures are complete, 110 ships were attacked – 40 of them hijacked, and $30 million in ransoms were paid.
Experts say the economic damage from piracy is considerable.  In addition to the cost of naval operations, ship owners pay hundreds of millions of dollars in piracy insurance premiums.
Somalia’s Deputy Prime Minister Ibbi, who is also his country’s minister for fisheries and marine resources, said piracy is also creating serious long term social problems.  In an impoverished country with few economic opportunities, he says stories of pirate’s gold are luring young Somalis to the high seas.
“Every father would like to send his son to be part of the pirates because in a month, [instead of] getting a hundred dollars, you can get in a month a couple of hundred thousand dollars,” said Ibbi. “So why should you stay at home when you can be a millionaire in a [short] matter of time?  So every family would like to have one person in the pirates.”
Even worse, Ibbi said, is that a significant amount of the ransoms paid go to finance the Islamic extremist rebel group al-Shabab. 
“People who are paying the ransoms, they don’t know they are feeding al-Shabab because al-Shabab has very good relations with the pirates,” he said. “Plus every ship they kidnap, the ransom, 20 percent, they should pay to al-Shabab – 20 percent!”
But Ibbi expressed confidence that Somalia’s fragile transitional government, with increasing international backing, is gaining the upper hand against al-Shabab.  Pointing to recent military successes on land, he said, “They used to attack us, now we are attacking them.”
Ibbi said that as long as piracy goes unchecked, the Somali government faces an uphill battle to bring order to a society that has been virtually ungovernable for nearly two decades.

Destroyer McFaul captures suspected pirates by Lance M. Bacon (NavyTimes)
The pummeling of pirates continues, as the Navy defeated a third attack in less than one week.
The destroyer McFaul on Monday captured 10 suspected pirates and rescued eight crew members from a commandeered cargo dhow near Salalah, Oman.
The incident began when three skiffs and the pirated dhow, a traditional Arab sailing vessel, attempted to attack the vessel Rising Sun. The ship sent a distress call that pirates were firing small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. McFaul, joined by the Omani warship Al Sharquiyah, responded.
As the Rising Sun awaited aid, its crew increased speed, started evasive maneuvers and sprayed the attackers with fire hoses. The skiffs broke off their attack and returned to their pirated mother ship, the dhow Faize Osamani. The Omani vessel was first to arrive at the pirated mother ship. As it approached, nine Faize Osamani sailors being held hostage jumped into the ocean. The Oman Navy rescued eight, and the ninth drowned.
The Norfolk, Va.-based McFaul then arrived on scene and the pirates agreed to a compliant boarding. The pirates threw their weapons overboard and waited on the bow. Two boarding teams from McFaul deployed in rigid-hull inflatable boats, boarded the dhow and took control of the vessel.
The surviving Faize Osamani sailors were returned to their dhow. The dead sailor was transported to shore by the Omani warship. The suspected pirates were transferred to the destroyer Carney until they can be transferred to a state willing to accept the pirates for prosecution.
McFaul is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer attached to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group working in support of maritime security operations in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility.
The Navy on April 1 sunk two vessels, seized a third and took five suspected pirates into custody in two engagements.
The frigate Nicholas first captured five Somali pirates, sank one skiff and seized a pirate mother ship off the Kenyan and Somali coasts. Nicholas reported taking small-arms fire around 12:30 a.m. The frigate responded with a barrage of fire from its .50-caliber deck-mounted machine gun. The skiff’s crew surrendered. Sailors from Nicholas boarded the disabled skiff and detained three people. The team found ammunition and multiple cans of fuel on board, then sank the skiff. Nicholas seized the mother ship, and two more suspected pirates were captured.
Later that day, the destroyer Farragut intercepted suspected pirates in the Somali Basin after a piracy report from the Sierra Leone-flagged tanker Evita. The boarding party found 11 suspected pirates, fuel drums and grappling hooks. After ensuring the suspected pirates were unable to conduct further attacks, all 11 were released on the two small skiffs and the mother skiff was destroyed and sunk.

U.S. Navy ship captures pirates in Gulf of Oman by Cindy Clayton  (TheVirginian-Pilot)
The U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer McFaul has captured 10 pirates after an attack on a ship near Salalah, Oman. 
The pirates pulled alongside the motor vessel Rising Sun on Tuesday and were firing small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, prompting the crew to send out a distress call, according to a news release from the U.S. Navy. 
The Rising Sun’s crew increased its speed and used evasive maneuvers such as spraying the attackers with fire hoses, the release says. 
The maneuvers worked and the pirates broke off their attack and returned to their mother ship, an Indian cargo dhow under their control. 
The Oman Navy warship Al Sharquiyah arrived first on the scene, and as it approached the dhow, nine sailors who were being held hostage jumped into the water, the release says. 
One of the sailors drowned, but the others were taken aboard the Omani Navy ship. 
The McFaul arrived as the Omani crew was helping the sailors who escaped. The McFaul’s crew directed the pirates to surrender by putting their hands in the air and gathering on the bow of the seized dhow. As they complied, they could be seen throwing weapons overboard. 
Two boarding teams from the McFaul took control of the dhow and detained the pirates, who were transferred to the U.S. destroyer Carney, where they will be held until they can be transferred for prosecution, the release says. 
The surviving sailors who escaped their captors aboard the dhow were returned to the vessel, according to the U.S. Navy. 
The McFaul is attached to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group in support of maritime security in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. 
The capture comes about a week after two other Navy ships encountered pirates near the Seychelles. 
Late last week, the destroyer Farragut was called to the scene of a Sierra Leone-flagged tanker that came under attack by three pirate skiffs, according to a Navy news release. The Farragut is homeported in Mayport, Fla. 
An SH-60 B Seahawk helicopter from the Farragut went to monitor the situation while the pirates’ skiffs were boarded. The crew of the Swedish patrol aircraft watched as the pirates threw equipment overboard. Eleven pirates were found aboard the skiffs and allowed to leave after coalition forces ensured they had no other equipment to conduct attacks. 
The mother skiff was sunk. 
On Thursday, the Norfolk-based frigate Nicholas took small-arms fire from suspected pirates in the Indian Ocean. The ship returned fire and captured five pirates.

Russia proposes establishing special court for Somali pirates (RIA-Novosti)
Russia has proposed the UN Security Council to establish a special body intended to hold criminal trials against hijackers captured during anti-piracy operations off the Somali coast, Russia’s ambassador to the UN has said. 
Vitaly Churkin said a draft resolution presented at the meeting of the Security Council on Tuesday called on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to provide his “concrete” proposals on the issue to the council within three months. 
The Russian diplomat expressed his concern over decisions by some European countries’ authorities to release captured pirates. He said no effective juridical system has so far been created to assure that pirates receive adequate punishment. 
The issue has also been discussed within the International Somalia Contact Group, Churkin said. 
“We highly appreciate the contribution of the group to international anti-piracy efforts,” he said, adding there was an “understanding” between the group’s members that the creation of a “special chamber for prosecuting pirates at a national court of one of the region’s states” would be the most adequate step to make anti-piracy efforts more effective. 
Somali pirates carried out a record number of attacks and hijackings in 2009. According to the International Maritime Bureau Piracy Reporting Center, a total of 217 vessels were attacked last year, resulting in 47 hijackings.[N.B.: Thes figures are much below the figures ECOTERRA Intl. and NATO hold.]
In 2008, pirates staged 111 attacks off the Somali coast, seizing 42 ships. 
About 20 countries, including leading NATO member states, India, China and several Arab states, have sent warships to the Gulf of Aden. 
Russian warships joined the fight against Somali pirates in the fall of 2008, when the Neustrashimy frigate was sent to the Somali coast from the Baltic Sea. Since then, the Russian Navy has maintained a near-permanent presence off the Horn of Africa, with warships operating on a rotation basis. 
A Russian Pacific Fleet task force comprising the Udaloy class missile destroyer Marshal Shaposhnikov, the MB-37 salvage tug and the Pechenga tanker arrived in the Gulf of Aden on March 29.

DUTCH DROP FROM COPTER TO SHOW UK HOW TO DEAL WITH PIRATES by Padraic Flanagan
Guns at the ready, Dutch commandos leap into action to show Britain and the rest of the world how Somali pirates can be tackled.
The marines stormed a German cargo ship that had been boarded by pirates off the coast of Somalia and arrested 10 attackers after a gun battle.
The Dutch frigate Tromp rescued the ship and its crew about 560 miles east of the lawless east African state just four hours after receiving a distress signal from the stricken vessel.
The action is in stark contrast to the British government’s dithering over kidnapped Britons Paul and Rachel Chandler, from Tunbridge Wells, Kent, who have been held captive since October.
Their yacht, Lynn Rival, was attacked even though a Royal Navy vessel, Wave Knight, was nearby. Its crew said they took no action because they feared the couple might be killed.
Gordon Brown has called for their release but has rejected military action against Somali pirates who want a £1.3million ransom for the couple – snatched while sailing from the Seychelles to Tanzania.
The pirates have warned that Mr Chandler, 60, and Mrs Chandler, 56, whose health is thought to be failing, will be shot if their demands are not met.
In Monday’s rescue of the German container ship Taipan, a Dutch commando was slightly wounded during an exchange of gunfire with the pirates.
A Dutch defence ministry spokesman said: “The ship had been attacked by pirates and the crew had hidden in a secure space on board.”
Navy commandos descended from a helicopter on to the bridge of the Taipan and arrested 10 pirates who were taken on board the Dutch frigate while the crew of 15 emerged “safe and sound”.
The Dutch navy launched the operation as part of an EU naval mission called Operation Atalanta, which aims to protect shipping off Somalia. Last month 18 pirate gangs were tracked down, 22 skiffs destroyed and 131 pirates apprehended for prosecution. But that still leaves eight vessels and 157 hostages in the hands of Somali pirates.
Underlining the threat, a South Korean-operated supertanker carrying £105million of crude oil en route from Iraq to the US was hijacked in the Indian Ocean at the weekend, it was revealed yesterday. Somali pirates are once again suspected.
 

 (Fairplay)
New York and Kenya have been identified as likely venues for putting on trial five Somalis suspected of piracy. 
The suspects were captured after pirates mistakenly attacked the US Navy frigate Nicholas West of the Seychelles early on 1 April. Washington has an agreement with Kenya to try pirates captured by US forces in that country. 
But if they are tried in the US instead, the procedure would probably take place in a US District Court in New York, “given the traditional nexus of shipping” there, James Hohenstein, an attorney with Holland & Knight, told Fairplay yesterday. 
“I’ll be comfortable with whatever decision the Department of Justice makes,” he added. “I think they would get a fair trial in the US, and hopefully justice would be meted out accordingly.” 
After returning fire, the frigate sank a pirate skiff and confiscated a suspected mother ship, while arresting the suspects. They remain in custody on Nicholas, a Navy official told Fairplay yesterday. 
Three days before the attack, US maritime officials warned merchant ships operating off the Horn of Africa and in the Indian Ocean that pirate activity – with ever-greater range of attacks – could increase now that the northeastern monsoon season has ended.

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

Government soldiers reject MPs to meet (Mareeg)
Somali government soldiers rejected lawmakers to meet in Ambassador Hotel in Mogadishu, witnesses said on Wednesday. 
At least 25 Somali legislators were planning to meet in the hotel to discuss the situation of the country but intelligence security forces refused them to meet. 
The move comes as some Somali parliamentarians held a press conference in the capital Mogadishu on Tuesday and declared that they will choose a new speaker. 
The parliamentarians criticized the government of incompetence and failing to do any thing about the situation of the country. 
The government soldiers showed the MPs a letter from the office of Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke stating that the parliamentarians could not meet.

Minister claims senior Al-Qaeda arrive in Somalia (garoweonline)
A Somali minister claims that at least 12 senior Al-Qaeda operatives have reached war-torn Somalia to assess the security for a possible relocation into the Horn of African country.
Somalia’s Treasury Minister Abdirahman Omar Osman (Yarisow) said they have received credible information that the terrorists have entered the country through Yemen and Eritrea in the last few weeks.
“Some of these fellows came all the way from Yemen through the waters while others flew from Eritrea and all are currently in Somalia,” he said.
“They have come to assess the situation on the ground for a possible relocation of Al-Qaeda’s biggest military bases to Somalia since they are facing a lot of pressure in Afghanistan and Iraq,” he added.
He however did not categorically state the nationalities of the operatives but requesting the international community to urgently intervene.
Somalia’s embattled president Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed has previously warned that Al-Qeada is relocating to his war-torn country in a bid to use as a safe haven and carry out terror attacks.  
Yemeni government recently claimed that some Al-Qaeda operatives have fled to Somalia after coming under intense pressure due to military offensives in the northern regions.
Somalia’s Al Qaeda-inspired Al-Shabaab insurgent group is waging bloody war against the UN-backed government and African Union troops in Mogadishu.

Pack up the car, we’re moving to Mogadishu! by Gregg Carlstrom (themajlis)

It is another desperate attempt by the TFG to lure the Americans here into the street battles of Mogadishu. Since the long awaited offensive has now fallen off the shelf, the TFG needs to trigger the US into speeding up the process. As with regards to US involvement in Yemen, i wouldn’t say it wouldn’t be any different from Somalia.

Somalia Says Al-Qaeda Operatives To Boost Rebel Effort by Hussein Moulid (AHN)
A Somali government official said Tuesday that at least 12 Al-Qaeda members have crossed into the country from Yemen and Eritrea in the last two weeks, bringing money and military expertise to Somali rebels battling the Western-backed government.
“Some of the suspect came all the way from Yemen through the waters while others flew from Eritrea and all are currently in Somalia,” said treasury minister Abdirahman Omar Osman.
“The terrorist suspects have come to assess the situation on the ground for a possible relocation of Al-Qaeda’s biggest military bases to Somalia since they are facing a lot of pressure in Afghanistan and Iraq,”Abdirahman added.
The minister requested immediate support from the international community to combat the operators.
 Somali president Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed has previously claimed that Al-Qaeda is moving to his country. 
The government of Yemen recently claimed that some Al-Qaeda operators have fled to Somalia following government military offensives in the country’s northern regions.
The Somali insurgent group Hizbul Islam invited Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden to Somalia on Saturday to help fight against the Somali government and African Union.

Puntland begins repatriating Ethiopian migrants (IRIN)
Authorities in Somalia’s self-declared autonomous region of Puntland have begun repatriating hundreds of Ethiopian migrants, officials told IRIN. 
“These are people who decided they wanted to return but could not afford to do so,” said Mohamud Jama Muse, director of the Migration Response Centre (MRC) in Bosasso, Puntland’s capital. 
He said thousands of Ethiopians and Somalis were in Bosasso, with the intention of crossing into Yemen or to find work. 
“We have so far repatriated 490 Ethiopian migrants,” said Maher Ahmed, senior operations and programme manager with the International Organization for Migration (IOM). 
Ahmed said that 12 flights had been chartered and IOM was providing airport assistance in Bosasso and Ethiopia. 
He said: “We will provide them with US$30 for transport to their home areas and, once there, give them a reintegration package.” Individuals over 18 are given $260 and those younger $110 as part of the reintegration package, he said, adding that “90 percent of those repatriated were women and children”. 
The continued voluntary repatriation of Ethiopians depended on available funding, Ahmed said. 
Joining the queue 
Muse said MRC had registered another 1,200 Ethiopians who wanted to return home. He said many had been unable to cross to Yemen or find jobs in Bosasso. “There are no jobs here and they run out of money, so they cannot pay the smugglers.” 
Adam Nisha Dakabu, an Ethiopian who came to Bosasso to go to Yemen and then Saudi Arabia, said: “I wanted to go but could not because I could not raise the money. I could not find anything to do here, so when I heard about this I registered myself to return.” 
He said life in Bosasso was very difficult. “At least at home I will be with my family.” 
Muse said that in response to tough measures taken by the Puntland authorities against smugglers, “it was becoming more and more difficult and expensive for would-be migrants to find boats”. 
He added that because of the crackdown, smugglers were reportedly charging $200 or more for the trip to Yemen. In the past they charged $50-$75 for the one-to-three-day journey. 
According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), 74,000 people crossed the Red Sea from the Horn of Africa to Yemen in 2009 – up 50 percent on 2008. 
The number of Somali migrants remained steady in 2008 and 2009, while the number of Ethiopians rose sharply to 42,000 in 2009, UNHCR said. So far in 2010, 5,032 migrants have crossed and four have died.

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

The U.S.-backed government of Somalia and its Kenyan allies have recruited hundreds of Somali refugees, including children, to fight in a war against al-Shabab, an Islamist militia linked to al Qaeda, according to former recruits, their relatives and community leaders. 
Many of the recruits were taken from the sprawling Dadaab refugee camps in northeastern Kenya, which borders Somalia. Somali government recruiters and Kenyan soldiers came to the camps late last year, promising refugees as much as $600 a month to join a force advertised as supported by the United Nations or the United States, the former recruits and their families said. 
“They have stolen my son from me,” said Noor Muhamed, 70, a paraplegic refugee whose son, Abdi, was recruited. 
Across this region, children and young men are vanishing. All sides in Somalia’s conflict are recruiting refugees to fight in a remote battleground in the global war on terrorism. 
It is unclear whether recruiting by the governments of Kenya and Somalia is ongoing. But their military officers continue to train refugees at a heavily guarded base near the northern Kenyan town of Isiolo as the Somali government prepares for a long-planned offensive against al Shabab. 
A second camp is in Manyani, a training station for the Kenya Wildlife Service in southern Kenya, according to former recruits, relatives, community leaders and U.N. investigators. 
“They told us we were going to Somalia soon,” said Hassan Farah, 23, who escaped from the Isiolo camp last month. 
Farah, who was injured in a 2008 bombing in the Somali capital of Mogadishu, first spent more than two months at Manyani. “I saw 12-year-old children at the camp,” said Farah. He escaped by bribing a water truck driver to sneak him out. 
The Kenyan government has acknowledged that it is helping train police officers for Somalia’s weak government but said the recruits were flown in from Mogadishu. “No one is recruited from the refugee camps,” said Alfred Mutua, a Kenyan government spokesman. 
But a recent U.N. report on Somalia confirmed the recruitment of refugees, including underage youths, for military training. Kenya’s training program, the report said, is a violation of a U.N. arms embargo, which requires nations to get permission from the U.N. Security Council before assisting Somalia’s security efforts. 
Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the U.N. special representative to Somalia, said he has not personally seen evidence to act on. “If this recruiting is happening, we have to condemn it,” he said. 
Recruiting refugees is a violation of international law, and enlisting children under 15 constitutes war crimes, human rights groups say. 
“They told me I would become a soldier and fight the Shabab,” said Ahmed Barre, a bone-thin 15-year-old whose family fled Somalia’s anarchy in 1991, when the central government collapsed. He was born in Dadaab’s camps and has never been to Somalia. “I didn’t want to go. But I was jobless. I wanted to help my family.” 
A State Department spokesman said, “We strongly condemn recruitment in the refugee camps by any party.” Senior U.S. officials, he added, “have stressed” to top Kenyan and Somali government officials “the need to prevent any recruitment in refugee camps.” 
The recruitment comes amid fears that Somalia’s Islamist militants could extend their reach into Kenya, Uganda and other neighboring countries. Al Shabab has voiced support for al Qaeda and has attracted fighters from around the world. 
The United States and European nations are supporting the pro-Western Somalia transitional government with arms, cash, training and intelligence. 
Somali refugees have few opportunities in Kenya, which has imposed strict residency rules and limits on travel, making it difficult for them to find jobs. Many youths are uneducated.

EU begins training of Somali security forces (APA)
The European Union has begun training of Somali security forces, barely three months after it approved the training programme to assist the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia in its war against Islamist insurgents. 
It could be recalled that the EU leadership, in January 2010, announced its readiness to dispatch a training team ; aimed at training Somali troops to deal with Islamist militants. 
About 2,000 Somali troops are undergoing the training in Uganda, officials confirmed here Wednesday. 
The 200-strong EU training mission led by Spain will boost the African Union forces that have already been training Somali soldiers and other security forces to defend the transitional government, which controls only small parts of the capital, Mogadishu. 
Officials said the move was in line with a request by the TFG to help build a 6,000-strong police force. 
Islamist militants control most of Somalia, leaving the government running only small parts of the capital, Mogadishu. 
EU foreign ministers said the union would continue to help stabilize Somalia by supporting “vital” areas including the security sector and development. 
EU officials believe the one-year long training programme would be a “very good contribution” towards tackling Somalia’s problems. 
The EU already has a naval force fighting pirates in the Gulf of Aden. 
Early last year, France started training 500 Somali soldiers at its military base in Djibouti. 
But officials sources said the increasing menace posed by pirates, has provided causes for boosting troops in the African nation already plagued by civil war and long-running Islamist insurgency. 
Global worries about the surging Somali pirates in recent years have heightened international attention on Somalia, with several nations, including Spain and Germany, backing efforts towards the EU mission.

U.S. law enforcement agencies, community leaders and an anti-crime group announced a new Web site Wednesday that allows Somali immigrants to report crimes in their native language.
The project’s goal is to help Somalis overcome a suspicion of police borne of corruption in their homeland and to crack down on illegal activity from street crime to terrorist recruiting. The site was announced in Columbus, the city with the nation’s second-largest Somali population, but will accept tips from anywhere in the U.S.
Somali concerns about crime have grown in Columbus recently and reached new levels following the unrelated slayings of two Somali immigrants in the last year.
Somalis are also worried about the recruiting of young men by overseas terrorists. More than a dozen people have been charged in an ongoing federal investigation in Minnesota into the travels of as many as 20 young men who went to Somalia to fight.
Many Somalis came to the United States after years in refugee camps where they were harassed by corrupt police officers, making them suspicious of any law enforcement, said Jibril Hirsi, executive director of the Somali Community Access Network in Columbus.
Language barriers and cultural misunderstandings are also problems. Hirsi gave the example of a Columbus woman cited by police after she mistakenly called 911 to report that her water pipes were broken.
“It takes time to really make people comfortable with the work of the law enforcement, make them work with police and see police as very helpful,” Hirsi said Wednesday. “This is one system that makes it possible for people to report crimes.”
Somalis accessing the new Web site can enter crime tips anonymously. Central Ohio Crime Stoppers will translate the tips and send them to police.
Somali groups also are working with the U.S. Marshals Service to distribute information in Somali about wanted fugitives. The FBI is also cooperating.
“We’re concerned about any kind of crime that happens,” said FBI Special Agent Harry Trombitas. “We work a lot more things than just terrorism, though that’s certainly our No. 1 priority.”
The effort is one that several Somali groups are involved in that aim to ease Somali integration into American society.
In Columbus, a charter school serving Somali children is using a $850,000 federal grant to help students connect with U.S. culture, including field trips to the Ohio Historical Society where they learn about Ohio history, flora and fauna.
Middle schools in Minneapolis and Seattle, other U.S. cities with large Somali populations, also offer programs aimed at bridging the cultural gap for Somali children caught between their old and new lives.
Many Somali mothers are concerned about their children becoming involved in gangs or other crime as well as being recruited by terrorists, said Khadra Mohamed, a Columbus social worker from Somalia.
“So far nothing has happened in Columbus, but we all need to be aware and come up with ways to prevent that kind of recruiting,” she said.

• http://www.somalitips.com

N.B.: Environmental and other crime information like human, arms or drug trafficking and assasinations can be leaked from Somalia anonymously to ECOTERRA Intl. via e-mail somalia[AT]ecoterra.net , who secure the confidentiality of the sender.

Charity reveals ‘scorched earth’ Yemen images by Amnesty International
Amnesty International has revealed a collection of images that it says show the scale of the devastation caused by Yemeni and Saudi Arabian aerial bombardments of the northern Yemeni region of Sa’dah.
The human rights organisation says the images were taken last month in and around the town of al-Nadir. It says they show buildings destroyed in the latest in a series of clashes between Yemeni forces and supporters of a Shia cleric.
Among the damaged or destroyed civilian buildings photographed are what it says are market places, mosques, petrol stations, small businesses, a primary school, a power plant, a health centre – and dozens of houses and residential buildings. 
Amnesty International Middle East Deputy Director Philip Luther said: “This is a largely invisible conflict that has been waged behind closed doors. These images reveal the true scale and ferocity of the bombing and the impact it had on the civilians caught up in it. This information has only now come to light through Yemenis who fled the conflict and have reached other parts of the country.” 
International humanitarian law forbids the targeting of civilian objects during conflicts. Deliberate attacks would be war crimes. 
The organisation says the bombardments came in the sixth round of fighting in the region since 2004 between Yemeni forces and the so-called Huthis – armed followers of a Hussain Badr al-Din al-Huthi, a Shi’a cleric from the Zaidi sect killed in September that year. Government restrictions on access to the region combined with landmines and other security concerns mean that no independent observers or media are believed to have visited the area in recent months. 
Amnesty International says the pictures are consistent with testimony given by many witnesses who had fled Sa’dah earlier this month. 
UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, said in March that about 250,000 people from Sa’dah had fled the conflict, around 10 per cent of them ending up in camps. The rest are living with relatives or in derelict or half-completed buildings in the capital Sana’a and elsewhere in the country. 
Reuters: At least 12 al-Qa’ida members have crossed from Yemen into Somalia in the last two weeks, bringing money and military expertise to Somali rebels battling the Western-backed government, a senior Somali official said. 
Somalia’s al-Qa’ida-linked al Shabaab rebels are waging a deadly insurgency against the transitional government headed by a former rebel and are intent on imposing a harsh version of Sharia Islamic law throughout the war-ravaged nation. 
A smaller group – Hizbul Islam – which has an alliance with al Shabaab in Mogadishu, expressed its loyalty to al-Qa’ida on Wednesday for the first time and invited Osama bin Laden to Somalia. 
“Our intelligence shows 12 senior al-Qa’ida officials came into Somalia from Yemen in the last two weeks,” said Treasury Minister Abdirahman Omar Osman, adding that he had been briefed by Somalia’s intelligence agencies.
Associated Press: Yemen’s government and the Shia rebels it fought for years should investigate allegations they both committed war crimes and hold perpetrators to account, a human rights group urged Wednesday. 
The Yemeni government and northern Hawthi rebels reached a cease-fire agreement in February. But the truce contains no accountability provisions, said Human Rights Watch, which called on both sides to investigate the allegations. 
“In many cases these violations are wrapped up in the grievances that have fueled the conflict to begin with,” said Joe Stork, deputy director for the Middle East at HRW. 
He called for independent probes of alleged “serious laws of war violations” in order to sustain the truce and to prevent a repeat of crimes should the cease-fire break down. 
The report by the New York-based watchdog, released in Dubai, outlines a series of alleged abuses based on interviews conducted with civilians and aid workers in October. HRW officials said they wanted to release the report in the Yemeni capital San’a but were not granted visas by the authorities. 
Allegations include indiscriminate bombing and shelling by government forces, and on-the-spot executions and the use of human shields by rebels. HRW also accuses both sides of using child soldiers. 
Both the Yemeni government and the rebels declined to comment on the HRW report. 

Yemen war crimes inquiry urged by human rights group by Zoi Constantine and James Reinl (TheNational)
An international human rights group yesterday urged “friends of Yemen”, including Gulf states, to push for an independent investigation into allegations of war crimes committed during the war in Saada.
While a fragile truce between the Huthi rebel group and government forces is holding, Human Rights Watch (HRW) called for both sides to investigate alleged violations of the laws of war.
Yesterday, HRW released a report – All Quiet on the Northern Front?: Uninvestigated Laws of War Violations in Yemen’s War with Huthi Rebels – alleging violations, including indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas and the use of child soldiers.
“States that are friends of Yemen should insist on investigations and accountability,” said Joe Stork, HRW’s deputy Middle East director. “We urge concerned parties, including GCC countries, to get behind recommendations for Yemeni investigations and UN human rights reporting and monitoring.”
Mr Stork said accountability for the crimes committed by both sides was important to sustain the truce and to help prevent a repeat of violations.
HRW released its 54-page report in Dubai. Mr Stork said: “We would much rather release the report in Sana’a, but we were not given visas to Yemen as we have in the past,” he said.
The report documents how government forces may have indiscriminately bombed and shelled civilian areas, and alleges Huthi forces moved into heavily populated areas to launch attacks.
Christoph Wilcke, a HRW researcher and one of the report’s authors, said they also documented cases in which Huthi forces prevented civilians from fleeing fighting. The report accuses Huthi rebels, government troops and their tribal militia proxies of using child soldiers.

Rights group calls for inquiry into Yemen war crimes allegations by Michael Kraemer (JURIST) 
Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] (HRW) called Wednesday for an investigation into alleged war crimes [press release] committed during the recent conflict between the government of Yemen [BBC timeline] and Shiite Huthi Rebels. According to HRW’s report [text, PDF], “All Quiet on the Northern Front?: Uninvestigated Laws of War Violations in Yemen’s War with Huthi Rebels,” the February truce between the factions has not resulted in any meaningful inquiry into air strikes on populated villages, indiscriminate violence, summary executions, and child soldiers, among other alleged violations:

The elements of this shaky truce – the sixth in almost as many years – do not include investigations into alleged violations of the laws of war. … The continuing failure of both the Yemeni government and the Huthi rebels to investigate alleged violations by their forces prevents perpetrators from being held to account, denies compensation to victims of abuses, and complicates efforts to reach a long-term political settlement.

HRW also accused the UN of failing to provide an organization tasked with monitoring the crisis and the possible human rights abuses. HRW is petitioning concerned governments to encourage Yemen to increase access and transparency in order to hold perpetrators liable for crimes.
The Yemeni war against them Shiite Huthi Rebels, termed the Sa’dah insurgency, began in June 2004 with the uprising lead by Zaidi religious leader Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi against the Yemeni government. That time period was marked with five distinct phases or cycles of violence. Yemen has alleged that the Huthi Rebels have continuously received support from Iran and other sympathetic governments. The lack of transparency and the remoteness of fighting make it difficult to ascertain causalities in which estimates range from the hundreds to the thousands.

Amnesty says images reveal devastation in conflict in northern Yemen (NewsYemen/AmnestyInternational)
The scale of the devastation caused by Yemeni and Saudi Arabian aerial bombardments of the northern Yemeni region of Sa’ada has been revealed in hundreds of images obtained by Amnesty International. 
The pictures, given to Amnesty International by an independent source and taken in March 2010 in and around the town of al-Nadir, show buildings destroyed between August 2009 and February 2010 during the latest in a series of clashes between Yemeni forces and supporters of a Shi’a cleric. 
Among the damaged or destroyed civilian buildings photographed are market places, mosques, petrol stations, small businesses, a primary school, a power plant, a health centre – and dozens of houses and residential buildings. 
“This is a largely invisible conflict that has been waged behind closed doors. These images reveal the true scale and ferocity of the bombing and the impact it had on the civilians caught up in it,” said Philip Luther, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa programme. 
“This information has only now come to light through Yemenis who fled the conflict and have reached other parts of the country.” 
International humanitarian law forbids the targeting of civilian objects, as well as indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians, during conflicts. If such attacks are carried out deliberately, they are war crimes. 
The bombardments came in the sixth round of fighting in the region since 2004 between Yemeni forces and the so-called Huthis – armed followers of a Hussain Badr al-Din al-Huthi, a Shi’a cleric from the Zaidi sect killed in September that year. 
Government restrictions on access to the region combined with landmines and other security concerns mean that no independent observers or media are believed to have visited the area in recent months. 
The pictures are consistent with testimony given by many witnesses who had fled Sa’dah to Amnesty International delegates in Yemen earlier this month. 
These witnesses, interviewed separately, repeatedly said that Saudi Arabian air strikes, which began in November and were clearly different from earlier Yemeni military attacks, were of an intensity and power not experienced before. 
They also said the strikes went on around the clock in the days leading up to their flight and the ceasefire in February 2010. 
UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, said in March that about 250,000 people from Sa’dah had fled the conflict, around 10 per cent of them ending up in camps. The rest are living with relatives or in derelict or half-completed buildings in the capital Sana’a and elsewhere in the country. 
Unlike with previous rounds of fighting, families from Sa’dah fled further afield and ,most say they are not planning to return because their homes have been destroyed and they fear the conflict will resume. 
Tensions in Sa’dah were originally sparked when followers of the late Hussain Badr al-Din al-Huthi, a cleric who had founded a movement in the 1990s to revive Zaidism, a branch of Shi’a Islam, organized protests against the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The protests focused on the Yemeni government’s relations with the USA and were followed by arrests and detentions. In June 2004, the government ordered Hussain Badr al-Din al-Huthi to surrender. Armed clashes ensued between the security forces and Huthis until Hussain Badr al-Din al-Huthi was killed in September 2004. 
The subsequent rounds of fighting in Sa’dah have resulted in hundreds, possibly thousands, of civilian casualties. 
An agreement facilitated by the Qatari government in 2008 brought a short-lived lull in hostilities and some releases of prisoners on both sides. 
However, the conflict resumed with new intensity in August 2009. The Yemeni government launched a military offensive codenamed “Scorched Earth” that included aerial bombing and deployment of ground troops. 
In November 2009, the fighting spilled over the border with Saudi Arabia, which then deployed its army and air force inside Sa’ada. 
All parties to the conflict are alleged to have committed serious human rights abuses, although Yemeni government restrictions on access to the area means that reliable information on abuses has been difficult, often impossible, to obtain. The government has accused the Huthis of killing civilians and captured soldiers. 
Residents of Sa’dah have alleged that some Yemeni and Saudi Arabian attacks were indiscriminate and disproportionate, though it has not been possible to confirm this independently. 
They have also said that attacks on markets, mosques and other places where civilians gather, as well as on large residential properties, have killed dozens of unarmed men, women and children. 
Neither the Saudi Arabian nor Yemeni government has provided any explanation for such attacks. The Saudi Arabian government also denied refuge to people seeking to flee across the border to escape this new and more intense round of the conflict in Yemen.

Zimbabwe: Germany – Hotbed of Imperialism by Itai Muchena (*)
The hodgepodge of geometric boundaries that today divide Africa into 50 plus irregular nations under Eurocentric subjugation all started in Berlin, Germany on November 15, 1884. 
The infamous Berlin Conference still remains Africa’s greatest undoing in more ways than one, where colonial powers superimposed their domains on the African continent and tore apart the social, political and economic fabric that held the continent together.

By the time independence returned to Africa between 1956 and 1994, the African realm had acquired a colonial legacy of political fragmentation that could neither be eliminated nor made to operate wholly independent from the former colonial masters. 
Some Africans had been too much battered, some bruised, some undignified and others brainwashed so much that up to today, Africa is battling to remain united due to continued and uncalled for interference, at every opportunity, by the imperialist hawks. 
Today, the same Germany — the womb that gave birth to colonialism — is unashamedly hosting and developing AFRICOM, the United States of America superior military command formed to superintend on America’s milking of African resources, at the expense of not only Africa but other fair dealing countries of the world. 
There is no doubt that Germany is seeking re-colonisation of Africa, this time, creating space for its big brother, the United States of America. 
The giant military project is not only an affront to African democracy but an insult to African humanism as it seeks to reverse all the gains brought about by independence — from sovereignty to control of natural resources and self governance. 
Africa will not forget that in 1884 at the request of Portugal, German chancellor Otto Von Bismarck called together the major western powers of the world to negotiate questions and end confusion over the control of Africa. Africa itself was not invited because Europe believed Africans had no meaningful contribution to make towards shaping their own destiny. 
Bismarck saw an opportunity to expand Germany’s sphere of influence over Africa and desired to pitch Germany’s rivals to struggle with one another for territorial integrity. Today, current Chancellor Angela Mickel is playing exactly the same role, pitching America against other economic powers in a battle to control Africa’s strategic natural resources.

Before the Berlin Conference 80 percent of Africa and its natural resources had remained under traditional and local leadership but thereafter the new map of the continent was superimposed over the one thousand indigenous cultures and regions of Africa. Concurrently, Africa’s wealth — as pronounced by its vast human and natural resource base — was appropriated by the colonisers.
As a result, the new countries lacked and still lack rhyme or reason and divide coherent groups of people and merged together disparate groups that really did not get along. 
All in all, 14 countries were represented: Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway (unified from 1814-1905), Turkey, and the United States of America. 
France, Germany, Great Britain, and Portugal were the major players in the conference, controlling most of colonial Africa at the time. 
At the Berlin Conference the European colonial powers scrambled to gain control over the interior of the continent. The conference lasted until February 26, 1885 — a three-month period where colonial powers haggled over geometric boundaries in the interior of the continent, disregarding the cultural and linguistic boundaries already established by the indigenous African populace. 
By 1914, the conference participants had fully divided Africa among themselves into 50 countries. 
Great Britain targeted a Cape-to-Cairo collection of colonies and almost succeeded through its control of Egypt, Sudan (Anglo-Egyptian Sudan), Uganda, Kenya (British East Africa), South Africa, and Zambia (Southern Rhodesia), Malawi (Nyasaland), Zimbabwe (Northern Rhodesia), and Botswana. They also controlled Nigeria and Ghana (Gold Coast).

France took much of western Africa, from Mauritania to Chad (French West Africa) and Gabon and the Republic of Congo (French Equatorial Africa). 
Belgium and King Leopold II controlled the Democratic Republic of Congo (Belgian Congo) while Portugal took Mozambique in the east and Angola in the west. 
Italy took Somalia (Italian Somaliland) and a portion of Ethiopia while Germany took Namibia (German Southwest Africa) and Tanzania (German East Africa). Spain claimed the smallest territory — Equatorial Guinea (Rio Muni). 
Today, Africa has stood firm against the hosting of AFRICOM and the same Germany has offered an alternative and will host AFRICOM until 2012, when it is envisaged the US would have found a suitable base in Africa. 
Sadc in particular and the African Union in general, have said no to this project but the Americans are not resting on their laurels. They are still working out ways of penetrating African governments in order to get a strategic African country to host AFRICOM. 
The truth, however, remains that once Africa allows the hosting of AFRICOM, it will have subcontracted all its powers to AFRICOM, to USA and its exploitative military ventures. 
After a review of numerous potential locations for the establishment of AFRICOM headquarters, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has elected to keep the new command in Stuttgart, Germany at least for now, Pentagon officials say. 
“Secretary of Defence Gates decided to delay a decision on the permanent location of US Africa Command headquarters until early 2012,” said Defence Department spokeswoman Lt. Colonel Elizabeth Hibner, last week.

Until then, AFRICOM’S headquarters will remain in Stuttgart, “the decision has been delayed until US Africa Command has more experience in working with partner nation militaries and thus a better understanding of its long-term operational requirements,” wrote Hibner. 
After fierce resistance from Africa, which should continue through experienced leaders like President Mugabe, Hosni Mubarak, Omar al-Bashir, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and new but progressive thinking ones like Jacob Zuma, Bingu waMutharika and Rupiyah Banda, AFRICOM seems to have hit a brick wall on finding an African host. 
“We certainly looked at a number of alternatives,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said in a news release. “But at the end of the day, it was determined that for now, and into the foreseeable future, the best location was for it to remain in its current headquarters.” 
In Stuttgart, AFRICOM officials say the focus now is on building up the new command. 
Though it was officially activated on October 1, there has been a steady stream of speculation worldwide about where AFRICOM would eventually set up its headquarters. Potential sites have ranged from Charleston, SC, to Morocco and Monrovia, to other locations in Europe such at Rota, Spain. 
“It’s become a phenomenon that the discussion of AFRICOM always hinges on where it’s going. Where we’re going is here (Stuttgart). What’s important for us is to build the command,” said Vince Crawley, AFRICOM spokesman. “Looking for office space stateside is something that is well-intended, but something way down the road.” 
But whether the Pentagon’s latest statement on AFRICOM will quell the speculation remains to be seen. For instance, despite repeated statements that the initial plan to place AFRICOM headquarters in Africa was shelved, reports routinely crop up asserting otherwise. The most recent case occurred a couple weeks ago with Moroccan media outlets reporting that a deal was struck for AFRICOM to locate its headquarters in the port city of Tantan. 
It will be folly for Africa to think that AFRICOM commanders have rested their case on finding a compliant African country to host them because keeping the new command in Stuttgart will allow it to gain greater operational experience and foster relationships with both African and European partners. 
Once AFRICOM moves to African soil, Africa is doomed and finished. It will have to religiously follow the American exploitation gospel and the founding fathers of the African revolution will turn and wince in their graves from anger and disappointment. 
(*) Itai Muchena is reading politics at Ohio State University, US. Article first appeared in The Herald, published by the government of Zimbabwe.

Germany’s foreign and aid ministers leave for Africa (dpa)
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and Development Aid Minister Dirk Niebel left Berlin on Wednesday for a five-day tour of Africa, with visits to Tanzania, South Africa and Djibouti planned.
Their first stop in Tanzania is to feature talks with President Jakaya Kikwete and a meeting with the president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Charles Byron.
Westerwelle is also due to open a German cultural centre, or Goethe Institute, in the port city of Dar-es-Salaam.
On Friday, the duo is to visit South Africa, where economic relations will be the focus of their meetings in Johannesburg, Cape Town and the capital Pretoria.
President Ismail Omar Guelleh of Djibouti will then receive them both on Sunday on the last leg of their trip.
Westerwelle is also to pay a visit to German military units stationed in Djibouti as part of a liaison unit with Operation Enduring Freedom, a NATO anti-terrorism deployment, and Operation Atalanta, the European Union’s naval mission to protect shipping off the Somali coast from pirates.
German business people, cultural figures and aid executives are accompanying the ministers on their trip.
Earlier in the week, Westerwelle and Niebel – who are both members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s junior coalition partner, the Free Democrats (FDP) – said the trip demonstrated their alliance to shape foreign and aid policy ‘in the same mould.’
Westerwelle is leader of the FDP, which has unsuccessfully pressed Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition to merge the Foreign and Development ministries into one.

Obama follows in Bush’s footsteps, boosts military involvement in Africa by Daniel Volman  (IPS)
When President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, it was widely expected that he would dramatically change, or even reverse, the militarised and unilateral security policy that had been pursued by the George W. Bush administration toward Africa, as well as toward other parts of the world.
After one year in office, however, it is clear that the Obama administration is following essentially the same policy that has guided US military policy toward Africa for more than a decade.
Indeed, the Obama administration is seeking to expand US military activities on the continent even further.
In its FY 2011 budget request for security assistance programmes for Africa, the Obama administration is asking for $38 million for the Foreign Military Financing programme to pay for US arms sales to African countries.
The administration is also asking for $21 million for the International Military Education and Training Programme to take African military officers to the United States, and $24.4 million for Anti-Terrorism Assistance programmes in Africa.
The Obama administration has also taken a number of other steps to expand US military involvement in Africa.
In June 2009, administration officials revealed that Obama had approved a programme to supply at least 40 tonnes of weaponry and provide training to the forces of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia through several intermediaries, including Uganda, Burundi, Djibouti, Kenya, and France.
In September 2009, Obama authorised a US Special Forces operation in Somalia that killed Saleh Ali Nabhan, an alleged al Qaeda operative who was accused of being involved in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, as well as other al Qaeda operations in east Africa.
In October 2009, the Obama administration announced a major new security assistance package for Mali – valued at $4.5 to $5.0 million – that included 37 Land Cruiser pick-up trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment and was intended to enhance Mali’s ability to transport and communicate with internal security forces throughout the country and control its borders.
Although ostensibly intended to help Mali deal with potential threats from AQIM (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), it is more likely to be used against Tuareg insurgent forces.
African hotspots
In December 2009, US military officials confirmed that the Pentagon was considering the creation of a 1,000-strong Marine rapid deployment force for the new US Africa Command (Africom) based in Europe, which could be used to intervene in African hotspots.
In February 2010, in his testimony before a hearing by the Africa Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson declared, “We seek to enhance Nigeria’s role as a US partner on regional security, but we also seek to bolster its ability to combat violent extremism within its borders.”
Also in February 2010, US Special Forces troops began a 30-million-dollar, eight-month-long training programme for a 1,000-man infantry battalion of the army of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) at the US-refurbished base in Kisangani.
Speaking before a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing in March 2010 about this training programme, General William Ward, the commander of Africom, stated “should it prove successful, there’s potential that it could be expanded to other battalions as well.”

War In Afghanistan Evokes Second World War Parallels by Rick Rozoff (StopNATO)
With the Pentagon and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization planning the largest military campaign of the Afghan war this summer in the south, Kandahar province, a complementary offensive in the north, Kunduz province, and increased troop strength of 150,000 in preparation for the assaults, a war that will enter its tenth calendar year this October 7 is reaching the apex of its intensity.
The length of the war if not the amount of troops deployed for it inevitably conjures up a comparison with the U.S. war in Vietnam, before now the longest in America’s history. Not only protracted but intractable, with its escalation in earnest beginning in early 1965 and the end of U.S. combat operations not occurring until 1973.
Another analogy is with the Korean War, far shorter in duration – three years – and with fewer U.S. troops and deaths than in Vietnam.
In at least two manners the Korean War more closely resembles the current armed conflict in South Asia. First, foreign intervention was formally authorized by the United Nations although in effect it was a U.S.-led and -dominated military operation on the Asian mainland.
Second, Washington then, as now, recruited troops from allied nations, particularly from members of post-World War II military blocs it had formed or was in the process of establishing. In addition to South Korea, soldiers from fifteen other countries fought under U.S. (and nominal UN) command.
>From NATO, formed the year before the Korean War began in 1950: Britain, Canada, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and then candidate members Greece and Turkey.
>From the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS), formed during the Korean War in September of 1951: All three members.
>From what in 1955 would be formalized as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), envisioned at the time as an Asian parallel to NATO: The Philippines, Thailand, Australia and New Zealand, along with the U.S., Britain and France which were also founding members.
Washington additionally dragooned between 1,800-3,000 troops each from Colombia, Ethiopia and apartheid South Africa for the war effort.
SEATO was dissolved in 1977 and ANZUS remains an active alliance, although for the expanding war in Afghanistan (and neighboring Pakistan) all foreign troops, including in the near future “virtually all American forces,” [1] are or will be under NATO command, including the first contingent of troops from Colombia. Australia and New Zealand, with 1,550 and 200 troops respectively, are now identified as NATO Contact Countries.
To return to the Vietnam precedent, on July 2, 2009 the U.S. launched its largest military offensive anywhere since the second attack on Fallujah in Iraq in 2004, Operation Phantom Fury, which included a total of 10,000-15,000 American troops. 
In Operation Khanjar (Strike of the Sword) conducted in Afghanistan’ s Helmand province, 4,000 U.S. forces and fifty aircraft participated in an assault that included “the biggest offensive airlift by the Marines since Vietnam.” [2]
In February 15,000 U.S., NATO and Afghan government troops launched the largest joint military attack of the war against the town of Marjah in Helmand province, with an estimated population of 75,000-80,000 and by one account as few as 400 suspected insurgents. [3] A more than 27-1 ratio of armed belligerents. The insurgents were not only outnumbered but outgunned and didn’t have warplanes for air cover and bombing and strafing runs. Western troops were ferried in by helicopters and rockets were fired from a High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, in one case killing ten members of an Afghan family when their house was hit. 
Nevertheless a U.S. officer described the fighting being as tough as that in Fallujah six years earlier. “In Fallujah, it was just as intense. But there, we started from the north and worked down to the south. In Marjah, we’re coming in from different locations and working toward the centre, so we’re taking fire from all angles.” [4]
The offensive was initiated on February 13th and six weeks later it was reported that U.S. and NATO troops were “still coming under fire and being targeted by bomb attacks despite efforts to restore Afghan government control.” [5]
The Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, “said he was puzzled by allied claims that the offensive was a success,” according to the Associated Press, which moreover attributed a further statement of Rogozin’s – “So the result (of the Marjah offensive) was that the mountain shook, but only a mouse was born” – to a “Russian proverb.” [6]
What the Russian envoy no doubt knew if the U.S. news agency’s writer and editors didn’t was that Rogozin’s line was a quote from the Roman poet Horace: Parturiunt montes; nascetur ridiculus mus. The mountains are in labor; a ridiculous mouse will be born. 
While the mountain was writhing with a stillborn victory, U.S. President Barack Obama paid an unannounced one-day visit to the Afghan capital of Kabul to, as far as it can be determined, remind his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai who was in charge of the country.
The following day the U.S.’s top military commander, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, visited Marjah forty days after the offensive was unleashed there and in a news report entitled “Mullen in Afghan war zone as US gears up for Kandahar” it was disclosed that “The United States and allies have boosted their troop numbers to 126,000, with the number set to peak at 150,000 by August as the fight expands into neighbouring Kandahar province, the heartland of the insurgency.” [7]
If the U.S. and its NATO allies faced 400-2,000 armed fighters in Marjah (the most common figure cited in the Western press was 600), a town of no more than 80,000 inhabitants, and still confronted snipers and improvised explosive devices a month and a half into the operation, Kandahar presents a challenge several orders of magnitude greater. The province has a population of almost one million with half that number in the capital. It is also, in the copy and paste style of the American establishment news media, routinely referred to as the “heartland of the insurgency” and the “birthplace of Taliban.”
The assault on Marjah was intended and presented as a warm-up exercise for the campaign in Kandahar province and city scheduled to begin as early as June, and the public relations blitz before the February attack on Marjah was of a scope customarily reserved for high-budget Hollywood releases and professional sports events. The self-celebratory propaganda in advance of the offensive in Kandahar can be expected to exceed it in bravado and extravagance. To be proportionate to the scale of the fighting. The “battle for Kandahar” is intended to be the decisive victory in what will then be a nearly nine-year war, one that permits Washington and its Western allies to “retreat in dignity” from the Afghan imbroglio.
In preparation for the offensive the U.S. is increasing the transfer of troops and military equipment to the war zone. In early April the Pentagon’s Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Ashton B. Carter affirmed that a “massive amount of equipment and supplies being sent to support troops in Afghanistan is a historic logistical effort,” and stated:
“I think it’s fair to say that there’s never been, like in these months that we’re witnessing right now, as dramatic a logistics effort as we see in Afghanistan.” [8]
He was further cited as saying “From the ramp up of airlifts, sealifts and ground supply lines, to the building of forward operating bases, runways and tent cities…the effort to build up and supply the plus up of troops in Afghanistan is critical to NATO’s success there.” [9] 
In 2008 NATO established its first multinational Strategic Airlift Capability operation at the Papa Air Base in Hungary, intended for supplying war efforts around the world in future but for the conflict in Afghanistan most immediately. The “first-of-its- kind mobility unit comprising airmen from 12 nations” [10] is staffed by U.S. military personnel, who are also now permanently stationed at bases in Bulgaria and Romania and later this month will be in Poland as well. Late last July the “first-ever multinational strategic airlift unit was officially activated… at a ceremony at Papa Air Base, Hungary, according to a U.S. Air Forces in Europe release.” [11]
A Pentagon website disclosed this April 2nd that the Hungarian-based “Heavy Airlift Wing, comprised of 12 nations, recently moved 2.1 million pounds of equipment essential to surge operations supporting the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
“The international wing has been part of the operation to move more than 6 million pounds of basic expeditionary airfield resources, or BEAR materiel, to build six forward operating bases supporting 3,500 people….” [12]
At a press conference at the same time the new commander of the U.S. Third – “Patton’s Own” – Army (United States Army Central), Lieutenant General William G. Webster, informed reporters in Kuwait that “The military is scrambling to finish what it calls the largest movement of troops and equipment since the buildup of World War II as it draws down in Iraq and ramps up in Afghanistan. “
He added that “the military is moving as fast as it can on the massive and complex job. There are roughly 3 million pieces of equipment in Iraq, including 41,000 vehicles and trailers,” and said “officials expect to be able to move the more than 5,000 vehicles needed for the Afghanistan buildup into that country by the end of the summer.
“Besides air deliveries to Afghanistan, the military is moving goods through neighboring Pakistan and is using a system of roads, rail and sea routes through Uzbekistan and other points to the north in Central Asia.” [13] 
His was not the only recent reference to World War II in regards to the Afghan war. There is no literal comparison between the ongoing fighting in Afghanistan and the most deadly and destructive armed conflict in human history. The Second World War included all the world’s major industrial powers as belligerents (Sweden alone possibly excepted), which collectively mobilized up to 100 million troops.
The war cost the lives of as many as 70 million people, soldiers and civilians alike.
In the nuclear age the world would not survive any attempt at a similar conflagration.
But that war is increasingly becoming the frame of reference for the fighting in the Afghanistan- Pakistan theater.
In the April 1st edition of Toronto’s Global and Mail Michael O’Hanlon, director of research and senior fellow on foreign policy issues at the Brookings Institution, wrote in an opinion piece called “Kandahar is what the Canada-U.S. alliance is all about” that “Americans need to feel unabashed about asking Canada to stay on in Afghanistan past 2011,” as the two nations “are beginning the most important combined wartime operation since the Second World War.” [14]
Canada has lost 141 soldiers in Afghanistan, most all of them in Kandahar. That death toll is Canada’s highest since the Korean War, which ended 57 years ago. Australia, which has not suffered combat casualties since the wars in Korea and Vietnam, has acknowledged that twenty of its soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan so far this year.
The carnage against Afghan civilians perpetrated by the U.S. and NATO from the sky and on the ground is steadily mounting (as deaths from U.S. drone missile attacks in adjoining Pakistan near the 800 mark). >From Kunduz last autumn and Marjah the last two months to the unconscionable murder of two pregnant women (one a mother of ten, the other of six), a teenage girl and others in the village of Khataba in Paktia province in February, the counterinsurgency strategy of General McChrystal, commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is having its lethal effect.
The war is also costing NATO a rising number of casualties in the military bloc’s first ground war. As of April 3rd Western nations had lost 144 soldiers this year. In the first three months of 2010 the NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) acknowledged at least 138 deaths as compared to 78 during the same quarter in 2009, which itself was the deadliest year for U.S. and NATO forces – 520 losses – since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. “Military planners have said they expect an escalation of deaths and injuries among foreign troops as deployments surge to a peak of 150,000 by August….” [15] 
American combat deaths also “roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the same period last year,” and “have been accompanied by a dramatic spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and trending in the same direction based on the latest available data for March.” 
“U.S. officials have warned that casualties are likely to rise even further as the Pentagon completes its deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and sets its sights on the Taliban’s home base of Kandahar province, where a major operation is expected in the coming months.” [16] 
On April 2nd three German soldiers were killed and five seriously wounded in a firefight with an estimated 200 insurgents in the northern Afghan province of Kunduz. According to Deutsche Presse-Agentur, “It was the highest number of casualties the postwar German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, have suffered in battle and brought to 39 the number of German soldiers killed in Afghanistan. ” [17] That is, the three soldiers killed represented the most German combat fatalities in a single exchange since the defeat of the Third Reich in 1945. The 39 deaths in total are also the first since the end of World War II.
German NATO troops responded by killing six Afghan government soldiers in the same province on the same day.
In mid-March German General Bruno Kasdorf, chief of staff of the International Security and Assistance Force in the Afghan capital, informed German public radio that “There will definitely be an operation up there in Kunduz (province),” and that the offensive would be “similar” in scale “to the offensive currently underway in the southern province of Helmand involving 15,000 US, NATO and Afghan troops.” [18]
Germany currently has approximately 4,300 troops in Afghanistan, the third largest contingent after the U.S. and Britain and the most deployed abroad in the post-World War II period since 8,500 troops were assigned to the NATO force in Kosovo in 1999. [19]
In Afghanistan, as evidenced above, they are in an active war zone for the first time in 65 years. Last September 5th German troops called in NATO air strikes against villages near their base in Kunduz which resulted in the deaths of over 150 Afghan civilians. [20]
German Federal Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development Dirk Niebel, who was in Afghanistan on the day of the deadly fighting that cost the lives of five of his own country’s soldiers and six from the government of Afghanistan, the protection of which is the pretext for German military involvement in the nation, in speaking of his nation’s combat troops at a ceremony for those killed on April 2nd stated “They want people to understand that they have to defend themselves – sometimes also preventatively. And they don’t understand why they have to explain themselves to the German public, or why they could even be prosecuted.” [21]
Another report of the same day quoted German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg asseverating, “We will stay in Afghanistan” although the mission is being conducted under “war-like” circumstances and the situation confronting German troops could be categorized as a war. 
“The remarks reflect calls by Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and some others to reclassify the German mission in Afghanistan as ‘armed conflict.’ So far, German military forces have been subjected to the civil penal code, given their participation in training Afghan police and soldiers and in reconstruction activities.” [22]
Reclassifying Germany’s – overt and incontrovertible – combat mission in Afghanistan as war in place of the previous designations of peacekeeping and reconstruction would allow for a relaxation of legal and other constraints on its troops, so-called combat caveats, so that massacres like that in Kunduz last September will be more likely to be repeated and less likely to be prosecuted.
Germany’s military role in NATO’s first Asian war is of special significance as the May 8th (May 9th in much of Eastern Europe) 65th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe approaches.
When the leaders of the Big Three allied powers – Britain, the Soviet Union and the U.S. – met in Yalta and Potsdam in 1945 to discuss what a post-war Europe would look like, particular emphasis was placed on building a new legal and security structure that would prevent the possibility of the horrors of the Second World War ever again being inflicted on the continent and the world.
The nation that had ignited the deadliest war in human history – Germany with its invasions of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union between 1939 and 1941 – was to be demilitarized. At the time many in the world hoped the model might be extended to all of Europe and even to the rest of the world.
That wish was dashed with the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 and the inclusion of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) into the military bloc six years afterward.
Germany itself would violate the post-World War II prohibition against engaging in armed conflicts by supplying Luftwaffe warplanes for NATO’s 78-day air war against Yugoslavia in 1999 and then by deploying troops for what has now become a full-fledged combat role in Afghanistan. German forces have been appointed to lead fellow NATO nations’ troops in the upcoming large-scale military offensive in Kunduz province.
On May 9th troops from the other Second World War allied powers in the European theater – the U.S., Britain and France – are for the first time to March in the Victory Day parade in the Russian capital.
There are different ways to commemorate the end of the world’s bloodiest war.
Britain’s Sunday Telegraph ran a feature on April 4th titled “Luftwaffe and RAF join forces in Afghanistan, ” which celebrated the fact that “Sixty-five years after the end of the Second World War” a “Luftwaffe navigator has flown into combat in the same plane as an RAF pilot for the very first time.”
That the British Royal Air Force and its German opposite number would not only forget dogfights over the English channel and bombing raids over the continent in the early 1940s but join ranks in combat missions over an unoffending nation and its people in faraway South Asia seemed a cause for approbation to the major British daily, which detailed that “the [German] navigator climbed into a Tornado GR4 ground attack aircraft at Kandahar airbase in southern Afghanistan to provide air support for troops in Helmand province.” The British Tornado GR4 multirole fighter, equipped for Storm Shadow and Brimstone missiles, earlier saw action in Iraq. 
In fact the Tornado combat plane jointly flown by a German and a British pilot in Afghanistan “was armed with 500lb Paveway air-to-ground bombs, Brimstone missiles and a 27mm cannon.” [23]
On May 8th and 9th when the world remembers the end of a conflict that accounted for the largest-ever loss of human life, two distinct, exclusive and even opposite interpretations will be offered on the events of 65 years ago.
One is that humanity must never allow the use of war to achieve political, territorial and economic objectives or in the name of redressing past grievances, which all too often is reduced to motives of revenge.
The other is that the majority of the world’s major military powers must intensify plans for international armed intervention based on global rapid deployment forces able to confront and attack any nation accused of posing a threat outside or inside its borders. “Preventatively. “
The West’s war in Afghanistan – with an ever-widening network of military bases and transit infrastructure in Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, the Middle East, and Central and South Asia servicing it – is the era’s most egregious example of the second strategy.
Notes:
1) Associated Press, March 16, 2010
2) Associated Press, July 1, 2009
3) Associated Press, February 14, 2010
4) Christian Science Monitor, February 14, 2010
5) Agence France-Presse, March 31, 2010
6) Associated Press, March 15, 2010
7) Agence France-Presse, March 31, 2010
8) U.S. Department of Defense American Forces Press Service April 2, 2010
9) Ibid
10) U.S. Air Forces in Europe, June 2, 2009
11) Stars and Stripes, July 29, 2009
12) United States European Command, April 2, 2010
13) Associated Press, April 2, 2010
14) Globe and Mail, April 1, 2010
15) Daily Jang/The News, March 31, 2010
16) Associated Press, March 28, 2010
17) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, April 2, 2010
18) Agence France-Presse, March 18, 2010
19) New NATO: Germany Returns To World Military Stage
Stop NATO, July 12, 2009
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com/2009/ 08/31/new- nato-germany- returns-to- world-military- stage
20) Pajhwok Afghan News, September 5, 2009
Following Afghan Election, NATO Intensifies Deployments, Carnage
Stop NATO, September 6, 2009
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com/2009/ 09/06/following- afghan-election- nato-intensifies -deployments- carnage
21) Deutsche Welle, April 4, 2010
22) Deutsche Welle, April 4, 2010
23) Sunday Telegraph, April 4, 2010 

Robin’s Alive:
The Deadly Game Between The House of Rothschild and Freedom-Loving America by William Dean A. Garner (BeforeItsNews) 

US targets the innocent by George S. Hishmeh (GulfNews)
Airport security measures instituted after the Christmas Dayincident are being revised, but too many have already suffered.

————————

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.   

———–