Ethiopia has announced its intention to withdraw its forces from Somalia by the end of the year. That will leave, assuming they’re willing to stay on in the absence of the Ethiopians, about 3,000 African Union troops from Uganda and Burundi who only patrol a small area of Mogadishu. In addition, there are some NATO and other nation’s naval vessels off the Somali coast, engaged in anti-piracy missions.
Is this the signal that the international community is preparing to abandon Somalia once again? Can they afford to in light of the militant group likely to take over and the ongoing piracy controversy?
That remains to be seen. But in 1995, the UN withdrew from Somalia, ending an abortive three-year effort to promote reconciliation and restore civil order. At that time, I quoted former US Ambassador Daniel Simpson as saying:
“The world may have bitten off more than it could chew in terms of trying to bring the Somalis to a government."
He says the United Nations tried many approaches in a bid to promote peace but to no avail.
"None of them worked very well or some of them worked partly but we never really quite got there because the Somalis themselves lacked the will to form a government."
Ambassador Simpson says the world now understands Somalia better than it did before its intervention -- maybe well enough to realize that only Somalis themselves can decide their own fate.
"People who look at the Somali situation now with even a small amount of optimism operate from the premise that it may be that now that the foreigners are actually leaving Somalia, the Somalis themselves may be able to get together, close the door, inside the family and say, okay, now it's time to wrap it up and make a government."
At the time, I concluded by stating:
There is little optimism in Somalia at the moment -- and some observers fear the country may be in line for yet another convulsive outburst of violence despite the apparent war-weariness of many Somalis. And that could mean Somalia will go back to square one, back to the anarchic way things were in 1992 before the United Nations intervened. The only difference this time is that no one outside of Somalia is likely to care enough to try to come to its assistance once again.
Well, they did try again and that hasn’t appeared to work either. So what now?
VOA Correspondent Alisha Ryu in Nairobi reports the current fragile government is deeply worried about the impending Ethiopian pull-out.
Somalia's Deputy Speaker of Parliament Osman Elmi Boqore says if Ethiopian troops leave Somalia next month, the government, which depends heavily on Ethiopian forces to protect it from insurgent attacks, may cease to exist.
The deputy speaker says the Ethiopians should not leave before the deployment of a more robust African Union peacekeeping unit, which can protect the government and maintain security.
The ongoing violence has dampened enthusiasm for the deployment of several thousand more AU peacekeepers in Somalia. And a U.N. peacekeeping force called for in the Djibouti accord has yet to be formed.
Earlier this week during an interview with a local news agency, Ethiopia's Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin openly lashed out at Somali leaders, saying they "have shown little, or at times, no readiness to shoulder responsibility for the situation in Somalia."
A spokesman for fighters in the Islamic Courts Union, Abdurahim Isse Adow, tells VOA that while he welcomes the announcement of an Ethiopian withdrawal, he remains skeptical that it will happen.
Adow says if Ethiopian troops, who are seen as an occupying force, left Somalia, it would stop much of the violence and bloodshed in the country. But he says there is still no evidence to suggest that the Ethiopians are serious about pulling out.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
General Ward Reiterates No Anti-Pirate Mission for AFRICOM
VOA’s Derek Kilner in Nairobi reports today that the head of the U.S. military's Africa Command, General William Ward, in Nairobi for meetings with Kenyan officials, discussed the piracy issue.
Ward said the United States is concerned about the rise in piracy, and is involved in multilateral efforts to provide security, but that the issue is not a primary focus for AFRICOM."The United States is participating in those activities currently, but again, that is not specifically being controlled by the United States Africa Command," he said.
Ward said AFRICOM’s main objectives involve building African military capacity and strengthening security cooperation between the United States and African countries. He said that piracy was a criminal matter, and that legal rules have to be followed in pursuing pirates. "Piracy is a very complex issue. I don't know if you would ever have enough vessels to have coverage of the entire ocean," he said.
Ward was also quoted in the report as saying that he had no evidence of ties between al-Qaida and Somali pirates, but that the possibility would be a cause for concern.
Ward said the United States is concerned about the rise in piracy, and is involved in multilateral efforts to provide security, but that the issue is not a primary focus for AFRICOM."The United States is participating in those activities currently, but again, that is not specifically being controlled by the United States Africa Command," he said.
Ward said AFRICOM’s main objectives involve building African military capacity and strengthening security cooperation between the United States and African countries. He said that piracy was a criminal matter, and that legal rules have to be followed in pursuing pirates. "Piracy is a very complex issue. I don't know if you would ever have enough vessels to have coverage of the entire ocean," he said.
Ward was also quoted in the report as saying that he had no evidence of ties between al-Qaida and Somali pirates, but that the possibility would be a cause for concern.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Somali Pirates Threatened by Islamists? And on the Run?
VOA Correspondent Alisha Ryu has an absolutely fascinating exclusive story from Nairobi after speaking by satellite telephone to the pirate leader aboard the hijacked Saudi supertanker. The pirate leader, who refuses to be identified, insists the vessel is still anchored off the coast of El Gaan near the central Somali town of Haradhere.
The pirate said his group has not taken the tanker from the area and they are not concerned about being attacked by the al-Shabab or by any other Islamist group. He declined to confirm reports that his group may reduce the $25 million dollar ransom demand for the release of the tanker and its 25-member crew.
A resident in Haradhere, who wished to remain anonymous because of security concerns, told VOA the pirates took the ship and headed out to sea two days ago. That ship is very far from town now, the resident said. He added the pirates fled because they feared Islamist militias were preparing to mount an assault to free the ship.
On 15 November, pirates brazenly attacked the Saudi-owned Sirius Star, a 330-meter supertanker transporting two million barrels of crude to North America. The pirates captured the ship nearly 800 kilometers off shore as it sailed toward the Cape of Good Hope.
Somali Islamist groups waging an insurgency against the country's transitional federal government and its Ethiopian backers called the hijacking a crime against Islam and have demanded the immediate release of the tanker.
The condemnation is a show of unity from an Islamist movement that has split and is now largely divided between the Islamic Courts Union, which was ousted from power by Ethiopia with U.S. support in early 2006, and the far more radical Shabab group, once the military wing of the courts. It is listed as an al-Qaida-linked terror group by the United States.
There are unconfirmed reports that dozens of Islamic courts militiamen, who control Haradhere, stormed the port last Friday to hunt for the pirates.
In recent months, Islamists have re-captured most of southern and central Somalia and are closing in on the Somali capital Mogadishu. There were hardly any acts of piracy during the six months the Islamic Courts Union was in power in 2006. Under Islamic law, piracy is punishable by death.
The pirate said his group has not taken the tanker from the area and they are not concerned about being attacked by the al-Shabab or by any other Islamist group. He declined to confirm reports that his group may reduce the $25 million dollar ransom demand for the release of the tanker and its 25-member crew.
A resident in Haradhere, who wished to remain anonymous because of security concerns, told VOA the pirates took the ship and headed out to sea two days ago. That ship is very far from town now, the resident said. He added the pirates fled because they feared Islamist militias were preparing to mount an assault to free the ship.
On 15 November, pirates brazenly attacked the Saudi-owned Sirius Star, a 330-meter supertanker transporting two million barrels of crude to North America. The pirates captured the ship nearly 800 kilometers off shore as it sailed toward the Cape of Good Hope.
Somali Islamist groups waging an insurgency against the country's transitional federal government and its Ethiopian backers called the hijacking a crime against Islam and have demanded the immediate release of the tanker.
The condemnation is a show of unity from an Islamist movement that has split and is now largely divided between the Islamic Courts Union, which was ousted from power by Ethiopia with U.S. support in early 2006, and the far more radical Shabab group, once the military wing of the courts. It is listed as an al-Qaida-linked terror group by the United States.
There are unconfirmed reports that dozens of Islamic courts militiamen, who control Haradhere, stormed the port last Friday to hunt for the pirates.
In recent months, Islamists have re-captured most of southern and central Somalia and are closing in on the Somali capital Mogadishu. There were hardly any acts of piracy during the six months the Islamic Courts Union was in power in 2006. Under Islamic law, piracy is punishable by death.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Still Adrift in Pirate-Infested Waters…
My eye was caught by a Los Angeles Times article today, “Grappling With A Forgotten Scourge; The modern world has different takes on how to battle piracy at sea.”
Deep in the item about the latest shenanigans of Somali pirates was a defense of the actions taken by U.S. and allied naval officials. Pentagon officials, unidentified, also said this:
“The officials said one of the principal reasons for establishing the U.S. military's new Africa Command, formally inaugurated just last month, was to combat piracy both around the Horn of Africa and in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea in West Africa.”
Wait a minute! A principal reason for forming AFRICOM was anti-piracy? First we’ve heard of that and, besides, we recently heard it is not even AFRICOM’s mission at the moment. On Oct. 15, we posted an excerpt from a transcript posted on AFRICOM's website of a news conference by General Ward:
GEN. WARD: U.S. Central Command currently, with its allocated forces, its allocated forces conduct [counter-]piracy activities in conjunction with international partners and players in the Gulf, in the Indian Ocean. And as greater piracy policy is developed -- as there are indications that it may be happening -- again, United States in conjunction with other international partners, where within those policy directives there are military activities that fall within our geographical area of responsibility, then U.S. Africa Command would in fact be the command that would be responsible for those military activities.
QUESTION: Well, isn't what's happening along the coast of Somalia now within the purview of Africa Command?
GEN. WARD: Because of the continuity of operations, if you will -- piracy is not new. It's been going on. So as the current piracy situation that exists -- and there's one ship in particular -- because that has occurred previous to my command being a unified command, the continuity of operations, that transition, that mission is continuous Central Command for the time being.
Well, the Pentagon is unhappy about the allegations it isn’t doing enough to halt the piracy. Spokesman Geoff Morrell spoke at length yesterday in Washington. Here are some excerpts:
MORRELL: …this notion that there's inaction, out there, is just utterly false. And I also take issue with this whole notion that it's incumbent upon the armed forces of the world, the navies of the world, to solve this problem.
I mean, first and foremost, yes, we have an obligation to protect international shipping lanes. And that is our first and foremost priority. But the companies, the shipping companies also have an obligation to secure their ships, to prevent incidents such that we've been seeing, at alarming rates, over the past several months, for this year, for that matter.
Armed guards? Blackwater at sea? That rings a bell as well. See my October posting at Regrets Only.
Deep in the item about the latest shenanigans of Somali pirates was a defense of the actions taken by U.S. and allied naval officials. Pentagon officials, unidentified, also said this:
“The officials said one of the principal reasons for establishing the U.S. military's new Africa Command, formally inaugurated just last month, was to combat piracy both around the Horn of Africa and in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea in West Africa.”
Wait a minute! A principal reason for forming AFRICOM was anti-piracy? First we’ve heard of that and, besides, we recently heard it is not even AFRICOM’s mission at the moment. On Oct. 15, we posted an excerpt from a transcript posted on AFRICOM's website of a news conference by General Ward:
GEN. WARD: U.S. Central Command currently, with its allocated forces, its allocated forces conduct [counter-]piracy activities in conjunction with international partners and players in the Gulf, in the Indian Ocean. And as greater piracy policy is developed -- as there are indications that it may be happening -- again, United States in conjunction with other international partners, where within those policy directives there are military activities that fall within our geographical area of responsibility, then U.S. Africa Command would in fact be the command that would be responsible for those military activities.
QUESTION: Well, isn't what's happening along the coast of Somalia now within the purview of Africa Command?
GEN. WARD: Because of the continuity of operations, if you will -- piracy is not new. It's been going on. So as the current piracy situation that exists -- and there's one ship in particular -- because that has occurred previous to my command being a unified command, the continuity of operations, that transition, that mission is continuous Central Command for the time being.
Well, the Pentagon is unhappy about the allegations it isn’t doing enough to halt the piracy. Spokesman Geoff Morrell spoke at length yesterday in Washington. Here are some excerpts:
MORRELL: …this notion that there's inaction, out there, is just utterly false. And I also take issue with this whole notion that it's incumbent upon the armed forces of the world, the navies of the world, to solve this problem.
I mean, first and foremost, yes, we have an obligation to protect international shipping lanes. And that is our first and foremost priority. But the companies, the shipping companies also have an obligation to secure their ships, to prevent incidents such that we've been seeing, at alarming rates, over the past several months, for this year, for that matter.
Armed guards? Blackwater at sea? That rings a bell as well. See my October posting at Regrets Only.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Somali Pirates to NATO Flotilla: Catch Us If You Can
You may remember that last month NATO dispatched a multi-national flotilla to conduct an anti-piracy mission off the coast of Somalia. General John Craddock, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said, "this response is a good illustration of NATO's ability to adapt quickly to new security challenges."
The flotilla was made up of ships from Germany, Greece, Italy, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States:
ITS Durand de la Penne (flagship, destroyer D560, Italy)
FGS Karlsruhe (frigate F212, Germany)
FGS Rhhn (auxiliary A1443, Germany)
HS Themistokles (frigate F465, Greece)
TCG Gokova (frigate G496, Turkey)
HMS Cumberland (frigate F85, United Kingdom)
USS The Sullivans (destroyer DDG 68, USA)
So why was it that this group was unable to prevent Somali pirates from seizing a supertanker? Or, given the pirates moved far from the coast of Somalia to seize the tanker, why hasn’t the task force been able to retake it or even prevent the tanker from being sailed back to Somalia from where it was taken off Kenya?
Is no one asking these questions? Or demanding answers?
Here's the latest from one of the best reporters following the pirates' activities.
A hijacked Saudi supertanker carrying two million barrels of oil is reported to have dropped anchor off the coast of Somalia. Pirates captured the vessel more than 800 kilometers off the coast of Kenya on Saturday. The company that owns the tanker says the 25 crew members are believed to be safe. As VOA Correspondent Alisha Ryu reports from Nairobi, the ship's owner is hoping to negotiate an end to the spectacular seizure.
The head of the East African Seafarers' Association in Mombasa, Kenya, Andrew Mwangura, says negotiations for the release of the $140 million oil tanker and its multi-national crew of 25 have begun. He says he expects the pirates to demand a far higher ransom for the release of the vessel than the $1.2 million the pirates have previously demanded from ship owners.
"We are informed that they are already in touch with the ship owner but we do not know who far they [negotiations] have gone," said Mwangura.
According to Mwangura and other maritime officials, the enormous weight of the cargo would have limited the 330-meter supertanker to a top speed about 14 knots - slow enough for armed pirates in fast attack boats to come alongside.
British maritime journalist David Hughes says although the newly-built Sirius Star sits higher
in the water than older tankers, it would not have been difficult for experienced gunmen to board her.
"The modern one is higher than an old one," he said. "We are talking 10 to 15 meters. Not easy. Still, you could get a ladder up."
The hijacking of the vessel, the largest ever taken by pirates, took place despite the presence of warships recently deployed by the United States, the NATO alliance and the European Union to protect one of the world's busiest shipping areas.
Many of the warships have been conducting their patrols in the narrow shipping lanes of the Gulf of Aden, where the number of successful piracy attacks on merchant ships have dropped significantly in the past month.
But Monday's attack occurred 830 kilometers off the coast of Kenya in wide open waters that navies cannot adequately cover. The United States' top military officer, Navy Admiral Michael Mullen told reporters that he was stunned by the pirates' ability to operate so far from shore.
Journalist David Hughes says the attack signals a potential catastrophe for the global maritime industry. "It means that nowhere from somewhere down the middle of the Indian Ocean and westward is safe," he said. "And that means you essentially cannot have normal merchant shipping in that huge area."
The U.S. Navy has not said whether it is considering taking military actions to rescue the tanker.
The flotilla was made up of ships from Germany, Greece, Italy, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States:
ITS Durand de la Penne (flagship, destroyer D560, Italy)
FGS Karlsruhe (frigate F212, Germany)
FGS Rhhn (auxiliary A1443, Germany)
HS Themistokles (frigate F465, Greece)
TCG Gokova (frigate G496, Turkey)
HMS Cumberland (frigate F85, United Kingdom)
USS The Sullivans (destroyer DDG 68, USA)
So why was it that this group was unable to prevent Somali pirates from seizing a supertanker? Or, given the pirates moved far from the coast of Somalia to seize the tanker, why hasn’t the task force been able to retake it or even prevent the tanker from being sailed back to Somalia from where it was taken off Kenya?
Is no one asking these questions? Or demanding answers?
Here's the latest from one of the best reporters following the pirates' activities.
A hijacked Saudi supertanker carrying two million barrels of oil is reported to have dropped anchor off the coast of Somalia. Pirates captured the vessel more than 800 kilometers off the coast of Kenya on Saturday. The company that owns the tanker says the 25 crew members are believed to be safe. As VOA Correspondent Alisha Ryu reports from Nairobi, the ship's owner is hoping to negotiate an end to the spectacular seizure.
The head of the East African Seafarers' Association in Mombasa, Kenya, Andrew Mwangura, says negotiations for the release of the $140 million oil tanker and its multi-national crew of 25 have begun. He says he expects the pirates to demand a far higher ransom for the release of the vessel than the $1.2 million the pirates have previously demanded from ship owners.
"We are informed that they are already in touch with the ship owner but we do not know who far they [negotiations] have gone," said Mwangura.
According to Mwangura and other maritime officials, the enormous weight of the cargo would have limited the 330-meter supertanker to a top speed about 14 knots - slow enough for armed pirates in fast attack boats to come alongside.
British maritime journalist David Hughes says although the newly-built Sirius Star sits higher
in the water than older tankers, it would not have been difficult for experienced gunmen to board her.
"The modern one is higher than an old one," he said. "We are talking 10 to 15 meters. Not easy. Still, you could get a ladder up."
The hijacking of the vessel, the largest ever taken by pirates, took place despite the presence of warships recently deployed by the United States, the NATO alliance and the European Union to protect one of the world's busiest shipping areas.
Many of the warships have been conducting their patrols in the narrow shipping lanes of the Gulf of Aden, where the number of successful piracy attacks on merchant ships have dropped significantly in the past month.
But Monday's attack occurred 830 kilometers off the coast of Kenya in wide open waters that navies cannot adequately cover. The United States' top military officer, Navy Admiral Michael Mullen told reporters that he was stunned by the pirates' ability to operate so far from shore.
Journalist David Hughes says the attack signals a potential catastrophe for the global maritime industry. "It means that nowhere from somewhere down the middle of the Indian Ocean and westward is safe," he said. "And that means you essentially cannot have normal merchant shipping in that huge area."
The U.S. Navy has not said whether it is considering taking military actions to rescue the tanker.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
There’s A Lot of Cruelty in the World
In the second Presidential debate of this recent US election campaign, Democratic candidate and now President-Elect Barack Obama offered thoughts on whether he would intervene in a humanitarian crisis:
“So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. But understand that there’s a lot of cruelty around the world. We’re not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That’s why it’s so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.”
Is there genocide and cruelty in Africa? Obviously. Look at Darfur, at Somalia, at Congo. Look also at Jim Hoagland’s opinion column in Sunday’s Washington Post titled “An African Crisis for Obama.”
Hoagland writes:
“"never again" has become "sorry about that." Humanitarian intervention -- proudly proclaimed as a universal mission … has fallen into serious disrepair. The slaughter, looting and forced removal of defenseless Congolese civilians around the city of Goma this month -- even though they were theoretically under the protection of 17,000 U.N. peacekeepers -- are grim testimony to the consequences of making righteous-sounding promises without thinking enough about the means to carry them out.”
Now rather than knee-jerk criticism claiming AFRICOM is part of some conspiracy to re-colonize Africa and seize its resources, maybe those who are so incensed about creation of this military command ought to consider the reality of what is happening on the ground in Africa and what to do about it.
And maybe the proper debate about AFRICOM should be on whether working with allies in Africa is the most effective policy the US can pursue to help end the bloodshed.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
A New Cold War Struggle for Africa?
The International Peace Operations Association recently held a meeting on "Engaging AFRICOM" in Washington, D.C. General William Ward, commander of Africa Command, provided an overview of the command and its long-term goals. The transcript is posted on the AFRICOM website.
GEN. WARD: That is a great question (inaudible) and thank you for bringing that up because thats another one that I get asked quite frequently. The well, first and foremost, you know, that is another one of these policy questions. And again, as I mentioned, I dont determine our policy with nations. But I will say this. Being respectful of your point with respect to the Cold War era and what went on, on the continent, it is clearly not my intention as the commander of U.S. Africa Command to engage in those sorts of activities that put the nations of Africa in between anyone.
I am also very aware that nations of Africa are engaging with other nations than just the United States in their interest as well. And I think that the in being respectful of that causes me to say that where there are common interests that are seen, that are present, then it would be certainly fine with me to engage with whoever would have those same expressed interests that are in keeping with our national interests and the interests of the nations that we would deal with in Africa regardless of who that might be.
And as we move forward with policy direction that would allow that, then we would clearly look to do our part in cooperatively working with others in pursuit of those common objectives and not to create the condition that you described that existed during the Cold War. Thank you, sir.
What really caught my eye was way down low in the transcript, during a question-and-answer session:
GEN. WARD: That is a great question (inaudible) and thank you for bringing that up because thats another one that I get asked quite frequently. The well, first and foremost, you know, that is another one of these policy questions. And again, as I mentioned, I dont determine our policy with nations. But I will say this. Being respectful of your point with respect to the Cold War era and what went on, on the continent, it is clearly not my intention as the commander of U.S. Africa Command to engage in those sorts of activities that put the nations of Africa in between anyone.
I am also very aware that nations of Africa are engaging with other nations than just the United States in their interest as well. And I think that the in being respectful of that causes me to say that where there are common interests that are seen, that are present, then it would be certainly fine with me to engage with whoever would have those same expressed interests that are in keeping with our national interests and the interests of the nations that we would deal with in Africa regardless of who that might be.
And as we move forward with policy direction that would allow that, then we would clearly look to do our part in cooperatively working with others in pursuit of those common objectives and not to create the condition that you described that existed during the Cold War. Thank you, sir.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
A Beacon of Hope for Africa and the World?
“…And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world -- our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down -- we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security -- we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright --tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope. For that is the true genius of America -- that America can change.”
That is an excerpt of Barack Obama’s victory speech after he was projected as the winner of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.
He made no mention of Africa. But Africans rejoiced at news of his victory. Will that joy overcome the skepticism that has been voiced in past months over the intentions of AFRICOM? Does anyone believe President Obama, after taking office next January, will close down this newest U.S. military command?
I for one fear those who rejoice as well as the Afro-skeptics may have too high expectations for the son of a Kenyan who has become American President.
But they need to be realistic and keep in mind that the future of AFRICOM is hardly likely to be a top priority for an Obama administration confronting a grave economic crisis , two wars and a host of other non-African international challenges. In fact, it seems more probable that with AFRICOM in place, the Obama administration will have a tool at hand that may give it confidence African issues never rise to the level of priority crisis --- a tool that, as the President-elect said, promises support “to those who seek peace and security.”
