By DONALD KIPKORIR

Why Kenya and Ethiopia ought to annex and divide Somalia

   [Enlarge]
Last month, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, the world’s foremost investment banks, went bankrupt and we witnessed the financial chaos in the western capitals.

In the fog of international headlines on finding a financial bail-out in Washington, a rag-tag army of 50 semi-naked men on rickety boats captured a ship carrying 33 T-72 tanks, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-aircraft guns off the coast of Somalia.

The capture of mv Faina and the stalemated talks amid the surrounding American and Russian warships made me think that maybe this is the time to find a final solution to the Somali problem.

Since 1960, the country has been a lawless state that is a haven for terrorists and pirates. The pirates have told us the destination of the captured weaponry causing tension and panic in Washington, Nairobi and Khartoum.

If it is true that the final consignee was the government of Southern Sudan, as they allege, I will be on the same page with the Kibaki government for the first time.

I am a fervent supporter of a strategic foreign policy even if it attracts us enemies of such malevolent and despotic regimes as that of Khartoum.

Supporting the Southern Sudan government is in our long-term strategic interest and we should not shy from it. The truth of the matter is that as a Western ally, Kenya is an existential enemy of Arab countries, Sudan included.

Annexing Somalia is thus in our strategic interest and we must do it now as the financial meltdown continues to take away the attention of the world.

Somalia as a state exists only in world maps. It is a classic case of a failed state. It is a state dismembered into as many independent units as there are sub-clans. Its 90-strong cabinet is emblematic of the actual number of units.

The Horn of Africa country has no functioning government. The so-called transitional federal government, led by Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, is confined to a shell-shocked presidential compound.

There is no standing or even sitting army or judicial systems. By all accounts, Somalia is a black hole in international law. Together with Afghanistan and Pakistan they are known as the training grounds and refuge for international terrorism.

Kenya has been a victim of such terrorism, leading to near-destruction of its tourism industry. We cannot afford another such attack. We have the potential to develop our tourism to compete with, if not outpace, Egypt and South Africa. But we cannot do so if Somalia continues to be a non-state.

Somalia neighbours Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti. Of these, it is only Ethiopia and Kenya that have strategic interest in Somalia. Djibouti is a primitive entrepot that can’t even supply water to its 600,000 people, who are forced to drink that imported from France or Coca Cola. Therefore, Djibouti is out in the quest for the final solution to the Somali puzzle.

Kenya and Ethiopia must and ought to dismember Somalia and divide it between themselves along the 4 degrees latitude, each taking all the land below and above the line.

The division will make both countries extend their territories by roughly 300,000sq km and additional populations of about five million.

Once Kenya and Ethiopia have sent their combined army to Somalia and declared the annexation, we will present to the world a fait accompli.

In 1845, America annexed Texas from Mexico and forced the Texan legislature to pass a specific legislation stating that it accepted the annexation. The annexation has stood to date and, for good measure, President George W. Bush is a proud American Texan.

For Kenya and Ethiopia, having the Somali legislature to endorse the annexation will be cake-walk. At any given time, most, if not all, Somali legislators are in Nairobi.

We will have them convene in one of our hotels and to pass the appropriate statutes dividing their country.

When the allied forces liberated Germany from Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, they sent the bill to Berlin.

Our cost of annexing Somalia will be settled by Mogadishu. Somalia is known to have huge deposits of oil, natural gas, uranium and iron ore. Immediately after the annexation, we will invite our strategic foreign friends (not China please) to come and exploit the resources for us.

Kenyans ought to know that although Somalia is a failed state, its positive statistics are impressive. Without a structured economy, its gross national income per capita is US$600 (Sh40,000), when ours is $550 (Sh36,800). Of its universities that operate without budgets and with armed militia guarding them, three are in Africa’s top 100.

International law forbids the use of force by states against the territorial integrity and political independence of others. Somalia doesn’t have either.

But the law also recognises irreversible processes like the extinction of states such as in the USSR, emergence of new states from former USSR and Yugoslavia, and annexations like that of Texas. International order hates reversing completed processes, more so if the world is a better place.

If we do not annex Somalia and now, we will be a victim of its failed status and pulled down by it. We will not be able to achieve our strategic foreign policy in the region, or attain the Vision 2030 goal.

The time to annex and dismember Somalia is now; Washington and Moscow will be grateful.

[Enlarge] About The Author: Donald Kipkorir — Mr. Kipkorir is a lawyer and partner at the law firm of Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara, based in Nairobi, Kenya. Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara was established in 1996 and currently has 8 lawyers and 2 consultants as well as a capable team of paralegal and support staff. | More Articles By Daniel Kipkorir |

Popularity: 6% [?]

An LA Times Editorial
Published: September 28, 2008

As the Bush administration attempts to stabilize the nation’s economy, we are witness to the final chapter of a period of perverse and dishonest leadership that has used its own crises to justify the expansion of its own power. This was a president who came to office on promises of modesty — who championed a “humble nation,” scorned nation building and promised a more limited role for government in the lives of its citizens. Then he presided over a six-year attempt to tear down and rebuild the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now has embarked on the most profound expansion of the federal government’s role in the private economy since the Depression.

In both cases, the pattern is the same. Ineptitude led to crisis; crisis then became the argument for the radical expansion of executive power. The administration insisted that it exercise its new authority with a minimum of scrutiny by Congress, the courts or the public.

In the so-called war on terror, that has meant the abdication of our most basic American principles. We have forfeited privacy and honor — the administration has monitored phones and e-mails without warrants and has secreted prisoners in foreign lands, arguing that they deserved none of our protections even while in our custody. As a nation, we have stooped to torture (while debating the meaning of the word) and refused to recognize one of our most basic Anglo-American notions, the principle of habeas corpus (thankfully, the Supreme Court, seven of whose members are Republicans, drew the line at that abomination). We have held prisoners in detention without trial, without charge, without end. In so doing, we have antagonized the world and debased America’s moral authority to lead.

The same administration responsible for these catastrophes has over the last month nationalized the largest source of funding for mortgages and the largest insurance company on the planet. And it proposed to intervene even more dramatically in the nation’s economy by having the Treasury Department — with no court, congressional or public oversight — relieve financial institutions of the troubled mortgages and related securities that have locked up the lending system.

There is no doubt about the depth and range of the crisis that provokes these calls for government action. The gyrations of the stock market have been dismaying, and the threat to the country’s financial institutions — and everyone who borrows from or invests in them — is real. Still, the audacity of this administration demanding expanded powers and curtailed accountability is a wonder to behold. The bitter irony is that this crisis warrants dramatic intervention, but President Bush’s record makes him difficult to trust even when he’s right.

These troubles are about more than a president who is unfaithful to his word. Bush has transformed the balance of power in our government. We are seeing the erection of an imperial presidency, immune from oversight when it fights terrorists and when it rescues banks.

Politically, these developments raise two questions: Which candidate to succeed Bush benefits most by the events of recent weeks? And which candidate, if either, would have the strength to roll back these expansions of presidential power if elected?

To the first question, the answer seems to be Barack Obama, though only modestly. Obama’s poll numbers have inched up in recent days as voters have taken stock of a frighteningly complex economic meltdown and been left to wonder what to think of John McCain’s abrupt, halting responses — as McCain saw it, the “fundamentals” of the economy were sound one moment, at risk the next.

Questions about McCain’s judgment in recent days have only been deepened by the performances of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. She has struggled in her rare public appearances, and her selection risks appearing all the more reckless and cynical when held against the seriousness of this financial crisis. Even McCain’s campaign “suspension” seemed like gamesmanship. He said he was rushing to Washington, but took his time, and the talks derailed soon after he arrived. He proclaimed that the situation was so dire he would not return to the stump until an agreement was reached, then did precisely what he said he wouldn’t. It was not an impressive week for the Straight Talk Express.

Still, Obama has hardly run away with this issue, and the economic news exposes his weaknesses as well. He is, after all, untested by executive crisis and a freshman senator of limited achievement in government. Voters may well blanch at his relative inexperience, given the gravity of these times. Indeed, it is telling that in a week when his opponent flailed, Obama made scant headway in the polls.

On the matter of which candidate could be trusted to roll back the excessive powers that Bush has aggregated, Obama is vague and McCain is exasperating. McCain has properly condemned the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and said he would close it, but when the court granted detainees there the rights of habeas corpus, McCain denounced the ruling as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” He condemned torture, but then, with the campaign underway, voted against legislation to limit the CIA’s use of coercive interrogation. Those oscillations do not reassure.

Obama, meanwhile, is more consistent and encouraging but offers few specifics. He pledges to close Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus and end the invasions of privacy undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism. Those are welcome positions and provide some hope that he would roll back Bush’s excesses. But while he pledges allegiance to the separation of powers, Obama has said little about how to honor that pledge. Rare is the politician who willingly cedes authority, and we have not heard enough from Obama to be convinced he’s that rare person.

These are not abstractions. They are the legacy of this grim epoch, one that should be equally offensive to conservatives and liberals. George Bush promised humility and delivered arrogance. The next president must not.

The United States of Arrogance

The hypocrisy of U.S. democracy and self-righteous foreign policy is troubling the world. The U.S. Dept of Defense, the world’s largest landlord, operates 737 military bases in 63 countries with military personnel in 156 nations. America is ready to strike any country to procure natural resources to extend its empire, keep the dollar afloat, and ensure its utopia. The military-industrial complex has put over 80,000 innocent Iraqis and 4,000 U.S. troops in an early grave, while putting itself in $9 trillion in debt. Alienating humanity and creating new terrorists daily, American foreign policy is a nightmare! Sexually abusing and raping in Abu Ghraib, using chemical white phosphorus (its own WMD) in Fallujah, destroying homes, ransacking mosques, and killing innocents across Iraq–America is winning the war of terror. Unprecedented soldier suicides attest to a disenchanted military. At home the FBI violates civil liberties, while the FDA approves deadly drugs, and CIA concocts phony “slam dunk” intel for war.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Who’s More Realistic: McCain or Obama?

On the campaign trail, the debate over foreign policy has been muted of late. That might be because more important topics such as lipstick and hockey moms have taken center stage. But the contrasts between the presidential candidates also seem to have softened. Their differences over Iraq policy have shrunk as the place has stabilized somewhat and the Iraqi government looks for a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. Both candidates oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Russia’s incursion into Georgia. Both support a vigorous fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yet there’s clearly a fundamental difference between the two that might best be captured by asking a simple question: What kind of world do we live in? Neither candidate has been asked this, and I doubt either would answer as frankly as I am suggesting, but here’s my guess — drawn from their writings and speeches — about what each might say.

We live in a very dangerous world, John McCain would respond. In his eyes, Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the age. Jihadist warriors — funded and supported by states that adhere to their views — pose the central threat to the United States. In the rise of China, Russia and India, McCain sees turbulence. Russia and China, being autocracies, represent a special danger. Moscow’s attack on Georgia was, for McCain, the “first serious crisis since the end of the Cold War.” The role for America, in such an environment, is to aggressively use its power — hard power — to defeat the enemy and spread freedom.

Barack Obama’s sense of the world is more optimistic. The dangers are real but not so all-encompassing. Obama speaks less of Islamic extremism in general and more of al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups specifically. He points out that compared with the Cold War — when thousands of Soviet nuclear missiles were pointed at American cities — we face lesser threats today. He argues that most people in the Islamic world want development and a better life, not jihad. America’s promise remains alive even in these
countries.

America’s role, for Obama, is to restore its military strength, fight al-Qaeda and its ilk, and deter rogue regimes such as Iran. But it is also to stay calm, because in overreacting to dangers, we often cause new problems and crises. To lump together all Islamist groups is to exaggerate and misunderstand the threat. The Iraq war, for Obama, is a prime example of an alarmist overreaction, one that led the United States to an unprovoked and hugely costly invasion and occupation. If America can keep its cool and provide the help that countries really seek — in development and democracy-building — we will gain in both security and legitimacy.

There is some truth to both visions, but in my view the reality is much closer to Obama’s — more so than most U.S. politicians seem willing to admit. We live in remarkably peaceful times. A University of Maryland study shows that deaths from wars of all kinds have been dropping dramatically for 20 years and are lower now than at any point in the past half century. A study from Simon Fraser University finds that casualties from terrorism have been steadily declining since Sept. 11, 2001. It is increasingly clear — look at their voting from Indonesia to Iraq to Pakistan — that very few Muslims anywhere support Islamic fundamentalists. More countries than ever before now embrace capitalism and democracy.

It’s also worth noting that since World War II, the United States has tended to make its strategic missteps by exaggerating dangers. During the 1950s, conservatives argued that Dwight Eisenhower was guilty of appeasement because he was willing to contain rather than roll back communism. The paranoia about communism helped fuel McCarthyism at home and support for dubious regimes abroad. John Kennedy chose to outflank Richard Nixon on the right by arguing that there was a dangerous missile gap between the Soviets and the United States (when in fact the United States had almost 20,000 missiles and the Soviets had fewer than 2,000). The 1970s brought a frenzied argument that the Soviet Union was surpassing the United States militarily and was about to “Finlandize” Europe. The reality, of course, was that when neoconservatives were arguing that the U.S.S.R. was about to conquer the world, it was on the verge of collapse.

Since the end of the Cold War, similar alarms have been sounded several times. In the 1990s, the Cox Commission argued that China was building a military to rival ours, citing numbers that soon proved to be bogus. Then there was Saddam Hussein, who was described as a powerful and imminent threat to the United States. In fact, the greatest problem we have faced in Iraq is its weakness, its utter dysfunction as a state and a nation.

Rhetoric about transcendent threats and mortal dangers grips the American imagination. But it also twists U.S. foreign policy in ways that can prove to be extremely costly to the country and the world.

[Enlarge] About The Author: Farid Zakaria is Newsweek’s International editor and PostGlobal co-moderator. Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000, overseeing all Newsweek’s editions abroad. The magazine reaches an audience of 24 million worldwide. He also writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and fortnightly in the Washington Post. Starting this year, Fareed has been hosting a new foreign affairs show on CNN Worldwide — Fareed Zakaria GPS, an hour-long program that takes a comprehensive look at foreign affairs and the policies shaping our world. Every week they bring you an in-depth interview with a world leader, as well as a panel of international analysts who examine the major global developments of the week. As always, Fareed’s emphasis is on new ideas and innovative approaches to solving the world’s toughest problems. Fareed Zakaria GPS airs each Sunday, at 1pm, on CNN.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Will someone please put Sarah Palin out of her agony? Is it too much to ask that she come to realize that she wants, in that wonderful phrase in American politics, “to spend more time with her family“? Having stayed in purdah for weeks, she finally agreed to a third interview. CBS’s Katie Couric questioned her in her trademark sympathetic style. It didn’t help. When asked how living in the state closest to Russia gave her foreign-policy experience, Palin responded thus:

“It’s very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state.”

There is, of course, the sheer absurdity of the premise. Two weeks ago I flew to Tokyo, crossing over the North Pole. Does that make me an expert on Santa Claus? (Thanks, Jon Stewart.) But even beyond that, read the rest of her response. “It is from Alaska that we send out those …” What does this mean? This is not an isolated example. Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological mantras that she repeats and repeats as long as she can. (”We mustn’t blink.“) But if forced off those rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly, gibberish.

Couric asked her a smart question about the proposed $700 billion bailout of the American financial sector. It was designed to see if Palin understood that the problem in this crisis is that credit and liquidity in the financial system has dried up, and that that’s why, in the estimation of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the government needs to step in to buy up Wall Street’s most toxic liabilities. Here’s the entire exchange:

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it’s got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

CNN’s Jack Cafferty: Sarah Palin Is NOT Qualified

This is nonsense—a vapid emptying out of every catchphrase about economics that came into her head. Some commentators, like CNN’s Campbell Brown, have argued that it’s sexist to keep Sarah Palin under wraps, as if she were a delicate flower who might wilt under the bright lights of the modern media. But the more Palin talks, the more we see that it may not be sexism but common sense that’s causing the McCain campaign to treat her like a time bomb.

Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. The next administration is going to face a set of challenges unlike any in recent memory. There is an ongoing military operation in Iraq that still costs $10 billion a month, a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is not going well and is not easily fixed. Iran, Russia and Venezuela present tough strategic challenges.

Domestically, the bailout and reform of the financial industry will take years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Health-care costs, unless curtailed, will bankrupt the federal government. Social Security, immigration, collapsing infrastructure and education are all going to get much worse if they are not handled soon.

And the American government is stretched to the limit. Between the Bush tax cuts, homeland-security needs, Iraq, Afghanistan and the bailout, the budget is looking bleak. Plus, within a few years, the retirement of the baby boomers begins with its massive and rising costs (in the trillions).

Obviously these are very serious challenges and constraints. In these times, for John McCain to have chosen this person to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, it is simply not true.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/161204
From the magazine issue dated Oct 6, 2008

[Enlarge] About The Author: Farid Zakaria is Newsweek’s International editor and PostGlobal co-moderator. Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000, overseeing all Newsweek’s editions abroad. The magazine reaches an audience of 24 million worldwide. He also writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and fortnightly in the Washington Post. Starting this year, Fareed has been hosting a new foreign affairs show on CNN Worldwide — Fareed Zakaria GPS, an hour-long program that takes a comprehensive look at foreign affairs and the policies shaping our world. Every week they bring you an in-depth interview with a world leader, as well as a panel of international analysts who examine the major global developments of the week. As always, Fareed’s emphasis is on new ideas and innovative approaches to solving the world’s toughest problems. Fareed Zakaria GPS airs each Sunday, at 1pm, on CNN.

Popularity: 7% [?]

 Columnist - John Sammon
Sarah Palin was asked in an interview if the United States would attack Russia if Russia attacked its former province of Georgia?

She said we might… (despite the facts that we usually only fight small really tiny impoverished countries, and that our army is already fully committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars that haven’t yet been won, and of course, the unfortunate historical parallels of Hitler and Napoleon when they attacked Russia).

Instead of saying we might attack, an intelligent answer would have been, “why should I speculate? War is an abomination, to be avoided unless there is absolutely no other alternative.”

That would have been an intelligent answer.

We didn’t get that from her.

This former Alaska mayor nobody had ever heard of might have answered further questions on similar subjects in this way.

Interviewer: “Should we attack Bolivia if Bolivia attacked Peru?”

Palin: “Certainly. If we have a defense treaty with Bolivia. Do we?”

Interviewer: “I don’t know. I don’t think so.”

Palin: “Then get one.”

Interviewer: “What about Iran. Would you attack Iran?”

Palin: “Oh, that goes without saying. Iran is a godless country and we have GOD on our side. It would be a mission assigned from GOD. They (Iran) have been asking for it.”

Interviewer: “Yes, but that’s their government. Should the Iranian people, millions of them, women and children, have to also possibly die?”

Palin: “They’re all in it together. I want to bring up one more thing about attacking Russia.”

Interviewer: “Yes?”

Palin: “I have experience in fighting terror because Alaska is close to Russia. I’ve been on the front lines and felt the sting of battle. It’s a lot like a soccer game.”

Interviewer: “I see. Well moving along. What would you do? This is a hypothetical scenario. What would you do if a country such as Pakistan you thought was harboring terrorists? Would you attack Pakistan to enact a regime change? Or would you try to force some kind of concerted consensus or pressure on Pakistan through the UN (United Nations)?”

Palin: “There’s no question. That’s what armies are for. Go in and take ‘em out. It’s a simple world. We just make it look hard. God doesn’t favor the UN. That’s a worthless thing. Do you think that when I had to get my kid to a soccer match, I asked somebody for permission? This is the United States. C’mon!”

Interviewer: “What should be done about the bloodshed and unrest in Africa? In Darfur?”

Palin: “I don’t know anything about that. I’ve been in Alaska. But I wouldn’t rule out military force if the president and God will it.”

Interviewer: “What would you say to charges your campaign has made that Obama doesn’t have the experience to lead and yet you are a relative newcomer to the scene, and will be a heartbeat away from the presidency? Given the fact of Mister McCain’s advanced age?”

Palin: “Oh, that’s easy. He (Obama) has a little experience, just not the right kind, organizing things in neighborhoods wherever he came from. I had to run an entire state (Alaska), the only state that’s like it’s its own separate country. We’re detached from the rest of you, you know. And Russia was right there. That’s a big responsibility.”

Interviewer: “I see.”

Copyright 2008 Sammonsays.

   [Cartoon By: David Horsey]

Popularity: 8% [?]