|
The Southern Sudan Weapon Mystery
Somali pirates, the unofficial coastguard of Somalia, captured a Ukrainian cargo ship with lots of weapons on board. b real has kept us informed about the story from with this item on downward. Next to many small arms, at least 33 relative modern battle tanks are on board of the ship, enough equipment for a full tank battalion.
The ship was supposed to unload in the Kenyan port Mombasa. Kenya says that the weapons are for its own army. Multiple other sources refute this and allege that the weapons are for the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Southern Sudan.
The LA Times, reporting on the issue today, asserts:
[S]ince signing a 2005 treaty with the Sudanese government that ended a
21-year north-south civil war, the SPLM has not hidden its desire to
strengthen its former guerrilla army. It spends about half its budget
on military training, salaries and supplies.
In addition to
purchases and assistance from countries such as the U.S., Russia and
Ethiopia, the new autonomous southern Sudanese government recently
announced it might build its own air force.
Under the terms of
the peace treaty, southern Sudan is permitted to operate and fund its
own military, separate from the national army. The agreement does not
prohibit southern Sudan from purchasing foreign weapons, nor is the
region restricted by the United Nations arms embargo, which covers the
Darfur region in western Sudan.
The
last paragraph seems to be wrong to me. Southern Sudan is supposed to
integrate the forces of the various rebels and the regular military,
but it is not to allowed to purchase additional weapons.
One part of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that governs Southern Sudan is the Agreement
on Permanent Ceasefire and Security Arrangements Implementation
Modalities between the Government of the Sudan (GOS) and the Sudan
People’s Liberation Movement/Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLM/SPLA)
during the pre-interim and interim periods (pdf).
The interim period ends in 2011 when the people in South Sudan will hold a referendum.
Until then, according to the text of the Ceasefire and Security Agreement:
5.3. The permanent cessation of hostilities shall include final termination of the following activities:
…
5.3.5. Replenishment of ammunition, weapons and other lethal or
military equipment;
If Southern Sudan’s regional government really bought tanks (with who’s
money?) it may well be in breach of its obligation under the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
Has anyone better or additional information on this?
daily nation: Who really owns the hijacked battle tanks?
The authenticity of shipping documents presented by the Government to prove Kenya’s ownership was called into question — and investigations showed the cargo might in fact have been destined for South Sudan, as the US Navy has claimed all along.
Impeccable sources in Kenya’s military confided that the tanks and other arms — including anti-aircraft guns and rocket propelled grenades — were going to Mombasa only to be off-loaded and sent on to Juba, the South Sudan capital.
The seizure of the equipment, the source said, had put the Kenya Government in an awkward position because it was seen to be in breach of a UN embargo on sale of arms to Sudan.
…
It also emerged that Kenya might have been sucked into an arms stockpiling contest between the Sudanese government in Khartoum and the South Sudan administration based in Juba.
Sources in South Sudan told the Nation that Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir — currently facing indictment for war crimes over the genocide in Darfur — has been spending huge amounts of money modernising his army, especially the air force.
South Sudan had responded by acquiring a wide range of military hardware including the tanks seized last week, the sources said.
The stockpiling appears to be linked to next year’s referendum, which will decide whether Sudan remains one unified state or splits into North and South.
In case of a split, the sharing of oil resources could trigger tension between the two new countries.
Investigations by the Nation found that despite repeated claims of ownership of the arms shipment by the Kenya Government, the Department of Defence was finding itself in an embarrassing position because their importing breaks most of its own procurement rules.
…
The procurement rules, coupled with Kenya’s stated foreign policy and a check with the Ukrainian exporter and shipper, plus sources within the military indicate that the tanks were in fact on their way to transit to South Sudan, in spite of official Kenyan denials.
When the pirates seized the ship last Thursday, Mr Andrew Mwangura of the East African Seafarers Association was quoted as saying that the cargo was destined for Southern Sudan and was the latest of three or four such shipments since last year.
The Nation established that the tanks started passing through Mombasa last year. On November 2, a train carrying 17 T-72 tanks derailed at Kokotoni about 30km from Mombasa, damaging five of them.
The accident, which happened shortly after 4am, prompted a military security operation at the scene.
The area was sealed off and army officers prevented the press from taking pictures. Then, on January 25, this year, 33 more tanks were ferried by train from the port during the height of the post-election violence.
…
The source said it would require a drastic change of government policy to change military hardware given that even the personnel must be trained before the equipment was acquired.
And the people in President Kibaki’s Government do not show any signs of turning to Russian hardware.
The DoD has an elaborate procedure for procuring arms and equipment.
Unlike in the past when DoD has procured military hardware, this time round, the Nation investigations found no information showing that a technical team or other military personnel from the department travelled to Ukraine to evaluate the T-72 tanks or for training.
so it’s pretty clear that kenya is being used to transit military supplies headed to sudan, probably at the behest of the u.s.
now there are stories today about the u.s./ethiopian-installed transitional govt (TFG) of somalia warming back up to the russians in either (a) an attempt to save their asses after the ethiopians & u.s. get closer to writing them off, or, (b) gain leverage over the u.s. by being seen to court thier old nemesis & inviting them to establish a foothold in the HOA
Somalia welcomes Russian help in fighting piracy
Somalia welcomes Russian help in fighting piracy off its coast and is “not satisfied” with warships from other countries, the country’s ambassador to Moscow said on Wednesday.
President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed “gave permission for Russian ships to enter the sea [off Somalia] and fight the pirates in the sea and on the coast”, ambassador Mohammed Mahmud Handule said at a press conference in Moscow.
…
The ambassador criticised the activities of foreign warships off Somalia, although he did not name any countries.
“Many warships can be found near our shores, but we are not satisfied with the results of their activities,” said Handule.
“More than 10 countries are patrolling [Somalia waters], but we have asked Russia and she agreed to our request,” he said, referring to an international effort to contain piracy.
…
Handule also offered warm words for Moscow, a former Cold War ally of Somalia.
The envoy praised Russia’s conduct in its war with Georgia in August and said Somalia would follow Moscow in recognising the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the rebel Georgian regions at the heart of the war.
a cnn rpt, “Somalia asks Russia for help with pirates”, adds
“The government and the president of Somalia are allowing the Russian naval ships to enter our waters, and fight against pirates both in the sea and on the land, that is, if they would have to chase them,” Amb. Mohamed Handule said at a news conference in Moscow.
strangely, that article also says “Handule, the Nigerian ambassador, seemed to criticize the United States for not taking action.”
looks like somebody’s got john mccain-syndrome 😉
anyway, the russians already have at least one ship on the way, as i pointed out in the comments in the other thread.
just for fun – the paranoic neocons @ stratfor don’t let reality from getting in the way of their trying to turn the HOA of 2008/9 into the central america of the 1980s!
Somalians, Russians and Pirates
Somalia announced today its intention to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. So far, only Nicaragua [gasp!!] (and of course Russia) recognizes them as independent. According to Somalian Ambassador to Moscow Mohammed Mahmud Handule, “We want Russia to start military and technical cooperation with our country as soon as possible. Active talks are currently under way between our countries’ foreign ministries on Russia’s assistance in training Somalian border guards, combat units and security services.” According to Handule, Somalian President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed has agreed to allow Russian forces to fight pirates at sea and, significantly, on Somalian soil.
…
While some reports said the ultimate destination for the tanks was southern Sudan, it appears that the Kenyans were actually buying them from Ukraine.
…
Setting aside the coincidence that Russia announced the deployment of an anti-piracy warship three days before the hijacking of the Ukrainian ship, the strategic issue is that the Russians are involving themselves once again in the Horn of Africa. They had been involved there during the Cold War, and they are returning — on a very small scale for now. The Horn of Africa is critical to U.S. counterterrorism efforts; the region is watched through Africa Command, headquartered in Germany, and Djbouti hosts the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa.
This follows the pattern Russia established with Venezuela [double gasp!!!!]: recruiting allies whose interests diverge from the United States’. The primary function at this point is to irritate the United States, since the primary deployment is naval — and so minimal that it presents no threat to U.S. naval sea lane control. At the same time, the Somalian announcement that the Russians are welcomed ashore in Somalia opens the possibility of a Russian land base in the region, and the possibility of Russian troops helping to assert government control over Somalian chaos — or at least trying to.
The fate of the hijacked ship is unknown. Kenya’s decision to buy T-72s from Ukraine is not unheard of. The timing of the announcement and the hijacking is entirely coincidental. We understand all of that of course. But in this bizarre affair what is clear is that the Russians are moving ahead rapidly to at least show the flag in diverse parts of the world, and are finding willing partners — maybe not of the first quality, but enough to distract the United States at least somewhat from more focused and pressing issues elsewhere.
“Kenya’s decision to buy T-72s from Ukraine is not unheard of”
i think we’re showing that this is clearly not the case here
and, lastly, on wednesday the u.s. “stood up” it’s latest unified combatant command, AFRICOM … in germany, of course
an associated press article, “US Africa command aims at cooperation”, includes this bit
The pirate-infested waters off Somalia will remain the responsibility of Central Command.
if true, what’s up w/ that? i thought the latest selling point behind AFRICOM now is that it consolidated all the ongoing responsibilities for u.s. military activities on the continent (sans egypt) into one neat command?
and, can’t resist just one more – also from that ap article
No U.S. military forces are assigned to Africa Command, other than the roughly 1,800 troops in Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa, based in Djibouti, and a much smaller contingent associated with a program known as the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative.
LOL. ‘no forces’ meaning 2000+
Posted by: b real | Oct 2 2008 4:40 utc | 18
this rpt is only for small arms & light weapons – not major conventional weapons like the tanks & helicopter on the hijacked ship — but it is helpful
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: New SIPRI paper on Ukraine’s small arms and light weapons exports
The paper is the first of a series of background papers for a Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs-funded feasibility study on including small arms and light weapons in the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, focusing on sub-Saharan Africa.
from the summary
This paper examines Ukrainian SALW exports to Africa,as recorded by the Ukrainian export control authorities,for the years 2004 –2007.
…
Ukraine is to be commended for demonstrating its commitment to regularly reporting its exports of SALW.However,Ukrainian SALW exports to three African countries — Chad,Kenya and Libya — raise questions over whether Ukraine is acting as a responsible exporter. In the cases of Chad and Libya, there are concerns that SALW could be diverted to rebel groups subject to UN arms embargoes, further contributing to the destabilization of Chad and of the Darfur region of Sudan. The violence that marred the Kenyan 2007 general election and the ongoing conflict in the Mount Elgon region call into doubt Ukraine’s decision to export SALW to Kenya in 2007 and 2008.
from the body
of the six African states that were listed by the Ukrainian Export Control Service reports as recipients of Ukrainian SALW exports for the years 2004–2007 — Algeria,Chad,Equatorial Guinea,Kenya,Libya and Uganda — three are potentially destinations of concern.
on libya
Libya was the recipient of 101 500 automatic rifles and submachine guns exported from Ukraine in 2006–2007.
…
Court papers revealed that Libya was not the final destination for all these rifles,and Chad and Sudan were thought to be among the most likely destinations. Major arms suppliers including France,Russia and the UK sought to export major conventional weapons to Libya in 2007. However,Libya remains a destination of concern with regard to the diversion of SALW and ammunition. It highlights possible causes for concern and recommends further policy steps that Ukraine could take.The appendix gives a list of published Ukrainian SALW exports for 2004–2007, translated from Ukrainian.
on chad
Ukraine has reported exporting 12,000 automatic rifles and submachine guns to Chad in 2006–2007. Several UN member states have,like Ukraine, delivered major conventional weapons to assist the President of Chad, Idriss Déby Itno,in his struggle with armed opposition groups between 2006–2008. The export of automatic rifles and submachine guns from Ukraine is of potential concern because of fears that SALW and ammunition are being diverted via Chad to embargoed targets operating in the Darfur region of Sudan. For example, the latest report of the UN panel of experts tasked with monitoring the arms embargo on Darfur discusses an ongoing investigation into the origins of more than 3000 Kalashnikov rifles, 3 rocket launchers of unspecified model and 23-mm anti-aircraft guns acquired by a non-state armed group in Darfur. The UN panel was able to piece together a probable route for these arms from Eritrea to the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) based in eastern Chad, but it was unable to identify the country of origin. It may be significant that Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine have all been contacted in the course of the panel’s enquiries, but it is unclear whether they were contacted with regard to this particular case.
on kenya
…
Perhaps significantly, although Kenyan officials made it clear that the 33 T-72 tanks, grenade launchers and ammunition aboard the hijacked Ukrainian ship Faina were part of a larger deal under which tanks, artillery and SALW were delivered by Ukraine in 2007, these weapons did not appear in Kenya’s recent submission to UNROCA [the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms]. Kenya’s report to UNROCA for 2007,submitted on 26 September 2008, records ‘nil’ imports and ‘nil’ exports of major conventional weapons and gives no information on SALW. Although it is possible that the Kenyan submission for 2008 will include information on the transfers to Kenya recorded in the Ukrainian reports for 2007, the timing of Kenya’s ‘nil’ report undermines its official position and contributes to suspicions that the arms could be diverted.
the report lists sales to kenya in 2007 of 40,000 “automatic rifles and submachine guns” and 405 “hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers.” we need to find a listing of declared conventional weapons exports to kenya. reportedly, this is not the first shipment of tanks to kenya, so it would not be presumptive to infer that kenya did not report those transactions to UNROCA either. and kenya should be of concern for diverting to sudan as well. among other interests, it was the mediator for the CPA, largely at the behest of the u.s., as i pointed out in the open thread, and kenya desperately needs oil from southern sudan.
as for what is onboard the faina, this is from a ria novosti article dated oct 1st
The ship’s armament includes SS-N-25 Switchblade anti-ship missiles, SA-N-9 Gauntlet SAM, a 100-mm gun, torpedoes and depth charges. The frigate also carries a Ka-27 ASW helicopter.
that report also mentioned that
Nyna Karpachyova, the Ukrainian parliament’s human rights ombudsman, said that the real owner of the ship, which was carrying 33 T-72 tanks and other military equipment, was an Israeli citizen, Vadim Alperin.
going back to that SIPRI SALW paper, it did not raise any concern over uganda’s purchases from the ukraine, of which there was only a recorded 3 “revolvers and pistols” and 1,000 “rifles and carbines”. uganda, however, does have a reputation as a supplier to actors & proxies in neighboring countries, including the SPLM/A and the rebels in darfur.
brief example of relevant context here, from an old political advisor to idi amin
Since [Museveni’s] rise to political power in Uganda in 1986, the country has served as a principle staging area for logistical and humanitarian support for the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement and Operation Lifeline Sudan, the UN’s humanitarian relief efforts to the people of southern Sudan. In a revealing statement made during a banquet in Uganda’s capital, Kampala, President Museveni admitted his government had actively supported the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, a longtime U.S. client organization, in its fight against the Sudan government where millions have died as the result of internal war. Furthermore he has visited and met with members of the autonomous Southern Sudan government in Juba without notifying the national government in Khartoum. Sudanese national leaders denounced this act as a deliberate provocation, saying: “We are still one country.”
Posted by: b real | Oct 5 2008 6:02 utc | 25
finally, a news agency goes into a bit more depth
al jazeera: ‘Toxic waste’ behind Somali piracy
Somali pirates have accused European firms of dumping toxic waste off the Somali coast and are demanding an $8m ransom for the return of a Ukranian ship they captured, saying the money will go towards cleaning up the waste.
The ransom demand is a means of “reacting to the toxic waste that has been continually dumped on the shores of our country for nearly 20 years”, Januna Ali Jama, a spokesman for the pirates, based in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland, said.
“The Somali coastline has been destroyed, and we believe this money is nothing compared to the devastation that we have seen on the seas.”
…
While money is the primary objective of the hijackings, claims of the continued environmental destruction off Somalia’s coast have been largely ignored by the regions’s maritime authorities.
Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy for Somalia confirmed to Al Jazeera the world body has “reliable information” that European and Asian companies are dumping toxic waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coastline.
“I must stress however, that no government has endorsed this act, and that private companies and individuals acting alone are responsible,” he said
Allegations of the dumping of toxic waste, as well as illegal fishing, have circulated since the early 1990s.
But evidence of such practices literally appeared on the beaches of northern Somalia when the tsunami of 2004 hit the country.
The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) reported the tsunami had washed up rusting containers of toxic waste on the shores of Puntland.
Nick Nuttall, a UNEP spokesman, told Al Jazeera that when the barrels were smashed open by the force of the waves, the containers exposed a “frightening activity” that has been going on for more than decade.
“Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there,” he said.
“European companies found it to be very cheap to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a tonne, where waste disposal costs in Europe are something like $1000 a tonne.
“And the waste is many different kinds. There is uranium radioactive waste. There is lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes – you name it.”
Nuttall also said that since the containers came ashore, hundreds of residents have fallen ill, suffering from mouth and abdominal bleeding, skin infections and other ailments.
“We [the UNEP] had planned to do a proper, in-depth scientific assessment on the magnitude of the problem. But because of the high levels of insecurity onshore and off the Somali coast, we are unable to carry out an accurate assessment of the extent of the problem,” he said.
However, Ould-Abdallah claims the practice still continues.
“What is most alarming here is that nuclear waste is being dumped. Radioactive uranium waste that is potentially killing Somalis and completely destroying the ocean,” he said.
Ould-Abdallah declined to name which companies are involved in waste dumping, citing legal reasons.
But he did say the practice helps fuel the 18-year-old civil war in Somalia as companies are paying Somali government ministers to dump their waste, or to secure licences and contracts.
“There is no government control … and there are few people with high moral ground … [and] yes, people in high positions are being paid off, but because of the fragility of the TFG [Transitional Federal Government], some of these companies now no longer ask the authorities – they simply dump their waste and leave.”
[more]
meanwhile,
Pirates Seize Greek Chemical Tanker
Pirates have seized a Greek chemical tanker with 20 crew members on board near Somalia, say maritime officials.
…
Meanwhile, other bandits have released 15 Filipino seamen and four other crewmen seized when Japanese-operated chemical tanker was hijacked two months ago.
Somali pirates release hijacked Iranian ship
The merchant vessel, carrying minerals and industrial products, was headed from China to the Netherlands when it was hijacked along with a German and a Japanese ship off the Gulf of Aden.
etc…
not saying that all of the hijackings can be attributed to this purpose, but it’s definitely an inconvenient story that gets in the way of more sensational fearmongering
to seriously solve the “pirate” problem off the coast of somalia:
1.) pull out the ethiopian occupation forces, allowing the TFG/TNG to naturally disappear & the courts mvmt to once again unify the bulk of the nation. somalia is something like 99.5 muslim, so any govt there is going to reflect that – get used to it, foreigners. somali’s are not extremists and, given their space, a moderate sharia govt will take shape. piracy was practically eliminated following the popular revolution in the 2nd half of 2006. there is no reason to believe that this cannot happen again, internally
2.) put the buildup of int’l maritime security patrols to work cracking down on vessels engaged in illegal fishing and/or illegal dumping. enforce ‘the basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal’ & other applicable int’l laws that prohibit these acts.
it’s more than ironic that the latest u.s. combatant command, AFRICOM, spends a lot of energy rationalizing their purpose by preaching their usefulness in assisting african nations to fight illegal fishing, yet now AFRICOM doesn’t even have responsibility for somalia – apparently it’s still under CENTCOM’s AOR, despite the earlier well-published rationale that AFRICOM was also necessary to centralize u.s. efforts on the continent, which previously had been split up b/w three different commands (CENTCOM, EUCOM & PACOM). just like the rhetoric on taking on illegal fishing, we see that the standing up of AFRICOM on october first was purely sales pitch.
Posted by: b real | Oct 12 2008 5:39 utc | 36
considering the dollar amt named in the sudanese source in #32 above — “Some local newspapers say that a delegation from SPLM left to Kenya to negotiate for releasing the weapons for US$ 10m compensation” — and especially contrasted against virtually all reporting over the w/e claiming that the ‘pirates’ demand was in the $5-8m range, this sentence in an otherwise useless article, Kenya won’t pay ransom, says minister, in monday’s daily nation caught my eye
Foreign Affairs minister Moses Wetang’ula said on Monday that Kenya would not pay the $10 million (Sh700 million) ransom the hijackers are reported to have agreed on.
what agreement? i have yet to come across any reports that an agreement w/ somebody has been reached. but the $10m figure really stands out. these are the only two times that i’ve seen this particular amount mentioned wrt this ship. and, the minister says kenya won’t pay, eh? well, supposing it was somebody else’s money then… still haven’t come across any investigative reporting into who put up the grip
from a reuters article, also on monday
Sudan summons Kenyan, Ethiopian envoys over arms
A senior official of the south’s Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), speaking on condition of anonymity, denied that the south was buying any new equipment from Ethiopia, Kenya or any other country. “We don’t have the resources,” he told Reuters.
who ever said the SPLA was paying for the equipment? so far, there have been plenty of accounts that southern sudan was building up arms, corroborated by regional experts & sudanese sources, as pointed out in other comments in this thread.
and today there’s mention of ethiopian involvement in arming the SPLA, as well, not w/o it’s own contradictions & controversy
as the sudan tribune reports it,
Sudan summons Kenya and Ethiopia ambassadors over arms deliveries to Juba
October 13, 2008 (KHARTOUM) — The Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned separately Monday the ambassadors of Ethiopia and Kenya to Sudan regarding arms shipments to southern Sudan.
Sudan alleged that Kenya is involved in weapons delivery to Southern Sudan government (GoSS) via the Ukrainian ship seized off the Somali coast but Nairobi denies the charges. On the other hand it was reported that an Ethiopian military plane recently arrived at Juba Airport with weapons to the Sudan People’s Liberation Army.
The Vice President of the Government of Southern Sudan Riak Machar has denied any knowledge of reports of an Ethiopian airplane landing yesterday in Juba with heavy weapons.
yet according to that reuters article,
Sudan’s foreign ministry also protested about unspecified weapons that it said had arrived in south Sudan’s capital Juba on Friday on an Ethiopian military plane, [Sudan’s state news agency] SUNA said.
Southern officials and army officers on Monday denied the weapons were part of an arms delivery and told Reuters they had been brought in as exhibits in a long-planned trade fair.
The SPLA’s Lieutenant General Biar Ajang said that rumours of an Ethiopian delivery of armaments were “confused”.
“They are coming to show local products, tents, uniforms, armaments, shells … like a shop,” he said.
Ethiopia’s Consul General Negash Legesse told Reuters some of the weapons had been taken to SPLA headquarters for inspection. “They are samples. Some Kalashnikovs. Some others that Ethiopia is producing,” he said.
heh
back to kenya’s role, an analysis today at the south african thinktank, institute for security studies points out that the hijacking of the faina
Pirated Ship and the Veiled International Arms Trade
has had three key consequences. First, it has accelerated the foreign military repose to piracy off the coast of Somalia, which has become rife over the past nine months. Second, it has refocused public attention on the somewhat veiled dynamics of the global arms trade. Third, it has damaged Kenya’s reputation as a champion of international arms control and disarmament.
…
The ambiguity surrounding the captured Ukrainian cargo is indicative of the inconsistent nature of observing of transparency and good business practice in global arms dealings. Both Kenya and the Ukraine participate in the UN Register of Conventional Arms Register process, an instrument designed to encourage transparency and confidence building within the international arms trade. The Ukrainian government, which is often regarded as an arms trade pariah, has submitted relatively detailed reports to the UN Register. Its 2007 report detailed the export of a total of 77 T-72 battle tanks to Kenya. To date Kenya has submitted seven annual reports to the UN Register. None of these reports include information relating to arms exports and imports. The 2007 report makes no reference to the import of battle tanks from the Ukraine.
on the issue of whether southern sudan’s govt can even accept arms of any sort, the author of the piece, who heads up iss‘ arms management program, does state that
If the tanks, arms and military spare parts are destined for the governing authority in South Sudan, then this is not entirely problematic as South Sudan is not under a UN Security Council arms embargo, as has been erroneously reported on a number of occasions. In terms of the relevant Security Council resolutions, the arms embargo only applies to actors “operating in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur, and West Darfur”.
but then goes on to add
However, there are two key problems. First, South Sudan does not have adequate arms control systems. Neither does it participate in international arms control processes, such as the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Consequently, the arms may be diverted to other more problematic actors in the Horn of Africa. Second, it appears that both North and South Sudan are engaged in an arms race. Hence, if the Kenyan government (which was central to the mediation efforts that culminated in the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement) is facilitating the supply of tanks and other arms to South Sudan, then it is supporting such an arms race.
they’ve certainly got themselves into quite a pickle, haven’t they…
Posted by: b real | Oct 14 2008 4:09 utc | 37
reuters: Iran, Russia supplying arms to Sudan -rights group
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 14 (Reuters) – Iran and Russia joined China and nine other states as direct weapons suppliers for Sudan after a U.N. embargo was imposed in 2004, a human rights group said in a report published on Tuesday.
the embargo is specifically re arms for darfur & not a blanket arms embargo. reuters does not mention that until the fourth paragraph
continuing,
China’s position as Khartoum’s top arms supplier is well known and has long been criticized by human rights activists and Western governments. Other suspected weapons suppliers, such as Iran, are rarely mentioned.
In a report dismissed by Sudan, the New York- and Washington-based activist group Human Rights First said it used public databases to compile data on weapons transfers to Sudan.
…
Human Rights First said China had probably provided tens of millions of dollars of arms to Sudan since 2004, despite its declared weapon sales value of less than $1 million.
There are other suppliers, the group alleges.
“Iran reports total arms sales of over $12 million to Sudan, including almost $8 million worth of tanks,” it said.
That is consistent with information from Western diplomats, who have told Reuters that Tehran was selling Sudan arms in an attempt to cement ties and deepen military cooperation.
Sudan’s U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmoud Abdalhaleem, told Reuters that groups like Human Rights First were “just branches of Western intelligence in the garb of human rights.”
“We dismiss them,” he said, adding that the timing of the report showed it was an attempt by Western powers to link Iran’s and Sudan’s cases and increase pressure on Khartoum.
He did not deny that Sudan bought weapons from abroad. “We have the right to import arms from anywhere we wish,” he said.
…
Western diplomats say cooperation between Iran and Sudan makes sense given that both countries feel harassed by the West and are on the agenda of the U.N. Security Council, Sudan for Darfur and Iran because of its nuclear program.
i say it makes sense that relationships b/w govts not subservient to u.s. perceived interests are often exaggerated for political ends by western diplomats & like-minded agencies
the arms trade is global, w/ as many players as there are that have access to weapons
the speculative report goes on to bring up many other names from that list
India is another arms supplier to Sudan, the report said. It said India claimed to have supplied only $200,000 worth of arms, but an Indian defense firm entered into contracts worth over $17 million in 2005 “to provide battlefield surveillance radar, communication equipment and night vision equipment.”
Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has sold Sudan “33 new military aircraft since 2004, and has reportedly provided training, advisers and pilots for Russian aircraft in the Sudanese air force,” the report said.
“Some Russian pilots have reportedly flown missions over Darfur,” the group added.
Other direct arms suppliers are Belarus, Cyprus, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey, it said.
There are other countries listed as indirect suppliers — states whose arms have ended up in Sudan but not necessarily due to direct sales. Those countries include the United States, the Czech Republic, France, Germany and Britain.
so, the headline is intentionally politicized & misleading in singling out iran & russia when the copy names a total of 17 countries involved in arming sudan
Posted by: b real | Oct 15 2008 4:15 utc | 40
sudanese media center: The Dilemma of SPLM Arms Deal
At its simplest, GoSS behaviour can be seen in the light of some dubious moves it demonstrated earlier. The appointment of the Former American Envoy for Sudan, Roger Winters, as advisor to GoSS was perhaps a clear signal of the direction SPLM was navigating its policy. As a major partner to political power, SPLM is aware that the American agenda has remained targeting Sudan. The appointment of Winters should have therefore been looked at as a step contrary to national interest which SPLM was mistakenly counted as a party to it, at least during this interim period.
Regrettably some other developments proved that SPLM is merely paying lip service to the slogans it has upheld to enlist the support of the masses in both South and Northern Sudan. Behind the scenes, it has cooked policies which were quite opposed to some of its political leaders rhetoric as evidenced by the scandal of the arms shipment.
Whatever mask SPLM puts on its face, Southern Sudanese in particular are not going to forgive it for spending money on armament while they are suffering the bites of hunger, displacement and refuge. To reap the fruits of peace these are their priorities now. But to Winters and the lobbies behind him, such priorities count little on their agenda.
winters is a longtime player in east/central african affairs & know for his open hostility to the regime in khartoum. he’s been involved w/ USAID, NGOs, the state dept, the clinton era arming of south sudan, worked closely w/ the RPF in mid-90s rwanda, museveni in uganda, etc…
from a june nyt propaganda piece from the ‘radical center’ (heh) thinktank, the new american foundation,
The Man for a New Sudan
For the past quarter century — as head of a nongovernmental organization called the U.S. Committee for Refugees, as an official at the federal Agency for International Development and, most recently, as a special representative to the State Department for Sudan, a post created for him — Winter has fought in the back rooms of Washington and in the African bush to bring peace to Sudan. It’s not evenhandedness that makes him effective; it’s his total commitment to the people of south Sudan and a conviction, which has only grown with the years, that the government in Khartoum is, in essence, a brutal cabal.
from a nov ’98 dossier on winters (and yes, i realise it’s originally from larouche’s EIR… but much of it is similar to what you can turn up elsewhere in research & this link combines info on susan rice, who will be in obama’s cabinet)
Roger Winter: boss of the warlords
On Sept. 17, Roger Winter, executive director of the U.S. Committee on Refugees, spoke at a conference of the U.S. Institute for Peace, and demanded full-scale backing from the U.S. government for a war “to bring down the Khartoum government” in Sudan, adding, “even though I know it will bring about a humanitarian catastrophe.” He reassured the assembled African policymakers present, however, that U.S. troops would not be involved in the effort; this would be a proxy war using Ugandan and Eritrean troops against Sudan, with U.S. weapons and logistical and training support.
…
Roger Winter is also patron to two other warlords in the region: Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni and his underling, Rwandan Defense Minister and former head of Ugandan military intelligence, Paul Kagame.
His sponsorship of Museveni dates backed to 1982–before the SPLA war against Sudan even began. In one of his first ventures as executive director of the U.S. Committee of Refugees, Winter traveled to Uganda, where he took up the cause of the Banyarwanda refugees–Tutsi Rwandans who had fled to Uganda in the early 1960s–against the government of Ugandan President Milton Obote. By 1983, Winter was regularly visiting Yoweri Museveni in the bush, as Museveni was leading his guerrilla war against the Obote government. Winter became an early publicist for Museveni, centered around charges that Obote was carrying out a campaign of mass murder in the Luwero Triangle–a campaign that many in central Uganda are coming to realize was carried out by Museveni himself.
Through Museveni, Winter became an early patron of Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which was organized in Kampala, Uganda. In August 1988, Winter organized a conference of the Association of Banyarwandans in Diaspora in Washington, D.C., which brought together Rwandan Tutsis in exile to sponsor the efforts of the Rwandan Patriotic Front to come to power in Kigali. Two years later, the RPF, backed by Museveni along with troops of Uganda, invaded Rwanda in October 1990, launching the process that led to the genocide of 1994. In the 1994 RPF blitzkrieg of Rwanda, after the murder of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana, Winter told Congress: “I had the great honor of travelling in Rwanda in April, in May, in June, and in July, as the war was occurring. I had the privilege of travelling with the Rwandan Patriotic Front as it gradually increased its control over Rwandan territory.”
Hence, Winter is to be found among the earliest sponsors from the United States of the British warlords–Kagame, Garang, and Museveni–who have wreaked so much havoc in East Africa.
Posted by: b real | Oct 24 2008 3:25 utc | 49
good catch, b
lloyd’s list: Indian navy could boost Gulf of Aden patrols
INDIA is considering plans to send up to four warships to patrol the pirate-infested waters in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean off the coast of East Africa.
The move comes as the naval guided-missile frigate INS Tabar, which destroyed a pirate mother ship on Tuesday, is set to be replaced by a larger Delhi-class destroyer on anti-piracy patrols in the area later next week.
…
Indian navy sources confirmed the government was pondering whether to bolster its military presence in the Gulf after a request from the country’s shipping ministry.
“Yes, we are considering a proposal to increase the number of warships in Gulf of Aden to fight the pirates and to protect merchant ships flying the Indian flag,” said one naval source, who added that a decision would be made soon.
While India appeared to be keen to send additional vessel, it is against committing warships to the area on a long-term basis.
Instead, India has proposed the United Nations adopt an international mandated operation against piracy that would combine existing US and European-led task forces.
India sent one of its three Delhi-class destroyers to relieve Tabar on Thursday. The destroyer was not identified, but each of the 6,900-tonne warships — Delhi, Mumbai and Mysore — carries two Sea King helicopters and a smaller Cheetah or Chetak helicopter, missiles, and torpedoes. The destroyer will arrive in the Gulf of Aden at the end of next week.
ria novosti:
Cap. 1st rank Igor Dygalo, an aide to the Russian Navy commander, said the Neustrashimy is escorting one vessel from each of Russia, the Marshall Islands and the Cayman Islands, and six Liberian ships.
“The Russian Navy will continue its presence in the Horn of Africa region with the aim of providing safe shipping,” Dygalo said.
However, he rejected Russian media reports saying the Navy plans to deploy a large group of warships in the area.
“Talk of the possible presence of a large Russian Navy grouping on a regular basis in the Horn of Africa area is premature, as the Russian Navy does not have permanent bases in the area,” he said.
reuters had a provocative story earlier this week:
Russian envoy urges EU, NATO, to attack pirate bases
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – NATO, the European Union and others should launch land operations against bases of Somali pirates in coordination with Russia, the Russian ambassador to NATO said on Wednesday.
Dmitry Rogozin said the view of Russian experts was that naval action alone, even involving a large fleet of a powerful nation, would not be enough to defeat the pirates, given Somalia’s geo-strategic position.
“So it is up to NATO, the EU and other major stakeholders to conduct not a sea operation, but in fact a land coastal operation to eradicate the bases of pirates on the ground,” he said.
“Because we all know … they have their bases on the ground and of course those actions should be coordinated with Russia,” Rogozin said, without making clear whether he foresaw Russia being involved in any such operation.
…
Rogozin said Russia’s strained ties with NATO since Moscow’s intervention in Western ally Georgia in August had meant the Western alliance had not given proper recognition to Russia’s contribution to naval efforts against Somali pirates.
He cited a NATO statement that hailed the courage of the crew of a British warship in repelling a pirate attack on a merchant vessel this month but made no mention of the involvement of a Russian warship in dealing with the incident.
“Maybe they should have at least for objectivity, for impartiality, to prove their unbiased approach, have said a word about the Russian participation,” he said.
“Because that could have significant and serious very consequences for our future cooperation … as we say in Russia, a kind word is dear even to a cat. That could stimulate more joint positive action,” he said.
on the same day the u.s. was playing the other end
afp: Pentagon says force not the answer to surge in piracy
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Pentagon said Wednesday a military approach was not the answer to a surge of piracy off the Horn of Africa and suggested that shipping companies do more on their own to protect their vessels.
“You could have all the navies in the world having all their ships out there, you know, it’s not going to ever solve this problem,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.
“It requires a holistic approach from the international community at sea, ashore, with governance, with economic development,” he told reporters.
…
“Trust me, this subject is being dealt with at the highest levels of this government,” Morrell said. “It is a real concern. And we are constantly evaluating what the best approach is.”
“I’m just trying to get you to think beyond the notion of, ‘The answer is strictly kinetics. We’ve got to board more ships. We’ve got to fire on more pirates.'”
…
The State Department convened a high level group of officials to examine the issue, but spokesman Sean McCormack called it “an international problem” that the United States was not going to solve alone.
Posted by: b real | Nov 21 2008 20:25 utc | 64
|
