U.S. Defense Dept. cuts list of countries for imminent danger pay

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Defense Department has removed 15 countries from the list of those that qualify military service members for imminent danger pay.

The move announced Friday will save the military $108 million a year, Stars and Stripes reported. The changes will take effect June 1.

East Timor, Haiti, Liberia, Oman, Rwanda, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, 

Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan were removed from the list. Another six countries and their air space were also decertified: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro.

The Defense Department recertified 26 countries: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Chad, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lebanon, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Syria, Turkey, Uganda and Yemen, plus the city of Athens in Greece, the Mediterranean Sea and the Somalia Basin.

The United States does not necessarily have military personnel stationed in areas certified for imminent danger pay.

Nate Christensen, a spokesman for the department, said the military spent $500 million in imminent danger pay in 2012.

Chinese Foreign Minister to visit Ghana, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Senegal to strengthen ties

Wang Yi – China Foreign Minister

China has announced that its Foreign Minister Wang Yi will visit Ghana and three other African countries this month. 

The Chinese diplomat will travel to Ghana, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Senegal from January 6 to 11, 2014. 

Mr Yi is expected to meet his Ghanaian counterpart Ms Hannah Tetteh when he arrives in Accra but the exact date is not known. During his visit, China says Mr Wang Yi will have an in-depth exchange of views with leaders and foreign ministers of the host countries on bilateral relations as well as international and regional issues of common interest. His visit will also build up friendship, mutual trust and cooperation ahead with China’s bilateral relations with Ghana and the other three countries. 

By Ekow Quandzie - 

Source: ghanabusinessnews.com

WAR DEGDEG AH Somalia: Gunmen shot five soldiers in Bosaaso

BOSAASO, Somalia —News reports from Bosaaso suggest that At least 5 Puntland soldiers have been killed and more others wounded in Laad, 30 KM southern Bosaaso, the capital of Bari region, reports said.

Local residents confirm that unidentified men armed with K47s and machine guns attacked on Puntland forces in south of Basaaso, killing five soldiers, injuring others.

“In the aftermath of the attack, the wounded soldiers were rushed to the local hospital for treatment” said a local resident who asked to be unnamed.

The attackers have managed to escape immediately from battle zone.

So far, No group or individual claimed responsibility for the ambush attack on Military bases in Laad, with Puntland officials in the town did comment on the attack

HEES FANAAN ITOOBIYAAN AHI Somaliland KU AMAANAYO by Hawdian Institute

Published on Jan 2, 2014

Somaliland in its own rights with a mixture from the Hawdian Institute for Strategic Policy (HISP). Like us on Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hawdia...

The Tigringya song (Tigray): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmifTa...

COMMUNIQUE OF THE 23 rd EXTRA-ORDINARY SESSION OF THE IGAD on South Sudan

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) held an extraordinary session of heads of state and government in Nairobi on 27 December 2013 to discuss the crisis in South Sudan.  Among other things, the final communique announced that General Lazaro Sumbeiywo of Kenya and Ethiopia's former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Ambassador to China, Seyoum Mesfin, will serve as IGAD special envoys for South Sudan. 

Israel Lobby Takes Aim at Iran Deal

By Paul R. Pillar, Consortium News | Op-Ed

Official Washington’s neocons are still trying to derail a negotiated settlement with Iran over its nuclear program by imposing new sanctions and thus putting the U.S. on a course for war – as favored by Israel’s Likud. But this reality is hiding behind sophistry, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar. 

Here’s a New Year’s resolution that participants in policy debate in Washington, and especially those in Congress, should make: be honest about your position on Iran. Say what you really want, and make your best arguments on behalf of what you really want, and don’t pretend to be working in favor of what you really are working against.

The main vehicle for debate about Iran once Congress reconvenes is a bill introduced by Senators Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, and Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, that would threaten still more sanctions on Iran and purchasers of its oil, would impose unrealistic conditions to be met to avoid actually imposing the sanctions, and would explicitly give a green light to Israel to launch a war against Iran and to drag the United States into that war.

As Colin Kahl has explained in detail, passage of this legislation would be very damaging to the process of negotiating a final agreement with Iran to keep its nuclear program peaceful. The promoters of the legislation contend that its effect would be just the opposite, and would increase U.S. bargaining power and make it more likely Iran would make concessions we want.

It is possible that some members of Congress who might be inclined to vote for this bill, and even some who have signed on as co-sponsors, actually believe that contention. They keep hearing, after all, the trope about how “sanctions brought Iran to the table” and that if some sanctions are a good thing than even more sanctions are an even better thing.

But anyone who has thought seriously for more than a minute about this subject — as the chief promoters of the legislation surely have — realizes how fallacious that idea is. Whatever role sanctions may have had in getting Iran to the table, it is the prospect of getting sanctions removed, not having them forever increase, that will induce Iran, now that it is at the table, to complete an agreement placing severe restrictions on its nuclear program.

It goes against all logic and psychology to think that right after Iran has made most of the concessions necessary to conclude the preliminary Joint Plan of Action, “rewarding” it with more pressure and more punishment would put Iranians in the mood to make still more concessions.

The people doing the negotiating for the United States oppose the legislation because of the damage it would do to the negotiations. Their view is highly significant, no matter how much one might agree or disagree with whatever specific terms the administration is trying to get. If the legislation really would strengthen the U.S. negotiating position, any U.S. negotiator would welcome it.

And if that weren’t enough, counterparts to Kirk and Menendez in the Iranian legislature are providing further evidence of the destructive effect of what is transpiring on Capitol Hill, with the Iranian legislators’ bill calling for Iran to start enriching uranium to a level well beyond what it has ever done before if the United States imposes any new sanctions.

This is direct confirmation of how threats and hardline obstinacy, especially at this juncture, beget threats and hardline obstinacy from the other side. The Iranian bill also provides a real-life opportunity for some role reversal. Does this threat emanating from the Majlis make U.S. policy-makers more inclined to take a softer line and make more concessions? Of course not.

Kirk and Menendez are not dummies. They surely realize all this. Their legislation serves the purpose of those who want the negotiations with Iran to fail, not to succeed. Chief among those with this purpose is, of course, the right-wing Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made it abundantly clear that he opposes any agreement of any sort with Iran and will continue to do whatever he can to portray Iran as Satan incarnate and to keep it permanently ostracized.

The principal organization in Washington that serves the policy of Netanyahu’s government — i.e., AIPAC — also has its own reason to hammer away forever at the Iranian bogeyman: it’s “good for business,” as a former senior AIPAC executive explained. It is no accident that Mark Kirk is easily the biggest congressional recipient of AIPAC funds, and Robert Menendez is also among the top half dozen recipients.

Honesty would mean dispensing with the phony issue of whether more sanctions now would help negotiate a better agreement — since they clearly would not — and instead posing the real issue: whether it is in the interests of the United States for the negotiations with Iran to succeed or to fail. That issue can be debated according to several criteria.

One concerns the objective of preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon: is that objective more obtainable through a negotiated agreement that imposes major new restrictions and intensified international monitoring on Iran’s nuclear program, or through continued confrontation that offers neither of those things?

A second set of criteria concerns which path is more likely to avoid the danger of a new war — supplemented by discussion of the impact of a new war on U.S. interests. Another criterion concerns whether broader U.S. policy in the Middle East is better served by the United States having the flexibility to conduct its own diplomacy with anyone in the region on a case-by-case, issue-by-issue basis, or by being locked into hostility insisted on by third parties.

All of this should be debated from the standpoint of U.S. interests. Those with a special concern for Israel can also ask parallel questions, such as whether Israeli interests are better served by an unending relationship of hostility with another major state in the region, with threats and hatred being perpetually flung by each side at the other, or by following a different path.

Let such an honest debate begin. But an honest debate will barely get off the ground unless we discard the nonsense about how something like the Kirk-Menendez bill supposedly aids negotiations.

US the biggest threat to world peace in 2013 – poll

US President Barack Obama. (AFP Photo / Nicholas Kamm)

The US has been voted as the most significant threat to world peace in a survey across 68 different countries. Anti-American sentiment was not only recorded in antagonistic countries, but also in many allied NATO partners like Turkey and Greece.

A global survey conducted by the Worldwide Independent Network and Gallup at the end of 2013 revealed strong animosity towards the US’s role as the world’s policeman. Citizens across over 60 nations were asked: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”

The US topped the list, with 24 percent of people believing America to be the biggest danger to peace. Pakistan came second, with 8 percent of the vote and was closely followed by China with 6 percent. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea came in joint fourth place with 5 percent of the vote.

The threat from the US was rated most highly in the Middle East and North Africa, those areas most recently affected by American military intervention. Moreover, the survey showed that even Americans regard their country as a potential threat with 13 percent of them voting the US could disrupt global status quo.

Latin America expressed mixed feelings towards its northerly neighbor, with Peru, Brazil and Argentina all flagging the US as the most dangerous country.

After its numerous threats of a strike on Iran, many countries voted Israel was the biggest threat to prosperity. Morocco, Lebanon and Iraq all chose Israel as the number one danger to world peace.

In the survey participants were also asked: “If there were no barriers to living in any country of the world, which country would you like to live in?” Despite being the perceived largest threat to world peace, the US still topped the tables by a narrow margin of 9 percent.

In general 2013 saw a drop in approval ratings for the Obama Administration. A poll conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research revealed that 50 percent of those asked thought that the political system in the US needed a “complete overhaul.”

In addition, 70 percent of Americans believe the government lacks the ability to make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2014.”

The survey comes two months after the first government shutdown in 17 years in the US which cost the country an estimated $10 billion.

The American government’s credibility was dealt a blow earlier this year when President Obama made a call to strike Syria following a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government on civilians. The American public and the international community both opposed the action.

Source: rt.com

Obama To Cut Middle East Democracy Programs

The administration has informed aid groups that it plans to decrease the budget for pro-democracy assistance in Arab Spring countries.

A planned decrease by the Obama administration in funding for democracy promotion and election support in the Middle East is prompting alarm among activists. They say cuts are likely to be more severe than first realized and that the White House appears to be giving up on democracy in the region and downgrading its advancement as a policy priority.

In the run-up to Christmas, State Department officials briefed American non-profits funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) about cuts in funding. They were told no money was being earmarked for democracy and governance assistance programs in Iraq and that, for Egypt, the administration was adopting a wait-and-see approach until after a January 15 referendum on a newly-drafted constitution.

No extra funding for democracy promotion is being earmarked for Libya, whose transition from autocracy following the toppling of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi has been plagued by lawlessness. USAID democracy programs there were cut by about half last year, following the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that led to the deaths of ambassador Christopher Sevens and three other Americans.

The total amount of foreign assistance requested by the Obama administration for the Middle East and North Africa for fiscal year 2014 is $7.36 billion, a nine percent decrease from FY2013. Of that, $298.3 million has been requested to support democracy and governance programming across the region, a cut of $160.9 million from FY 2013.

But those briefed last month by State Department officials say the decrease in funding is likely in effect to be harsher and that it may be masked when the administration goes through with plans to re-categorize so-called D&G funding by combining it with development programs. That will make it difficult to follow what actually has been spent on democracy promotion.

“We had expected big cuts in D&G to the region soon,” says Cole Bockenfeld, director of Advocacy at the Project on Middle East Democracy, a Washington DC-based non-profit. “In many ways, there was already a widespread perception that this administration was giving up on promoting democracy in the Middle East, and major cuts to democracy funding will further confirm those fears.”

Overall, he says, “there is clearly a diminished focus on democracy best illustrated by Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly.”

"There was already a widespread perception that this administration was giving up on promoting democracy in the Middle East, and major cuts to democracy funding will further confirm those fears."

In that September 24 speech the President stressed mutual security interests shared by the U.S. and countries in the region and was criticized for seemingly downplaying democracy.

When it came to Egypt, Obama made no explicit reference to standards for human rights, despite the ongoing violent dispersal by the Egyptian security forces of demonstrators protesting the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, the first democratically elected head of state in Egyptian history.

For the region as a whole, the President cited four key American interests in the Middle East—confronting aggression from the region aimed at the U.S., maintaining an unhindered flow of oil, confronting jihadists and terrorist networks, and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destructions. The promotion of democracy and human rights came in as a fifth fiddle.

Democracy campaigners say the United States has national interest stakes in promoting democracy and assisting countries trying to transition from autocracy can help them overcome challenges.

The decrease in overall foreign assistance to the region is due in large part to the budget challenges the U.S. is facing and the federal sequester. But the shift away from democracy promotion is made clear in the President’s budget request, which sees the proportion devoted to security assistance programs in foreign aid earmarked for the Middle East increase from 69 percent to 80 percent.

Pro-democracy advocates acknowledge Obama has a difficult task in the Middle East, trying to balance U.S. strategic and national security interests with the promotion of democracy—and that political setbacks in the region have not helped. But Thomas Carothers, a noted authority on international democracy support, says the Obama administration has always been lukewarm about democracy promotion, partly because of its association with the neo-conservative policies and freedom agenda of the Bush era.

“The administration never made a big push to increase money for democracy and governance in the Middle East after the Arab Spring,” says Carothers, a vice president at the Washington DC-based think tank the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He points out that D&G money for Iraq in Obama’s first term was a holdover from earmarks by the Bush administration, adding, “it is notable the administration has never developed a democracy strategy for the Middle East and this further reduction of emphasis on democracy reflects how the Arab Spring has turned into a series of security headaches for the administration. The challenge the administration has not solved is how to become a credible pro-democracy actor in the region.”

In briefings, State Department officials have told democracy advocates that they are too narrowly focused. “Administration officials favorite phrase these days is that, ‘you have to widen the aperture,’” says Bockenfeld. “They say we are looking at democracy promotion too narrowly, when we focus on building up civil society groups or provide technical election support. They say if you do women empowerment programs or if you do economic opportunity programs, that all feeds into the bigger picture of democracy. They are pushing them altogether to brush over these cuts to democracy programs.”

Some activists argue the pullback from democracy promotion reflects an administration fear about antagonizing governments in the region. Others say that with democracy enlargement in the region faltering, the Obama administration is eager to shield itself from any blame for the Arab Spring failing.

Scientists observe dogs relieving themselves, discover something amazing

Dogs are sensitive to the Earth's magnetic field, say a team of Czech and German scientists.

By Eoin O'Carroll,

For a dog, when nature calls, it might also be doing something more subtle. 

A team of Czech and German researchers have found that, all else being equal, when a dog wants to go powder its rhinarium, it will tend to do so while standing in alignment with the Earth's magnetic field.

The two-year study, which involved 37 dog owners, 70 dogs, and 7,475 instances of the animals relieving themselves outside while their owners dutifully took notes, is the first demonstration of magnetic sensitivity in dogs. The authors write that their findings, which appeared last week in the journal Frontiers in Zoology, "open new horizons for biomagnetic research." 

The scientists, who are affiliated with Germany'sUniversity of Duisburg-Essen and the Czech University of Life Sciences, asked dog owners in the two countries to measure the alignment of their dogs' thoracic spines as the pets fed, rested, urinated, and defecated. They found observations of the final two activities to be the most promising, noting that excretion "seems to be least prone to be affected by the surroundings."

They then compared the data to the prevailing geomagnetic conditions at the time of each instance. The results: When our planet's magnetic field is quiet, dogs are more likely to do their business while standing along a north-south axis. Indeed, the data suggested that the animals were actively avoiding the east-west axis.

Magnetoception – the sense that allows an organism to determine its position relative to a magnetic field – has been documented among bacteria, molluscs, insects, chickens, and, famously, homing pigeons. Among mammals, some research indicates that the ability could also exist among some species of rodents, bats, foxes, cattle, and deer. Humans are not believed to have a magnetic sense, although a 2011 study uncovered a protein in our eyes that is apparently sensitive to the Earth's magnetic field.

The scientists admit that they don't know the reason for the dogs' apparent polar inclination, or what's going through those canine minds as they circle around before assuming the position.

"It is still enigmatic," they write, "why the dogs do align at all, whether they do it 'consciously' (i.e., whether the magnetic field is sensorial perceived (the dogs 'see', 'hear' or 'smell' the compass direction or perceive it as a haptic stimulus) or whether its reception is controlled on the vegetative level (they “feel better/more comfortable or worse/less comfortable” in a certain direction)."

   

First car assembled in Somaliland rolled out of factory

Hargeisa - The first  car that has ever been assembled in Somaliland was rolled out of a vehicle assembly plant in Hargeisa yesterday.

The assembly plant  is owned by a Chinese company and the first of the vehicles was delivered to the ministry of industry of Somaliland. The director of the Chinese company informed the press that the vehicles presented to the ministry are  meant to introduce more Chinese vehicles into the country. The Chinese executive requested Somaliland government to encourage the usage of Chinese cars in the country.

Assembly factories work in different ways .Some are run by robots while this particular one in Somaliland is run  by humans who form assembly lines to put car parts together. The parts are imported in crates from manufacturers in China and are then assembled according to designs supervised by experts from the original manufacturers.

This new assembly plant in Somaliland ushers a new era into the country. Currently , more then 90% of the vehicles used in the country are made in Japan and are mainly Toyota brands. Although it may be very difficult for these Chinese vehicles to compete with the Japanese , price factor could encourage many of those who cannot afford the Japanese cars to opt for the cheaper Chines ones.

Source: Medeshi