Attorney General Jeff Sessions Senate Hearing on the Russian Probe was showing planned misuse Executive Privilege!

COTTON: Do you like spy fiction: John le Carre, Daniel Silva, Jason Matthews?

SESSIONS: Yeah, Alan Furst, David Ignatius’ books.

COTTON: Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies?

SESSIONS: No, yes, I do” (Politico, 2017).

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III or Jeff Sessions, who is the Alabama politician and a vital part of the Campaign of President Donald Trump had his hearing with the Senates Intelligence Committee and the continued Russian probe, as to get the facts of the possible collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russian external force. This has been the giant obstacle and the sore thumb on the American Democracy since November 2016. Since Trump won and got elected, but while the released documentations and hacking of the opponents of Trump, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton. Therefore, yesterdays hearing was the second one, as the Republican politician and others had positive gains by the release of internal mails. These are well-known by the ones who followed the election.

This hearing is the second one of bigger characters, as the first one was former FBI director James Comey, who addressed his role and his position on the matter. As he was sacked and had his story for how the times has been after the election and during. Therefore, yesterdays hearing could show the public more insights into the Russian Probe. Still, yesterday didn’t give much insights, as Attorney General Sessions tried to say as little as possible and deflect as much as he could. Nevertheless, take the first point that I don’t believe have been given powers too. Since the President and this regard Donald Trump have the knowledge of memo’s and Executive Orders back to the 1980s. He wouldn’t even remember pre-Cleveland basketball team without LeBron James. So first let me introduce the President Ronald Reagan and his Executive memo.

President Ronald Reagan signed a memorandum into law for the trust between state officials and the White House. To certainly make sure the conversations and the discussions would be between the Executive who has the Executive Privilege and can avoid to disclose the information, even if the President is asked. Therefore, this piece of information is important:

2. If the head of an executive department or agency (“Department Head”) believes, after consultation with department counsel, that compliance with a Congressional request for information raises a substantial question of executive privilege, he shall promptly notify and consult with the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General from the Office of Legal Counsel, and shall also promptly notify and consult with the Counsel to the President. If the information requested of a department or agency derives in whole or in part from information received from another department or agency, the latter entity shall also be consulted as to whether disclosure of the information raises a substantial question of executive privilege” (Reagan, 1982).

3. Every effort shall be made to comply with the Congressional request in manner consistent with legitimate needs of the Executive Branch. The Department Head, the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President may, in exercise of their discretion in the circumstances, determine that the executive privilege shall not be invoked and release the requested information” (Reagan, 1982).

I doubt that President Trump ever would do this unless Stephen Bannon or someone else of his faulty White House could make him consider this possibility, especially if they kiss the ring and say they will be loyal to the man. Nevertheless, Attorney General Sessions believes that is done. Just take a look!

WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I’m not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. That would be a violation of the communications rule that I have to

WARNER: Just so I can understand, is the basis of that unwilling to answer based on executive privilege?

SESSIONS: It’s a long standing policy. The department of justice not to comment on conversations that the attorney general had with the president of the united States for confidential reasons that rounded in the coequal branch.

WARNER: Just so I understand, is that mean you claim executive privilege?

SESSIONS: I’m not claiming executive privilege because that’s the president’s power and I have no power there” (Politico, 2017).

So he said to Senator Warner, that he is following this policy of Ronald Reagan, but says is coequal branch. Which shows that he is guessing more than knowing of it himself. As a legal mind and legal counsel to the President. It is worrying how he is struggling to explain the Executive Order. But he tried to explain it to someone else.

SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH: Attorney General Sessions, has the president ever expressed his frustration to you regarding your decision to recuse yourself?

SESSIONS: Senator Heinrich, I’m not able to share with this committee private communications —

HEINRICH: You’re invoking executive privilege.

SESSIONS: I’m not able to invoke executive privilege. That’s the president’s prerogative.

HEINRICH: My understanding is that you took an oath, you raised your right hand here today and you said that you would solemnly tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And now you’re not answering questions. You’re impeding this investigation, so my understanding of the legal standard is that you either answer the question. That’s the best outcome. You say this is classified, can’t answer it here. I’ll answer it in closed session. That’s bucket number two. Bucket number three is to say I’m invoking executive privilege. There is no appropriateness bucket. It is not a legal standard. Can you tell me why what are these long-standing DOJ rules that protect conversations made in the executive without invoking executive privilege?

SESSIONS: Senator, I’m protecting the president’s constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to review it.

HEINRICH: You can’t have it both ways.

SESSIONS: And second I am telling the truth in answering your question and saying it’s a long-standing policy of the department of justice to make sure that the president has full opportunity to decide these issues” (Politico, 2017).

So AG Sessions tried to go further to avoid answering questions, as he continue to pull the questions and not answer. Which for me implies that he knows more than he says and also that he doesn’t want to disclose. Not because it is classified, but because he fear the implications of his words. That he will entertain and continue to give evidence into the investigation. Therefore, as a prosecutor he tries to avoid the reasoning and also stop the time, so that the ones following it gets little or nearly nothing from the man. He did it to a third Senator as well!

KING: I respect your willingness to be here. You testified a few minutes ago I’m not able to invoke executive privilege. That’s up to the president. Has the president invoked executive privilege in the case of your testimony here today?

SESSIONS: He has not.

KING: Then what is the basis of your refusal to answer these questions?

SESSIONS: Senator king, the president has a constitutional —

KING: I understand that, but the president hasn’t asserted that. You said you don’t have the power to exert executive privilege so what is the legal basis for your refusal to answer the questions?

SESSIONS: I’m protecting the right of the president to assert it if he chooses and there may be other privileges that could apply in this circumstance.

KING: Well, I don’t understand how you can have it both ways. The president can’t not assert it, and you’ve testified that only the president can assert it and yet I just don’t understand the legal basis for your refusal to answer.

SESSIONS: What we try to do, I think most cabinet officials, others that you questioned recently, officials before the committee, protect the president’s right to do so. If it comes to a point where the issue is clear and there’s a dispute about it, at some point the president will either assert the privilege or not or some other privilege would be asserted, but at this point I believe it’s premature

KING: You’re asserting a privilege.

SESSIONS: It would be premature for me to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege. That’s not necessary at this point.

KING: You testified a few minutes ago, that quote, we were asked for our opinion. Who asked for your opinion? You testified we were asked for our opinion.

SESSIONS: My understanding is I believe I’m correct in saying the president had said so” (Politico, 2017).

So if he is trying to show it earlier, he suddenly backs down from it. As he was there to testify, but at this point he is avoiding to saying anything. AG Sessions tries to flex power and codes, but at the same time not. Because there is no proof that that the President has given the provisions to him. Instead, he uses it, but avoid it.

Many has focused on the recalling, not remembering as he cannot answer to the Senators about over 20 times during the hours of testimony, but enough people has commented on that. But the powers of using Executive Privilege to avoid answering is a disgrace to do, especially when we possible have a President who has no idea of the provision or even existence. So to grand yourself higher-powers than you possibly can have to avoid questions prove his disregard for the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing yesterday.

He did it yet another time, with yet another senator, as he again plays for time and doesn’t answer, as he himself cannot mention the name of the Executive Privilege. Therefore, take a look at that as well:

HARRIS: And you referred to a long-standing DOJ policy. Can you tell us what policy it is you’re talking about.

SESSIONS: Well, I think most cabinet people as the witnesses, you had before you earlier, those individuals declined to comment, because we’re all about conversations with the president

HARRIS: Sir, I’m just asking you about the DOJ policy you’ve referred to.

SESSIONS: A long-standing policy, a policy that goes beyond just the attorney general.

HARRIS: Is that policy in writing somewhere?

SESSIONS: I think so.

HARRIS: So did you not consult it before you came before this committee knowing we would ask you questions about that?

SESSIONS: Well, we talked about it. The policy is based —

HARRIS: Did you ask that it would be shown to you?

SESSIONS: The policy is based on the principle that the president

HARRIS: Sir, I’m not asking about the principle. I’m asking when you would be asked these questions–

SESSION: Well, I’m unable to answer the quest–

HARRIS: and you would rely on that policy –” (Politico, 2017).

This is just the point about Executive Privilege! The simple point of that AG Sessions on this matter show concern about he see himself and the President. As he has no issues with using the President, but not doing it well. He want to use a policy he doesn’t know the name.

Still, the August 1982 Memo for the President show’s how he could have explained it:

The privileges available to protect the confidentiality of the Attorney General’s communications with the Office of the President can be roughly categorized into three classes, depending upon the nature of the communications for which the privilege is asserted, the interests which are sought to be protected by the claim of privilege, and the persons against whom the claim is made. This memorandum represents an effort by this Office to provide the Attorney General with a general outline of the privileges available to him to protect his confidential communications and working papers from compulsory disclosure when he believes that disclosure would be against the interests of the Department, the President, or the broader “ public,” and to provide guidelines for the assertion of those privileges. While the foregoing discussion should prove helpful in providing a framework for analysis of potential claims of privilege, we would caution that the applicability of any privilege to a given set of circumstances will almost always involve a judgment of competing values. While the Attorney General or the client must decide initially whether to assert the privilege, the task of resolving conflicts arising out of such competing values, in the final analysis, is one that is reserved to the courts” (Politico, 2017).

This here says it all. But that is just what I recall and recollect of this matter. Since AG Sessions oblivious did what he could to abstain and not say anything. This is proven by his recollection and his remembering of the affairs during the Trump campaign. Since most of the hearing went-on like this! Peace.

Reference:

Deputy Attorney General Theodore B. Olson – ‘Confidentiality of the Attorney General’s

Communications in Counseling the President – MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’ (02.08.1982)

President Ronald Reagan – ‘Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies – Subject: Procedures Governing Responses to Congressional Requests for Information’ (04.11.1982)

Politico – ‘Transcript: Jeff Sessions’ testimony on Trump and Russia’ (13.06.2017) link: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/full-text-jeff-session-trump-russia-testimony-239503

Uganda: UPF Circular – “Arresting People for the Offence of Idle and Disorderly” (13.06.2017)

The 691st meeting of the AU PSC on the situation in Darfur, Sudan, and the activities of the AU-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) – (14.06.2017)

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, June 14, 2017 – The Peace and Security Council of the African Union (AU), at its 691st meeting held on 12 June 2017, adopted the following decision on the situation in Darfur, Sudan, and the activities of the AU-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID):

Council,

1.    Takes note of the Joint Special Report of the Chairperson of the African Union Commission and the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the strategic review of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) [S/2017/437], which was undertaken from 5 to 17 March 2017, as well as of the introductory remarks by Ambassador Smaïl Chergui, the Commissioner for Peace and Security, and the presentation provided by the Joint Special Representative of UNAMID, Ambassador Kingsley Mamabolo. Council also takes note of the statements made by the representatives of Sudan and Egypt, in its capacity as an African Member in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), as well as those of the Permanent Members of the UNSC, namely, France, United Kingdom and the United States of America;

2.    Recalls its previous communiqués and press statements on the situation in Darfur, including communiqués PSC/PR/COMM.(DCV) and PSC/PR/COMM.(DCLXXIII), adopted at its 605th and 673rd meetings, held on 13 June 2016 and 29 March 2017, respectively. Council also recalls the UN Security Council resolution 2296 (2016)  of  29 June 2016 ;

3.    Reiterates its appreciation to the UNAMID leadership, in particular the Joint Special Representative, the Force Commander and the Police Commissioner, as well as to the Mission’s personnel, for their dedication and contribution to the promotion of peace, security, stability and reconciliation in Darfur. Council notes with appreciation the efforts made in the implementation of UNAMID’s mandate, particularly with respect to the protection of civilians. In this regard, Council pays tribute to the UNAMID personnel who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty for the cause of peace in Darfur. Council also conveys messages of condolences to the Government and the people of  Nigeria in honour of the peacekeeper, who lost his life recently in line of duty;

4.    Commends the Government of Sudan for its cooperation with the Joint Strategic Review Team and constructive approach to the review of UNAMID. Council welcomes and notes with satisfaction the Outcome Document of the 23rd Tripartite Coordination Mechanism meeting held on 22 May 2017 and the spirit of cooperation that characterized the deliberations, as well as the commitment to strengthen coordination between the Government of Sudan, the AU and the UN towards sustainable peace and security in Darfur. Council also welcomes the report of the Joint Working Group (JWG) of 26 February 2017 on the UNAMID Exit Strategy, which acknowledged an improvement in the security and humanitarian situation in Darfur;

5.    Notes the significant decrease of hostilities between the Government of Sudan and the rebel forces, as well as the declaration by the Government, the Sudan Liberation Army/Mini Minawi (SLA-MM) and Justice and Equality Movement/Gibril (JEM/Gibril) of unilateral ceasefires. Council commends the steps taken by the Government and the Darfur State Authorities towards the creation of a safe and secure environment and further applauds progress made to secure the Chad-Sudan border, as a result of the political commitment of the two countries and the work of the Joint Border Monitoring Force established in 2010;

6.    Strongly condemns the recent incursion of armed groups into Darfur and remains concerned over alleged claims of use of neighboring countries as launching grounds for such acts. Council further calls on the Government of National Unity and the rebel movements to pursue the path of direct political talks for a durable solution to the Darfur conflict;

7.    Notes the important steps taken by the Government of Sudan to advance the Darfur political process, including the incorporation of the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (DDPD), which contains critical provisions that address the root causes of the conflict, into the Constitution. Council further notes the conclusion of the National Dialogue process on 10 October 2016, with the adoption of a national document, as well as steps taken towards its implementation, including the appointment of a Prime Minister, on 1 March 2017. Council commends the subsequent formation of a Government of National Unity, as well as the signing, by the Government of Sudan, the SLA-MM and JEM/Gibril, of the Road Map Agreement proposed by the AU High-Level Implementation Panel (AUHIP), in March and August 2016, respectively;

8.    Stresses that the overall positive evolution of the situation is consistent with the findings of the visit undertaken by Council to Khartoum and Darfur from 15 to 18 May 2017. Council expresses its appreciation to the Government of Sudan for the assistance availed to its Delegation during the visit;

9.    Underlines that, in spite of the significant progress made, a number of challenges that may impede the speedy restoration of sustainable peace, security, stability and reconciliation, as well as socio-economic recovery remain. In particular, Council notes that the security situation remains fragile, mainly due to the continued activities of armed militias, the proliferation of weapons and the prevalence of acts of banditry and criminality, as well as the continued occurrence of inter-communal conflicts closely linked to the root causes of the conflict. Council further notes, with great concern, that such challenges exist within a context of inadequate capacity and effectiveness of the rule of law institutions. Furthermore, Council condemns the recent attacks perpetrated by Darfuri armed movements in East and Northern Darfur. Council reiterates the fact that only an inclusive and participatory dialogue can ensure sustainable peace, security and peaceful coexistence in Darfur;

10.    Notes with concern that, in spite of the improvement of the security situation in the past months, a total of 2.7 million people are displaced, of whom 2.1 million are in need of humanitarian assistance, and that 300,000 Sudanese refugees are located in neighboring Chad. In this regard, Council appeals to the AU Member States and the international community at large, to continue to extend their support to the population in need in Darfur;

11.    Underlines the relevance of the new strategic orientation for UNAMID as proposed in the Special Report, namely a two-pronged approach combining peacebuilding in the areas outside the Jebel Marra area, where there has not been fighting for an extended period of time, and peacekeeping and emergency attention in the Greater Jebel Marra area, due to the insecurity prevailing in the areas, which is preventing Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from voluntarily returning to their homes;

12.    Endorses the recommendations of the Strategic Review of UNAMID, as contained in the Special Report , including issues relating to:

a.    the establishment of the Jebel Marra Task Force and the reconfiguration of UNAMID in two phases of six months each, resulting in the reduction of the strength of the military component by 44% and that of the police component by 30%, the closure of 11 team sites in the first phase and the withdrawal of the military component from another 7 team sites in the second phase, it being understood that the Mission shall retain adequate and mobile quick response capabilities to be able to respond to security challenges as they arise;

b.    the effective implementation of the DDPD, including a comprehensive assessment of its provisions, with the view to ensuring a sustained focus on the outstanding provisions of the Agreement, as well as continued support to the AUHIP efforts towards an all-inclusive political process linked to the national dialogue and a national constitutional reform process;

c.    protection of civilians (PoC), with a lead role for the aforementioned Jebel Marra Task Force, working closely with the humanitarian country team, while in the rest of Darfur, PoC efforts will revolve around livelihood issues and police/rule of law capacities;

d.    inter-communal conflict, with priority given to those conflicts that have the potential to cause the highest number of causalities and derail the national political processes;

13.    Looks forward to the full cooperation of the Government of Sudan with UNAMID, as well as with the AU Commission and the UN Secretariat, to facilitate the effective implementation of the recommendations of the review as approved by Council and the UN Security Council. In this respect, Council underscores the imperative need for the Government of Sudan to ensure sustained cooperation with UNAMID in the discharge of its mandate, including the respect of UNAMID’s freedom of movement, timely issuance of visas and customs clearances. Council notes with satisfaction the progress made in this respect over the past months and underscores the need to reinforce this cooperation during this critical transitional period;

14.    Strongly urges the Government of Sudan, working with UNAMID and the UN Country team, to ensure that it fills the security and humanitarian vacuum that may arise out of the withdrawal of UNAMID, in order to consolidate the progress made on the ground;

15.    Stresses the need for building capacities of the Sudanese defence and security institutions and for the Government of Sudan to initiate the Security Sector Reform (SSR) process based on the national context, in line with the AU Policy Framework on Security Sector Reform endorsed by the Assembly of Heads of State and Governments Assembly/AU/Dec.472(XX), during its 20th Ordinary Session, held in Addis Ababa, in January 2013;

16.    Expresses its deep concern over the widespread proliferation of weapons in the areas of returns of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and urges the Government of Sudan to urgently implement its Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) programme, in order to disarm all armed militia, movements and civilians. Furthermore, Council calls on all relevant stakeholder to extend their support, in this regard;

17.    Reiterates its full support to the AUHIP for its efforts to resume negotiations between the Parties on the basis of the Roadmap Agreement including facilitating a cessation of hostilities between the Government of Sudan and the Darfur armed movements. Council encourages that despite the recent flare of hostilities, all parties continue to demonstrate readiness to engage in the quest to find agreement on cessation of hostilities. Council strongly condemns continued refusal by Sudan Liberation Army/Abdul Wahid (SLA/AW) to join the mediation process and, once again, urges this movement to demonstrate the required spirit of responsibility and expresses its intention, should SLA/AW persist in its current attitude, to impose targeted measures against its leadership and to seek the support of the UN Security Council, to this effect;

18.    Encourages the Government of Sudan, with the support of the international community, to work towards finding durable solutions for the IDP’s in Darfur, on the basis of relevant international humanitarian and human rights law instruments, including the Kampala Convention on IDP’s;

19.     Appeals to the international community to provide all the necessary support to the Government of Sudan, including financial support, in its peacebuilding efforts in Darfur, in particular, in socio-economic recovery and development, the setting up the rule of law institutions and the establishment of the institutional and legal framework to address issues of land and management of resources;

20.    Requests Chairperson of the AU Commission and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, working with international partners, to explore the possibility of convening a pledging conference to generate resources to assist the Government of Sudan with critical post-conflict and reconstruction projects that would assist in averting a relapse to conflict in Darfur, before the end of the first year of commencement of the withdrawal of UNAMID;

21.    Strongly condemns all hostile actions and attacks against UNAMID personnel and assets, as well as against humanitarian organizations and their staff, and urges the Government of Sudan to spare no efforts towards arresting and prosecuting all perpetrators of these criminal acts;

22.    Decides to extend, for a further period of 12 months, the mandate of UNAMID as defined in communiqué PSC/PR/Comm.(LXXIX) of its 79th meeting held on 22 June 2007 and in UN Security Council resolution 1769 (2007) of 31 July 2007, in line with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Joint Strategic Review. Council requests the UN Security Council to do the same;

23.    Requests the Commission, in collaboration with the UN and UNAMID, to provide quarterly assessments of the implementation process of the reconfiguration of UNAMID military and police components and the evolution of the situation on the ground, in order to enable Council to provide guidance as necessary;

24.    Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

USA: Attorney General Jeff Sessions Prepared Remarks to the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (13.06.2017)

Sinn Féin message of equality, rights and unity for London (12.06.2017)

Sinn Féin MP Paul Maskey said the party’s MPs will use their mandate to promote equality, rights and Irish unity and designated special status for the north within the EU.

Paul Maskey was speaking as the new seven-strong Sinn team was preparing to travel to London for a two-day series of meetings.

The West Belfast MP said:

The new seven-strong Sinn Féin team of MPs is hitting the ground running”.

We have received a huge mandate from the people for our platform of equality, rights for all and Irish unity and our opposition to Brexit”.

We will meeting with British Secretary of State James Brokenshire, other political parties, trade unions and journalists as well as the Irish diaspora to update them on current political developments”.

The Sinn Féin delegation will be making the case in London for the re-establishment of political institutions, which deliver for all, and to campaign for designated special status for the north within the EU.”

Communique of the 31st Extra-Ordinary Summit of IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government on South Sudan (12.06.2017)

#QatarCrisis: KSA continues to pressure Somalia, while the FSG is not caught by the spell!

The Federal Government of Somalia in Mogadishu has not cut their ties to Qatar, after the treat of cutting their aid. As even the meeting in Saudi Arabia haven’t gone well, and the Qatar Foreign Diplomat met with Hassan Ali Khaire yesterday. This proves that still, the Federal Republic of Somalia plans to stay neutral on the matter, even as Somaliland are embargoing and closing their borders for Qatar. This is the current report today!

Harun Maruf Statement today:

Saudi Arabia knows it has no leverage on Somalia, pledges made to Somalia weren’t met, diplomatic relations not strong, source tells me” (…) “UAE does have leverage on Somalia – it’s training military and maritime forces in Mogadishu and Puntland, 1000s Somalis work in UAE” (…) “UAE may not rush to punish Somalia for not cutting ties with Qatar: Somali parliament will soon open deliberations on UAE interests in port and bases” (Harun Maruf, 12.06.2017).

The Middle East Monitor is spelling out that the Somali Government still doesn’t care for the blackmailing the Mogadishu representatives, as the KSA are trying to pay them to cut ties with Qatar. They are not giving-up and wanting them to give in, like Yemen, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Maldives, Djibouti, Tchad and Comoros, who has all cut ties with Qatar. They we’re expecting the same from Somalia, but apparently this is not at the interest of the FSG.

Somali President, Mohammed Abdullah Farmajo, has been offered $80 million in exchange for his agreement to sever diplomatic relations with the State of Qatar, the New Khalij news outlet reported a prominent journalist has revealed. “After two hours of enticement, Farmajo rejected the tempting offer,” journalist Jaber Al-Harimi said” (…) “The sources confirmed that Saudi Arabia threatened to withdraw financial aid to the Somali government unless Somalia change its neutral stand in which it has called for an end to the political dispute between Qatar and the other Arab nations through dialogue via Islamic organisations like the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC). The sources added that “ministers of the Somali government returned from Saudi Arabia after meetings with their counterpart were unexpectedly postponed.” It is understood that the rulers of the UAE, with the knowledge of Saudi Arabia, have already sought to persuade Farmajo, who won the presidency despite opposition from the UAE, to change his position” (Middle East Monitor, 2017).

Clearly, the Saudi Arabian diplomat’s have used their preservation to sway the Somali of changing their ways. As it is even reported not as earlier before that President Farmaajo said no to $50m, but $80m. Which is a hefty sum, and could make a big difference. Still it is envelope politics and blackmailing. Not of discussions of mere accords or even guidelines of just behavior, but more of trying to pay them to drop their agreements and deals with Qatar.

So it is not like the KSA does this with tact or honesty, they are more trying to use their petrodollars to silence Mogadishu and their representatives. They are clearly trying to cut of more airspace and one of few neutral partners, who hasn’t taken a direct side. That is why the KSA are working so hard and even offering more and more aid. Not because the KSA cares about Somali life or the Federation, more use it as tool to make more of the airspace and the embargo more effective. We can easily see this and see the reason for the battle of loyalty from Mogadishu, but blackmailing shouldn’t be the way. The KSA should know this, but apparently they don’t. Peace.

Reference:

Middle East Monitor – ‘Somalia turns down $80m to cut ties with Qatar’ (12.06.2017) link: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170612-somalia-turns-down-80m-to-cut-ties-with-qatar/

#QatarCrisis: Eritrean Government statement on that it’s a “timely issue that warrants in active support” (12.06.2017)

Somali Special Forces Strike Destroys Alshabab Training Base in Middle Juba (12.06.2017)

MOGADISHU, Somalia, June 12, 2017 -President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo’s statement on the dawn strike on Alshabab training base near Sakow.

“Earlier today, I authorized our special forces with the support of our international partners to conduct a strike against an al-Shabaab training camp near Sakow, Middle Juba region. This was a successful strike which destroyed a key al-Shabaab command and supply hub. This will ultimately disrupt the enemy’s ability to conduct new attacks within Somalia.”

“I said when I took office that security will be top priority for my administration. This strike will enhance security and reduce the threats of Alshabab.”

“We have long suffered at the hands of Alshabab which is supported by global terror networks. We and our international partners will take every possible precaution to protect our civilian population from harm during these operations while targeting terrorists.”

“All of us know somebody from our youth, our village, our families, who has been killed or injured by the senseless violence of al-Shabaab. I have personally met the families and the victims of several Alshabab attacks. For those who have suffered under al-Shabaab, and for the rest of Somalia, I want you to know that we are committed to defeating al-Shabaab and uniting our people.”

“To the members of al-Shabaab, I tell you that we are bringing the fight to you. If you, however take advantage of my amnesty offer and denounce violence, we will integrate you into our reform program. You have no future with the terrorists, but you can still be a part of Somalia’s future; a peaceful and prosperous future.”

Cessation of hostilities agreement between Dinka Bor and Murle “first step to dialogue and engagement” (12.06.2017)

David Shearer, who is also the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, was speaking during a visit to Bor and Pibor in former Jonglei State in the east of South Sudan.

JUBA, South Sudan, June 12, 2017 – A cessation of hostilities agreement between warring ethnic groups in the Jonglei region is a “first step to dialogue and engagement but we now need to build on that and show that there is a real dividend for peace,” the head of UN peacekeeping in South Sudan, UNMISS, has said.

David Shearer, who is also the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, was speaking during a visit to Bor and Pibor in former Jonglei State in the east of South Sudan.

“My hope is that the parties will follow through on their commitments,” Mr Shearer said. “Only through dialogue and engagement can there be any durable peace and then development.”  

“From our side, my visit has strengthened my view that we need to step up the patrolling of the key highway between Bor and Pibor. We will also increase our engineering work to improve roads and infrastructure in the Pibor and Bor region.

“Roads are the lifelines of communities in the area. They stimulate trade and economic activity and jobs. Some are closed because of insecurity, others through disrepair. We can help with both.”

Fighting has “disrupted trade, further degraded the economy causing real suffering for the people here,” Mr Shearer said. “I’ve visited markets in the towns of Bor and Pibor, where people told me that prices are high and produce scarce. That won’t help peace to take root.” 

The agreement between the Dinka Bor and Murle leadership to end hostilities between the two communities was agreed in May and witnessed by Mr Shearer. It outlined clear next steps; the establishment of an investigations committee and a peace conference to address the many grievances on both sides.

Jonglei region has a long history of fighting between ethnic groups which has centered around cattle raiding and child abductions.