
Somalia: P&O Ports WINSUSD $ 336 m 30 Year Concession for Port of Bosasso in Puntland (06.04.2017)



“The people back home wouldn’t buy a ring if they knew it cost someone else their hand” – Maddy Brown (Blood Diamond, 2006).
The European Union are acting out of care and thinking of transparency for the industrial imports and mineral exporters. This is happening just a little month after the United States opened up their legislation for importing more from conflict zones. While the European Union plans to close the gate from areas and from sources that export Conflict minerals.
So the EU laws are becoming more stricter than the United States, even if the law they have enacted in the European Parliament and Council of the European Union, will be effective from 2021. So it is 4 years until it has giant effect and gives time to refinery and importers to change behavior. Something that is necessary, as well as the public have to grow concern of the affects of buying conflict minerals. Even as the conflict minerals still come into the market of Europe and into the refineries so the consumers doesn’t know and cannot follow where their products who contain minerals comes from war-zones.
That the European Union takes this serious and acts upon this Nobel, and proves that they does not want to support militias and guerrillas that keeps control of mineral rich areas and their exports to supply weapons and continue warfare in for instance the African Great Lakes Region. Take a look!
Background of new rule:
“This Regulation, by controlling trade in minerals from conflict areas, is one of the ways of eliminating the financing of armed groups. The Union’s foreign and development policy action also contributes to fighting local corruption, to the strengthening of borders and to providing training for local populations and their representatives in order to help them highlight abuses” (EU, P: 8, 2017).
Conflict Minerals from Great Lakes Region:
“The Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy should regularly review their financial assistance to and political commitments with regard to conflict-affected and high-risk areas where tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold are mined, in particular in the African Great Lakes Region, in order to ensure policy coherence, and in order to incentivise and strengthen the respect for good governance, the rule of law and ethical mining” (EU, P: 16, 2017).
Trade of Minerals funds armed conflicts:
“Preventing the profits from the trade in minerals and metals being used to fund armed conflict through due diligence and transparency will promote good governance and sustainable economic development. Therefore, this Regulation incidentally covers areas falling within the Union policy in the field of development cooperation in addition to the predominant area covered which falls under the common commercial policy of the Union” (EU, P:17, 2017).
Important Article:
“Article 3: Compliance of Union importers with supply chain due diligence obligations
1. Union importers of minerals or metals shall comply with the supply chain due diligence obligations set out in this Regulation and shall keep documentation demonstrating their respective compliance with those obligations, including the results of the independent third-party audits” (EU, P: 23, 2017).
Date of Application:
“Articles 1(5), 3(1), 3(2), Articles 4 to 7, Articles 8(6), 8(7), 10(3), 11(1), 11(2), 11(3), 11(4), Articles 12 and 13, Article 16(3), and Article 17 shall apply from 1 January 2021” (EU, P: 51, 2017).
What the statements on the law:
“The Commission will consider making additional legislative proposals targeted at EU companies with products containing tin, tantalum, and tungsten and gold in their supply chain should it conclude that the aggregate efforts of the EU market on the responsible global supply chain of minerals are insufficient to leverage responsible supply behaviour in producer countries, or should it assess that the buy-in of downstream operators that have in place supply chain due diligence systems in line with the OECD guidance is insufficient” (…) “In the exercise of its empowerment to adopt delegated acts pursuant to Article 1(5), the Commission will take due account of the objectives of this Regulation, notably as set out in recitals (1), (7), (10) and (17). In doing so, the Commission will, in particular, consider the specific risks associated with the operation of upstream gold supply chains in conflict affected and high-risk areas and taking into account the position of Union micro and small enterprises importing gold in the EU” (…) “In response to the request of the European Parliament for specific guidelines, the Commission is willing to develop performance indicators specific to the responsible sourcing of conflict minerals. By means of such guidelines, relevant companies with more than 500 employees that are required to disclose non-financial information in conformity with Directive 2014/95/EU would be encouraged to disclose specific information in relation to products containing tin, tantalum, tungsten or gold” (EU, P: 57-58, 2017).
The European Union is doing something positive with this. That they show effort and care for the imports and what affects the export has locally, so if the minerals export is shady, the export will cease. So if the due diligence regulation works and the industry complies, the effect can be enormous. The consumer will also know that there are not supporting by third party purchase to pay for ammunition rebels, warlords or guerrillas in far away lands. This should all be seen as step of making a better world and honorable society. Where the money is where the mouth is! Peace.
Reference:
Council of the European Union – ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Union system for supply chain due diligence self-certification of responsible importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas – Outcome of the European Parliament’s first reading (Strasbourg, 13 to 16 March 2017) – (20.03.2017).







I don’t know if I should laugh or cry, but what sort of discussion should be from people who gave us IKEA, Volvo and tiny meatballs. We know that the Swedish needs to prove their worth in the world on other venues, than the Eurovision and hair-styles of Zlatan Ibrahamovic. Still, the recent of willingly sending Pro Bono people to mediate between the long serving, self reliance and thief in chief, the National Resistance Movement wizard, President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and the Opposition leader, creator of Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) Dr. Kizza Besigye are supposed to talk between cups of tea and biscuits provided with Swedish hospitality.
“The Swedish Government has confirmed that it has been approached and, has accepted, to mediate planned talks between President Museveni and former presidential candidate, Dr Kizza Besigye” (…) “The government of Sweden is involved in supporting and promoting dialogue in many parts of the world, as part of its policy of conflict prevention and support to peace processes. Sweden has been asked to facilitate a possible dialogue in Uganda,” Swedish Foreign ministry spokeswoman Katarina Byrenius Roslund, noted in reply to email inquiries from this newspaper. The “discussions are still at an early stage”, she noted, adding: “When there is concrete progress to communicate, we will do so” (…) “Ms Annika Söder, the Swedish state secretary, has been agreed on by the principals as the mediator for the expected talks. She flew into the country last week and held separate back-to-back meetings with the President and Dr Besigye on Thursday and Friday, respectively, in what knowledgeable sources described as “exploratory” (Butagira, 2017).
First and foremost, can the Swedes explain the content of tear-gas into public meetings, police blocking, detaining of FDC Youths, falsified charges against the FDC leadership, the Public Order Management Bill who is created to stop meeting of anyone else, than the loyal men of Museveni. How can there be talks between the parties?
Secondly, when every travel and meeting of FDC and Besigye is met with heavy police force, blocking of main roads and tear-gas when they congregate. What is there to discuss? What perimeter of Kasangati he is allowed to leave before it is an issue? What sort of ideas do the Swedes have in mind, except selling Volvo and SAAB to Uganda, instead of Isuzu and Toyota!
Seriously, that the Government of Sweden must either be blind or ill-minded if they think this will give way. If they know the history of Nairobi Talks of 1980s. When the National Resistance Army and the other parties gathered to iron out the differences. Than that was used to forge more way for the NRA agenda and silence the others with guns and ammo. Not generate peace without knowledge of Museveni landing on top. So this is in his blood and the blood that is shed for him to gain all power.
Global IDP Database wrote this about his negotiations:
“In July 1985, conflict between some Langi and Acholi soldiers led to the overthrow of the Obote regime. The coup, which brought General Tito Okello to power, shattered the military alliance between the Acholi and Langi and escalated ethnic violence. The Okello regime invited all fighting groups and political parties to join the military government. Every armed group and political party, with the exception of the NRA, joined the administration. The NRA, however, engaged the regime in protracted peace negotiations held in Nairobi. In December 1985, the Nairobi Agreement was signed under the chairmanship of President Moi of Kenya. However, the Agreement was never implemented and Museveni seized power on the 25th January 1986” (Global IDP Database, P: 18, 2004).
So will the Swedish buy into the mantra that everything can be reassembled and rebuilt? Since they want to forge a relationship between Besigye and Museveni. Museveni, who rather take up guns and get rid of opposition and vowed last year to destroy the opposition. Well, I am sure the Swedish we’re busy finding ways to export designer materials, than following the post-election dogma of Museveni. Since a man who only believes “he is the only man with a vision”. That is the man who is supposed to co-operate and negotiate with an advisory! Really?
A man who doesn’t want to talk about succession and doesn’t want to speak about his lingering in charge. A man who has run a country and nation since 1986, has nothing more to win or to gain by playing soft. If he does so and the Swedish is dumb enough to buy into the fake wood and think they get mahogany, than they will offer donor-funding and possible other prices for the so-called negotiations between the NRM and FDC. Even as the FDC Headquarter we’re a year ago a crime scene and many members and leaders we’re detained on manufactured charges.
There shouldn’t be these sort of talks at this point, if so, than the Swedish are legitimizing the thieving of Museveni and his NRM elite. Does the Swedish government want that on their plate? Is that the Swedish people’s prideful mission to support and trust in a corrupt and militarized government, while they at the same time is using Besigye as pawn?
The Swedish government, if they care should back-off, go home to Stockholm. Cut their aid and stop the talks. As they will only give more way to dictator and his clientele at the Okello House. There aren’t anything else to give.
Did the Swedish government do any research and care about the track-record of the Museveni regime? Have they seen how many mysterious deaths and men who has worked close who has either had to flee or been detained by his regime? Have the Swedish considered their implications in establishing legitimacy of the current leadership? Who doesn’t care if they bankrupt their country? While they are driving expensive cars on the State coffers?
Does the Swedish government need this win or this talks to gain international recognition, and not only sell IKEA furniture? Time to take the dozens pieces and assemble that the chairs in Umeå, and step away from Kampala.
Or do the Swedish government and their team no problem with losing their credibility for helping a fellow dictator? Peace.
Reference:
Butagira, Tabu – ‘Sweden to mediate Museveni, Besigye talks’ (29.03.2017) link: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Sweden-to-mediate-Museveni–Besigye-talks/688334-3868674-b3fqil/index.html
Global IDP Database – ‘PROFILE OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT : UGANDA’ (17.06.2004)











The United States delegation to the United Nations have leaked a document on planned discussion for the United Nations Security Council that are to be commenced in next month (April 2017). These notes are clearly setting the course and wish for the goals and ambition of the discussion in the UNSC. This concept note is supposed to be a Peacekeeping Operation Review. That would lead to certain decisions by the Member States and the Council Members.
The reason why the United States delegation to the UNSC about the Peacekeeping operation:
“As of January 31, 2017, there were 99,034 uniformed personnel – including 85,408 troops and 12,786 police – serving in the 16 peacekeeping operations overseen by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, with an approved budget of $7.87 billion. UN peacekeeping is a vital aspect of the organization. However, a significant number of PKOs have mandates conceived years – in some cases decades – ago that are no longer supported by a political environment conducive to achieving the Council’s aims. It is crucial that missions contribute to increased safety and security, but they can also create a subsidized and unsteady peace that can quickly become a dependency that discourages long-term solutions. The UN becomes trapped in these frozen conflicts and peacekeeping missions that were initially conceived to provide temporary security to allow space for political solutions to take hold instead deploy for years without clear mandates or exit plans”.
Because of the cost, the longevity of the peacekeeping operations as they are creating a vacuum between the government hosts, the peacekeeping mission and the hostile forces. This is a consuming and makes it hard to generate any sort of sustainable peace, as the peacekeepers keeps a buffer and stops the need for a strong foundation of central government and their own security forces. They can always trust on the Blue Helmets to appear when needed and serve the citizens.
The United States has certainly ideas as this is their core idea for the discussion in the UNSC: “We encourage Council Members to consider whether current peacekeeping operations continue to be the best suited mechanisms for meeting the needs of those on the ground and achieving the Council’s political objectives, or if changes are needed”. So the US Mission to the UN wants the Peacekeeping Operations to achieve the political objectives and not be a stalemate operation that keeps the upkeep of unstability and uncertainty in the host nation. That is certainly a noble quest, but with that the UN Peacekeepers need to revise their missions, their mandate and their will of force, as their peacekeeping missions has been done in such diplomatic ways.
The United States delegates outcome of the review:
“While no product is envisioned, we encourage the Council to apply the lessons and methods discussed in this meeting to our regular mandate review process to ensure that conditions still justify the missions and that political processes conceivably lead towards realistic, achievable solutions”.
That this is a quest and wishful thinking for the US mission, the United Nation needs votes and make sure the Members would strike agreement on the possible idea of changing the Peacekeeping Operations. The Blue Helmets are clearly on the loosing end of the stick, as their missions are not seen as fruitful, more like a costly operations not creating the effect and stage the peaceful transition in the host nations.
The UNSC and the Members should be hopeful to change the political climate and use the force to create the peace they are to make. If they weren’t peacekeepers than they wouldn’t be an issue, as if they we’re regular army on a territory, they should keep their citizens safe and the borders. The Peacekeepers has a mandate and mission, still they haven’t always been able to comply with that. Also, they have obligations not only to the United Nations, but to the host nations regime. Therefore, if the UNSC wants a bigger mission or extend their mandate, they still have to negotiate with the host nations.
The US Mission and the UNSC have to work on it and it is about time, as the AMISOM, MUNISCO, UNAMID, UNMISS and MINUSMA, who all should need a change of mandate and level of force if they should be properly creating the peace and make way for the central government. Peace.

The funds will allow for increased livelihoods support to rural communities affected by repeated drought.
ROME, Italy, March 21, 2017 -FAO is further scaling up its activities in drought affected regions of Somalia thanks to a $22 million loan approved this week by the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), which complements the loans already provided by FAO’s Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities.
This effort is part of the international response to prevent another famine in Somalia five years after the previous one devastated the country. FAO’s action aims to increase rural livelihood support and restore food production, while ensuring that families meet their immediate food and water needs.
Across Somalia, 6.2 million people will face acute food insecurity through June 2017. Of these, nearly 3 million people are in Phases 3 (crisis) and 4 (emergency) of the five-phase International Phase Classification for Food Security (IPC). This represents more than a two-fold increase compared to six months ago. Phase 5 is famine.
The head of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Under-Secretary-General and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Stephen O’Brien, said he was releasing the loan from CERF to FAO “as part of the efforts to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in Somalia.”
“More than 2.9 million people are at risk of famine and many will predictably die from hunger if we do not act now. CERF is one of the fastest ways to enable urgent response to people most in need. FAO is a key partner in ensuring that crucial support to livelihoods is reaching affected people. The loan will bridge a crucial gap and allow FAO to immediately save lives and livelihoods of farmers and herders until additional funds from donors are received,” O’Brien said.
“CERF has long been a supporter of FAO’s interventions to save and protect livelihoods and thus lives in crisis contexts. Livelihoods are people’s best defence against famine and this $22 million loan is critical to FAO’s famine prevention and drought response in Somalia, enabling the Organization to provide much-needed, rapid support to vulnerable rural households,” said FAO Deputy Director-General for Programmes, Daniel Gustafson.
Saving livelihoods, saving lives
Most of the 6.2 million people facing acute food insecurity live in Somalia’s rural areas where hunger levels have spiked primarily due to losses in crop and livestock production and other sources of food and income caused by repeated droughts.
Early warnings are loud and clear: In a worst-case scenario where the traditionally, main rainy season, the Gu (April-June), will perform very poorly, purchasing power may further decline to levels seen in 2010/2011, and humanitarian assistance would not be able to reach populations in need, people may suffer/face famine.
FAO’s work
FAO is scaling up the implementation of its Famine Prevention and Drought Response Plan, which combines lifesaving interventions with emergency livelihood support to address the distinct needs of rural people at risk across Somalia – a twin track approach that provides immediate assistance while offering livelihood support and income opportunities to reduce their dependency on humanitarian aid.
Measures implemented under the Response Plan include providing cash (cash-for-work and unconditional cash transfers), meeting immediate food and water needs; providing agriculture and fisheries based livelihood support in combination with cash (“Cash+”), and saving livestock assets and related food and income.
The loan from CERF complements FAO’s own funding mechanism, the Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities, and will help kick start operations supported by the Governments of the United States of America and the United Kingdom.


