SOMALIA
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Ambassador: It is shocking and unpleasant over Somali migrant deaths
ROMA (Mareeg.com)-Somali embassy in Italy has Wednesday expressed shock and concern over Somali youths who put every day their lives at risk their by crossing the Mediterranean Sea to reach European countriesNor Hassan Hussein known as (Nor Adde), Somali ambassador toItalyadvised young asylum seekers to avoid gambling their lives on the high seas by irregular boats while attempting to enter illegally to Europe from North African coasts such asLibyaandTunisia.
"Somali government is setting up plans to prevent and minimize young Somalis migrating from the country. I call on parents to recommend their children not to attempt such dangerous journey that is a "matter of life and death", said Somali ambassador toItaly.
This move followed after Six Somali and four Eritreans died at sea, while 48 people were rescued on Tuesday night by the Italian Coastguard and military ships around 60 miles south of theislandofLampedusa.
According to UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) estimates, more than 1500 people drowned or went missing while crossing the Mediterranean on their way toEuropein 2011, making it the deadliest stretch of water for refugees last year
share with twitter Wararka Maanta RSS
news in English RSS
If you feel that the service we offer is of value to you, you may choose to donate any amount to our PayPal account above
Sunday, 27 November 2011
A Call for Unity against Occupation of Somalia by the Crusaders-alshabab
27/11/2011
Mogadishu (26/11/2011) ? The meeting held by the so-called Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in Addis Ababa on Friday 25th November underlines the malicious intent of the neighbouring countries to destroy Somalia and colonise its people.
IGAD?s unanimous decision to deploy thousands of Ethiopian troops to Somalia comes after the Kenyan army, a non-combat-tested yet highly bumptious force who?ve entered Somalia more than a month ago, failed in their attempts to invade regions of Somalia as a result of the fierce resistance from the Mujahideen forces and local population. The concentration and build-up of Ethiopian troops along the border and some regions of Somalia at this particular phase in the conflict, not only demonstrates the vindictive nature of the Ethiopian army and their aspirations for military reprisals against the Somali population but also clearly illustrates the widespread impotence surrounding the thousands of Kenyan, Burundian and Ugandan forces already waging a brutal war against the people of Somalia.
Ethiopia, an arch-enemy, has been fighting a long and vicious battle to destabilise Somalia for decades. In December 2006, the Ethiopian army invaded Somalia under enormous media publicity in an attempt to control the country and subjugate its people. In their counteroffensive, however, the Somali population responded with quick and intensive surgical strikes as well as a concentrated guerrilla campaign that soon drained the invaders? ability and defeated the Ethiopian army. Since their defeat in early 2009, the Ethiopian troops have been conducting a series of vengeful attacks against the people of Somalia, before engaging in the conscription and training of local militia to advance the Ethiopian agenda in the destabilisation of the country.
Somalia is going through a historic moment in time and it is the combination of the efforts of its people that will determine the outcome of its future. We therefore urge the Muslims of Somalia to set their differences aside and unite against their common enemy as they have done in the past in order to defend their country as well as their religion from the aggressive invasion of the allied African crusaders. You are facing a barbaric enemy that has no appreciation for the sanctity of human life; be firm and steadfast against them and fight them with all your might.
We also warn the invading Ethiopian forces that you have struggled long and hard to settle in Somalia during your brief occupation in 2006. Know that you are entering Somalia while the corpses of your comrades are still fresh in their graves; and the path that you tread upon today is reminiscent of the path trodden upon by your fellow soldiers yesterday. It is a path that lures you to taste nothing but the bitter depredations of war; for in front of you lies the agony of death, the torment of captivity, the deprivation of comforts, the departure of loved ones and the piercing bullets of strong-willed men with a determination of steel and uncompromising belief. The very men who?ve subjected the might of your army to the ignominious defeat of yesterday are today grinding their swords once again. The people of Somalia shall never accept or live under the humiliation of occupation and the spirit of resistance shall not fade as long as a single invader remains alive on Somali soil.
Press Office
HSM.press@yahoo.com
Harakat Al-Shabaab Al Mujahideen
Wararka Maanta RSS
news in English RSS
Mogadishu (26/11/2011) ? The meeting held by the so-called Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in Addis Ababa on Friday 25th November underlines the malicious intent of the neighbouring countries to destroy Somalia and colonise its people.
IGAD?s unanimous decision to deploy thousands of Ethiopian troops to Somalia comes after the Kenyan army, a non-combat-tested yet highly bumptious force who?ve entered Somalia more than a month ago, failed in their attempts to invade regions of Somalia as a result of the fierce resistance from the Mujahideen forces and local population. The concentration and build-up of Ethiopian troops along the border and some regions of Somalia at this particular phase in the conflict, not only demonstrates the vindictive nature of the Ethiopian army and their aspirations for military reprisals against the Somali population but also clearly illustrates the widespread impotence surrounding the thousands of Kenyan, Burundian and Ugandan forces already waging a brutal war against the people of Somalia.
Ethiopia, an arch-enemy, has been fighting a long and vicious battle to destabilise Somalia for decades. In December 2006, the Ethiopian army invaded Somalia under enormous media publicity in an attempt to control the country and subjugate its people. In their counteroffensive, however, the Somali population responded with quick and intensive surgical strikes as well as a concentrated guerrilla campaign that soon drained the invaders? ability and defeated the Ethiopian army. Since their defeat in early 2009, the Ethiopian troops have been conducting a series of vengeful attacks against the people of Somalia, before engaging in the conscription and training of local militia to advance the Ethiopian agenda in the destabilisation of the country.
Somalia is going through a historic moment in time and it is the combination of the efforts of its people that will determine the outcome of its future. We therefore urge the Muslims of Somalia to set their differences aside and unite against their common enemy as they have done in the past in order to defend their country as well as their religion from the aggressive invasion of the allied African crusaders. You are facing a barbaric enemy that has no appreciation for the sanctity of human life; be firm and steadfast against them and fight them with all your might.
We also warn the invading Ethiopian forces that you have struggled long and hard to settle in Somalia during your brief occupation in 2006. Know that you are entering Somalia while the corpses of your comrades are still fresh in their graves; and the path that you tread upon today is reminiscent of the path trodden upon by your fellow soldiers yesterday. It is a path that lures you to taste nothing but the bitter depredations of war; for in front of you lies the agony of death, the torment of captivity, the deprivation of comforts, the departure of loved ones and the piercing bullets of strong-willed men with a determination of steel and uncompromising belief. The very men who?ve subjected the might of your army to the ignominious defeat of yesterday are today grinding their swords once again. The people of Somalia shall never accept or live under the humiliation of occupation and the spirit of resistance shall not fade as long as a single invader remains alive on Somali soil.
Press Office
HSM.press@yahoo.com
Harakat Al-Shabaab Al Mujahideen
Wararka Maanta RSS
news in English RSS
SOS issues statement against a man claiming to be its director
Mogadishu(Mareeg)-SOS agency for children care in Mogadishu has on Sunday strongly disproved a man who claimed the director of SOS village, officials said.
Ahmed Mohamed Ibrahim, the director of SOS, together with other staff held press conference in Mogadishu today in particular SOS villages saying that they were very surprised at a man who claimed to be SOS current director and attended talks with that responsibility.
The man who was accused of claiming SOS director was named Mohamed Bille Muse and the official director of SOS village for caring and looking after children is named Ahmed Mohamed Ibrahim, reports said.
Mr. Ahmed told reporters that Mr. Mohamed Bile Muse was not among SOS staff and not having responsibility for it but was one of students learnt under it and added that he could present SOS in any field.
“SOS started its task in Somalia in 1985 and 229 staff works for it, claiming like this responsibility will worsen the future of Somali children”, the official director, Ahmed Mohamed Ibrahim said.
SOS was affected by latest fighting between Somali transitional federal government backed by the African union forces Hilliwa district in the capital Mogadishu.
Send your views to news@mareeg.com
Ahmed Mohamed Ibrahim, the director of SOS, together with other staff held press conference in Mogadishu today in particular SOS villages saying that they were very surprised at a man who claimed to be SOS current director and attended talks with that responsibility.
The man who was accused of claiming SOS director was named Mohamed Bille Muse and the official director of SOS village for caring and looking after children is named Ahmed Mohamed Ibrahim, reports said.
Mr. Ahmed told reporters that Mr. Mohamed Bile Muse was not among SOS staff and not having responsibility for it but was one of students learnt under it and added that he could present SOS in any field.
“SOS started its task in Somalia in 1985 and 229 staff works for it, claiming like this responsibility will worsen the future of Somali children”, the official director, Ahmed Mohamed Ibrahim said.
SOS was affected by latest fighting between Somali transitional federal government backed by the African union forces Hilliwa district in the capital Mogadishu.
Send your views to news@mareeg.com
Saturday, 9 July 2011
Can Food Prices Be Stabilized?
CAMBRIDGE – Under French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s leadership, the G-20 has made
addressing food-price volatility a top priority this year, with member states’
agriculture ministers meeting recently in Paris to come up with solutions. Small
wonder: world food prices reached a record high earlier in the year, recalling a
similar price spike in 2008.
Consumers are hurting worldwide, especially the poor, for whom food takes a major
bite out of household budgets. Popular discontent over food prices has fueled
political instability in some countries, most notably in Egypt and Tunisia. Even
agricultural producers would prefer some price stability over the wild ups and downs
of the last five years.
The G-20’s efforts will culminate in the Cannes Summit in November. But, when it
comes to specific policies, caution will be very much in order, for there is a long
history of measures aimed at reducing commodity-price volatility that have ended up
doing more harm than good.
For example, some inflation-targeting central banks have reacted to increases in
prices of imported commodities by tightening monetary policy and thereby increasing
the value of the currency. But adverse movements in the terms of trade must be
accommodated; they cannot be fought with monetary policy.
Producing countries have also tried to contain price volatility by forming
international cartels. But these have seldom worked.
In theory, government stockpiles might be able to smooth price fluctuations. But
this depends on how stockpiles are administered. The historical record is not
encouraging.
In rich countries, where the primary producing sector usually has political power,
stockpiles of food products are used as a means of keeping prices high rather than
low. The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy is a classic example – and is
disastrous for EU budgets, economic efficiency, and consumer pocketbooks.
In many developing countries, on the other hand, farmers lack political power.
African countries adopted commodity boards for coffee and cocoa. Although the
original rationale was to buy the crop in years of excess supply and sell in years
of excess demand, thereby stabilizing prices, in practice the price paid to cocoa
and coffee farmers, who were politically weak, was always below the world price in
the early decades of independence. As a result, production fell.
Politicians often seek to shield consumers through price controls on staple foods
and energy. But artificially suppressing prices usually requires rationing to
domestic households. (Shortages and long lines can fuel political rage just as
surely as higher prices can.) Otherwise, the policy satisfies the excess demand via
imports, and so raises the world price even more.
If the country is a producer of the commodity in question, it may use export
controls to insulate domestic consumers from increases in the world price. In 2008,
India capped rice exports, and Argentina did the same for wheat exports, as did
Russia in 2010.
Export restrictions in producing countries and price controls in importing countries
both serve to exacerbate the magnitude of the world price upswing, owing to the
artificially reduced quantity that is still internationally traded. If producing and
consuming countries in grain markets could cooperatively agree to refrain from such
government intervention – probably by working through the World Trade Organization –
world price volatility might be lower.
In the meantime, some obvious steps should be taken. For starters, bio-fuel
subsidies should be abolished. Ethanol subsidies, such as those paid to American
corn farmers, do not accomplish policymakers’ avowed environmental goals, but do
divert grain and thus help drive up world food prices. By now this should be clear
to everybody. But one cannot really expect the G-20 agriculture ministers to be able
to fix the problem. After all, their constituents, the farmers, are the ones
pocketing the money. (The US, it must be said, is the biggest obstacle here.)
It is probably best to accept that commodity prices will be volatile, and to create
ways to limit the adverse economic effects – for example, financial instruments that
allow hedging of the terms of trade.
What the G-20 agriculture ministers have agreed is to forge a system to improve
transparency in agricultural markets, including information about production,
stocks, and prices. More complete and timely information might indeed help.
But the broader sort of policy that Sarkozy evidently has in mind is to confront
speculators, who are perceived as destabilizing agricultural commodity markets.
True, in recent years, commodities have become more like assets and less like goods.
Prices are not determined solely by the flow of current supply and demand and their
current economic fundamentals (such as disruptions from weather or politics). They
are increasingly determined also by calculations regarding expected future
fundamentals (such as economic growth in Asia) and alternative returns (such as
interest rates) – in other words, by speculators.
But speculation is not necessarily destabilizing. Sarkozy is right that leverage is
not necessarily good just because the free market allows it, and that speculators
occasionally act in a destabilizing way. But speculators more often act as detectors
of changes in economic fundamentals, or provide the signals that smooth transitory
fluctuations. In other words, they often are a stabilizing force.
The French have not yet been able to obtain agreement from the other G-20 members on
measures aimed at regulating commodity speculators, such as limits on the size of
their investment positions. I hope it stays that way. Shooting the messenger is no
way to respond to the message.
Jeffrey Frankel is Professor of Government at Harvard University's John F.
Kennedy School of Government.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011
addressing food-price volatility a top priority this year, with member states’
agriculture ministers meeting recently in Paris to come up with solutions. Small
wonder: world food prices reached a record high earlier in the year, recalling a
similar price spike in 2008.
Consumers are hurting worldwide, especially the poor, for whom food takes a major
bite out of household budgets. Popular discontent over food prices has fueled
political instability in some countries, most notably in Egypt and Tunisia. Even
agricultural producers would prefer some price stability over the wild ups and downs
of the last five years.
The G-20’s efforts will culminate in the Cannes Summit in November. But, when it
comes to specific policies, caution will be very much in order, for there is a long
history of measures aimed at reducing commodity-price volatility that have ended up
doing more harm than good.
For example, some inflation-targeting central banks have reacted to increases in
prices of imported commodities by tightening monetary policy and thereby increasing
the value of the currency. But adverse movements in the terms of trade must be
accommodated; they cannot be fought with monetary policy.
Producing countries have also tried to contain price volatility by forming
international cartels. But these have seldom worked.
In theory, government stockpiles might be able to smooth price fluctuations. But
this depends on how stockpiles are administered. The historical record is not
encouraging.
In rich countries, where the primary producing sector usually has political power,
stockpiles of food products are used as a means of keeping prices high rather than
low. The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy is a classic example – and is
disastrous for EU budgets, economic efficiency, and consumer pocketbooks.
In many developing countries, on the other hand, farmers lack political power.
African countries adopted commodity boards for coffee and cocoa. Although the
original rationale was to buy the crop in years of excess supply and sell in years
of excess demand, thereby stabilizing prices, in practice the price paid to cocoa
and coffee farmers, who were politically weak, was always below the world price in
the early decades of independence. As a result, production fell.
Politicians often seek to shield consumers through price controls on staple foods
and energy. But artificially suppressing prices usually requires rationing to
domestic households. (Shortages and long lines can fuel political rage just as
surely as higher prices can.) Otherwise, the policy satisfies the excess demand via
imports, and so raises the world price even more.
If the country is a producer of the commodity in question, it may use export
controls to insulate domestic consumers from increases in the world price. In 2008,
India capped rice exports, and Argentina did the same for wheat exports, as did
Russia in 2010.
Export restrictions in producing countries and price controls in importing countries
both serve to exacerbate the magnitude of the world price upswing, owing to the
artificially reduced quantity that is still internationally traded. If producing and
consuming countries in grain markets could cooperatively agree to refrain from such
government intervention – probably by working through the World Trade Organization –
world price volatility might be lower.
In the meantime, some obvious steps should be taken. For starters, bio-fuel
subsidies should be abolished. Ethanol subsidies, such as those paid to American
corn farmers, do not accomplish policymakers’ avowed environmental goals, but do
divert grain and thus help drive up world food prices. By now this should be clear
to everybody. But one cannot really expect the G-20 agriculture ministers to be able
to fix the problem. After all, their constituents, the farmers, are the ones
pocketing the money. (The US, it must be said, is the biggest obstacle here.)
It is probably best to accept that commodity prices will be volatile, and to create
ways to limit the adverse economic effects – for example, financial instruments that
allow hedging of the terms of trade.
What the G-20 agriculture ministers have agreed is to forge a system to improve
transparency in agricultural markets, including information about production,
stocks, and prices. More complete and timely information might indeed help.
But the broader sort of policy that Sarkozy evidently has in mind is to confront
speculators, who are perceived as destabilizing agricultural commodity markets.
True, in recent years, commodities have become more like assets and less like goods.
Prices are not determined solely by the flow of current supply and demand and their
current economic fundamentals (such as disruptions from weather or politics). They
are increasingly determined also by calculations regarding expected future
fundamentals (such as economic growth in Asia) and alternative returns (such as
interest rates) – in other words, by speculators.
But speculation is not necessarily destabilizing. Sarkozy is right that leverage is
not necessarily good just because the free market allows it, and that speculators
occasionally act in a destabilizing way. But speculators more often act as detectors
of changes in economic fundamentals, or provide the signals that smooth transitory
fluctuations. In other words, they often are a stabilizing force.
The French have not yet been able to obtain agreement from the other G-20 members on
measures aimed at regulating commodity speculators, such as limits on the size of
their investment positions. I hope it stays that way. Shooting the messenger is no
way to respond to the message.
Jeffrey Frankel is Professor of Government at Harvard University's John F.
Kennedy School of Government.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011
Ending Nuclear Evil
CAPE TOWN – Eliminating nuclear weapons is the democratic wish of the world’s
people. Yet no nuclear-armed country currently appears to be preparing for a future
without these terrifying devices. In fact, all are squandering billions of dollars
on modernization of their nuclear forces, making a mockery of United Nations
disarmament pledges. If we allow this madness to continue, the eventual use of these
instruments of terror seems all but inevitable.
The nuclear power crisis at Japan’s Fukushima power plant has served as a dreadful
reminder that events thought unlikely can and do happen. It has taken a tragedy of
great proportions to prompt some leaders to act to avoid similar calamities at
nuclear reactors elsewhere in the world. But it must not take another Hiroshima or
Nagasaki – or an even greater disaster – before they finally wake up and recognize
the urgent necessity of nuclear disarmament.
This week, the foreign ministers of five nuclear-armed countries – the United
States, Russia, Britain, France, and China – will meet in Paris to discuss progress
in implementing the nuclear-disarmament commitments that they made at last year’s
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference. It will be a test of their
resolve to transform the vision of a future free of nuclear arms into reality.
If they are serious about preventing the spread of these monstrous weapons – and
averting their use – they will work energetically and expeditiously to eliminate
them completely. One standard must apply to all countries: zero. Nuclear arms are
wicked, regardless of who possesses them. The unspeakable human suffering that they
inflict is the same whatever flag they may bear. So long as these weapons exist, the
threat of their use – either by accident or through an act of sheer madness – will
remain.
We must not tolerate a system of nuclear apartheid, in which it is considered
legitimate for some states to possess nuclear arms but patently unacceptable for
others to seek to acquire them. Such a double standard is no basis for peace and
security in the world. The NPT is not a license for the five original nuclear powers
to cling to these weapons indefinitely. The International Court of Justice has
affirmed that they are legally obliged to negotiate in good faith for the complete
elimination of their nuclear forces.
The New START agreement between the US and Russia, while a step in the right
direction, will only skim the surface off the former Cold War foes’ bloated nuclear
arsenals – which account for 95% of the global total. Furthermore, these and other
countries’ modernization activities cannot be reconciled with their professed
support for a world free of nuclear weapons.
It is deeply troubling that the US has allocated $185 billion to augment its nuclear
stockpile over the next decade, on top of the ordinary annual nuclear-weapons budget
of more than $50 billion. Just as unsettling is the Pentagon’s push for the
development of nuclear-armed drones – H-bombs deliverable by remote control.
Russia, too, has unveiled a massive nuclear-weapons modernization plan, which
includes the deployment of various new delivery systems. British politicians,
meanwhile, are seeking to renew their navy’s aging fleet of Trident submarines – at
an estimated cost of £76 billion ($121 billion). In doing so, they are passing up an
historic opportunity to take the lead on nuclear disarmament.
Every dollar invested in bolstering a country’s nuclear arsenal is a diversion of
resources from its schools, hospitals, and other social services, and a theft from
the millions around the globe who go hungry or are denied access to basic medicines.
Instead of investing in weapons of mass annihilation, governments must allocate
resources towards meeting human needs.
The only obstacle we face in abolishing nuclear weapons is a lack of political will,
which can – and must – be overcome. Two-thirds of UN member states have called for a
nuclear-weapons convention similar to existing treaties banning other categories of
particularly inhumane and indiscriminate weapons, from biological and chemical arms
to anti-personnel land mines and cluster munitions. Such a treaty is feasible and
must be urgently pursued.
It is true that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented, but that does not mean that
nuclear disarmament is an impossible dream. My own country, South Africa, gave up
its nuclear arsenal in the 1990’s, realizing it was better off without these
weapons. Around the same time, the newly independent states of Belarus, Kazakhstan,
and Ukraine voluntarily relinquished their nuclear arms, and then joined the NPT.
Other countries have abandoned nuclear-weapons programs, recognizing that nothing
good could possibly come from them. Global stockpiles have dropped from 68,000
warheads at the height of the Cold War to 20,000 today.
In time, every government will come to accept the basic inhumanity of threatening to
obliterate entire cities with nuclear weapons. They will work to achieve a world in
which such weapons are no more – where the rule of law, not the rule of force,
reigns supreme, and cooperation is seen as the best guarantor of international
peace. But such a world will be possible only if people everywhere rise up and
challenge the nuclear madness.
Desmond Tutu is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and supporter of the International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (www.icanw.org).
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011
people. Yet no nuclear-armed country currently appears to be preparing for a future
without these terrifying devices. In fact, all are squandering billions of dollars
on modernization of their nuclear forces, making a mockery of United Nations
disarmament pledges. If we allow this madness to continue, the eventual use of these
instruments of terror seems all but inevitable.
The nuclear power crisis at Japan’s Fukushima power plant has served as a dreadful
reminder that events thought unlikely can and do happen. It has taken a tragedy of
great proportions to prompt some leaders to act to avoid similar calamities at
nuclear reactors elsewhere in the world. But it must not take another Hiroshima or
Nagasaki – or an even greater disaster – before they finally wake up and recognize
the urgent necessity of nuclear disarmament.
This week, the foreign ministers of five nuclear-armed countries – the United
States, Russia, Britain, France, and China – will meet in Paris to discuss progress
in implementing the nuclear-disarmament commitments that they made at last year’s
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference. It will be a test of their
resolve to transform the vision of a future free of nuclear arms into reality.
If they are serious about preventing the spread of these monstrous weapons – and
averting their use – they will work energetically and expeditiously to eliminate
them completely. One standard must apply to all countries: zero. Nuclear arms are
wicked, regardless of who possesses them. The unspeakable human suffering that they
inflict is the same whatever flag they may bear. So long as these weapons exist, the
threat of their use – either by accident or through an act of sheer madness – will
remain.
We must not tolerate a system of nuclear apartheid, in which it is considered
legitimate for some states to possess nuclear arms but patently unacceptable for
others to seek to acquire them. Such a double standard is no basis for peace and
security in the world. The NPT is not a license for the five original nuclear powers
to cling to these weapons indefinitely. The International Court of Justice has
affirmed that they are legally obliged to negotiate in good faith for the complete
elimination of their nuclear forces.
The New START agreement between the US and Russia, while a step in the right
direction, will only skim the surface off the former Cold War foes’ bloated nuclear
arsenals – which account for 95% of the global total. Furthermore, these and other
countries’ modernization activities cannot be reconciled with their professed
support for a world free of nuclear weapons.
It is deeply troubling that the US has allocated $185 billion to augment its nuclear
stockpile over the next decade, on top of the ordinary annual nuclear-weapons budget
of more than $50 billion. Just as unsettling is the Pentagon’s push for the
development of nuclear-armed drones – H-bombs deliverable by remote control.
Russia, too, has unveiled a massive nuclear-weapons modernization plan, which
includes the deployment of various new delivery systems. British politicians,
meanwhile, are seeking to renew their navy’s aging fleet of Trident submarines – at
an estimated cost of £76 billion ($121 billion). In doing so, they are passing up an
historic opportunity to take the lead on nuclear disarmament.
Every dollar invested in bolstering a country’s nuclear arsenal is a diversion of
resources from its schools, hospitals, and other social services, and a theft from
the millions around the globe who go hungry or are denied access to basic medicines.
Instead of investing in weapons of mass annihilation, governments must allocate
resources towards meeting human needs.
The only obstacle we face in abolishing nuclear weapons is a lack of political will,
which can – and must – be overcome. Two-thirds of UN member states have called for a
nuclear-weapons convention similar to existing treaties banning other categories of
particularly inhumane and indiscriminate weapons, from biological and chemical arms
to anti-personnel land mines and cluster munitions. Such a treaty is feasible and
must be urgently pursued.
It is true that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented, but that does not mean that
nuclear disarmament is an impossible dream. My own country, South Africa, gave up
its nuclear arsenal in the 1990’s, realizing it was better off without these
weapons. Around the same time, the newly independent states of Belarus, Kazakhstan,
and Ukraine voluntarily relinquished their nuclear arms, and then joined the NPT.
Other countries have abandoned nuclear-weapons programs, recognizing that nothing
good could possibly come from them. Global stockpiles have dropped from 68,000
warheads at the height of the Cold War to 20,000 today.
In time, every government will come to accept the basic inhumanity of threatening to
obliterate entire cities with nuclear weapons. They will work to achieve a world in
which such weapons are no more – where the rule of law, not the rule of force,
reigns supreme, and cooperation is seen as the best guarantor of international
peace. But such a world will be possible only if people everywhere rise up and
challenge the nuclear madness.
Desmond Tutu is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and supporter of the International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (www.icanw.org).
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011
Somali lawmaker says new dispute began dividing al shabab leaders, militias
MOGADISHU (Mareeg.com) – Salad Ali Jelle, one of the lawmakers of the transitional parliament of Somalia has Saturday said that there was a new dispute rose between al shabab leaders over statements from the group that allowed aid agencies to provide humanitarian aid to the drought affected people in the regions under the control of al shabab.
Mr. Salad said that there was great disagreement between the top leaders of al shabab adding that they mainly misunderstood the hard situation facing the Somali people that caused most of the people to displace from the areas under the control of al shabab.
The legislator warned for the aid agencies not to hast reaching the regions controlling by al shabab due to security threats indicating the statement from the group could not be relied on further calling for the international community to support the transitional government of Somalia for librating al shabab from whole Somalia.
There are hundreds of Somalis affected the droughts and sever humanitarians situations hit in the country in under the areas controlling by Al shabab militias in south and central Somalia.
For more send your comments to news@mareeg.com
Wararka Maanta RSS
news in English RSS
Free Iphone Mareeg.com | click here
Mr. Salad said that there was great disagreement between the top leaders of al shabab adding that they mainly misunderstood the hard situation facing the Somali people that caused most of the people to displace from the areas under the control of al shabab.
The legislator warned for the aid agencies not to hast reaching the regions controlling by al shabab due to security threats indicating the statement from the group could not be relied on further calling for the international community to support the transitional government of Somalia for librating al shabab from whole Somalia.
There are hundreds of Somalis affected the droughts and sever humanitarians situations hit in the country in under the areas controlling by Al shabab militias in south and central Somalia.
For more send your comments to news@mareeg.com
Wararka Maanta RSS
news in English RSS
Free Iphone Mareeg.com | click here
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Al shabab says Kampala meeting ended failure
MOGADISHU (Mareeg.com) – Al shabab officials said on Wednesday that the mediating meeting held for the Somali President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed and speaker of the parliament Sharif Hassan Sheik Aden in Kampala, Uganda ended failure.
Hussein Ali Fidow, the head of policy and regions in Somalia has told reporters that the meeting wrapped up in Kampala recently concluded unsuccessful calling for the African Union troops AMISOM to leave from the country.
“Kampala meeting is an example for the Somali people that the country is managed by Uganda. It is clear for the Somali people and the international community that Kampala meeting for the Somalia was aimed to coerce the Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed to step down and was forced lastly, because Uganda has more plans from Somalia,” said Mr. Fidow
The official said that the Somali people did not know the two Sharifs as government indicating that they know their religion and goals reiterating his call to Uganda and Burundi to withdraw their forces from the Somali capital Mogadishu.
The statement of al shabab comes shortly after both the speaker of the parliament Sharif Hassan Sheik Aden and president Sharif disagreed meeting they held in the presidential palace in Mogadishu that was supposed to be appointed the new Prime Minister of Somalia.
For more send your comments to news@mareeg.com
Wararka Maanta RSS
news in English RSS
Hussein Ali Fidow, the head of policy and regions in Somalia has told reporters that the meeting wrapped up in Kampala recently concluded unsuccessful calling for the African Union troops AMISOM to leave from the country.
“Kampala meeting is an example for the Somali people that the country is managed by Uganda. It is clear for the Somali people and the international community that Kampala meeting for the Somalia was aimed to coerce the Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed to step down and was forced lastly, because Uganda has more plans from Somalia,” said Mr. Fidow
The official said that the Somali people did not know the two Sharifs as government indicating that they know their religion and goals reiterating his call to Uganda and Burundi to withdraw their forces from the Somali capital Mogadishu.
The statement of al shabab comes shortly after both the speaker of the parliament Sharif Hassan Sheik Aden and president Sharif disagreed meeting they held in the presidential palace in Mogadishu that was supposed to be appointed the new Prime Minister of Somalia.
For more send your comments to news@mareeg.com
Wararka Maanta RSS
news in English RSS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)