Search This Blog

Monday, March 17, 2014

Russian news head: We can bomb US into ‘radioactive ash’





Russian news agency head Dmitry Kiselyov said Russia could turn the US into radioactive ash on his program.

A government-backed Russian TV journalist warned that his country could turn the United States into “radioactive ash” Sunday as the Obama administration threatened action if Russia annexes Crimea in the wake of Sunday’s secession vote.
“Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash,” Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly program.
Kiselyov — handpicked by Russian President Vladimir Putin last year to head a new state news agency — made the inflammatory remarks standing in front of a photo of a mushroom cloud.
The White House blasted the secession vote in Crimea as an illegal power grab by Russia, saying it violated both the Ukrainian constitution and international law.
In a statement, the White House noted that the referendum was held “under threats of violence and intimidation” following the Russian invasion two weeks ago, adding that Russia “has escalated its military intervention into Crimea and initiated threatening military exercises on Ukraine’s eastern border.”
“Russia’s actions are dangerous and destabilizing,” the statement said.
In the Crimean capital of Simferopol, fireworks exploded and cheering crowds waved Russian flags after the polls closed late Sunday. With half the ballots counted, the head of the referendum committee, Mikhail Malyshev, said more than 95 percent of voters had opted to secede and join Russia.
Kiselyov speaks on Russian TV
with a mushroom cloud behind him.
Crimea’s pro-Russia prime minister, Sergei Aksyonov, said the Crimean parliament would meet Monday to formally ask for annexation by Russia. Russian lawmaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky said annexation could take as few as three days, Interfax reported.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told “Fox News Sunday” that Putin was playing “Russian roulette” and that the United States and Europe were ready to pull the trigger on “very robust sanctions.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called the crisis “the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy where no one believes in America’s strength anymore.”

Russia supports nations’ right to self-determination – expert



Azerbaijan is worried after the Crimea referendum to join Russia as it can become a precedent. We cannot but notice the obvious similarity between Crimea and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, political scientist Aram Manukyan said.  
The expert told reporters that at the same time, the international law is effective only when the state is backed by some force.
“Under the current conditions, Armenia should carry out consistent foreign policy and needs to have influential allies whose interests coincide with those of Yerevan. Only in this case we can hope for a fair settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” he noted.
According to Manukyan, Russia cannot act against Armenia’s interests in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue because it has already shown that in similar conflicts it supports the right of nations to self-determination.

Civil society’s interest in oil and gas growing

    Local organizations see the need for transparency and     good governance
Civil society is paying more attention to oil and gas in Lebanon. (AFP Photo/Mikhail Mordasov)

While the political class has done nothing to move forward on exploring for potential offshore oil and gas reserves in the past year, Lebanese civil society organizations are taking more of an interest in the emerging sector.

“If you had asked me this question [about civil society interest in oil and gas] nine months ago, I would have told you it’s an emerging interest, it’s still too early,” Diana Kaissy, Lebanon representative of the international NGO Publish What You Pay, told NOW. “But I can tell you now the interest is there more and more. And even if you look at the media in general, more and more studies and ‘Q-and-A’s’ are coming out. People are asking questions.”

Lebanon has flirted with the idea of being an oil and gas producer for decades. Prior to the country’s 15-year civil war, prospectors even drilled several on-shore exploration holes in hopes of finding crude. Those efforts were for naught, and in recent years attention shifted offshore.

In 2010, Lebanon’s parliament approved an offshore exploration and production law. In the following years, more regulations for the sector were drafted and approved. Additionally, in late 2012, then-Minister of Energy and Water Gebran Bassil announced the formation of the Lebanese Petroleum Administration (LPA), the sector’s governing body.

2013 at one point looked like it would be the year to embark on Lebanon’s oil and gas dreams. Under Bassil, the LPA held a prequalification round for international oil and gas companies interested in drilling Lebanon’s waters. The regulator – and the Ministry of Energy – planned to launch the first offshore licensing round on May 2, 2103.

However, before the months-long bidding period could begin, cabinet needed to approve two decrees delineating offshore exploration blocks and approving a model exploration and production sharing agreement to be signed by Lebanon and whichever companies won rights to explore the country’s waters.

Prior to both the bid round’s launch and the approval of the decrees, former Prime Minister Najib Miqati resigned, collapsing the cabinet and ushering in a nearly year-long period without a government.

During this time, the LPA has been busy drafting regulations and holding meetings with various stakeholders, among other things. Most of the LPA’s decisions, however, require cabinet approval so actual progress in the oil and gas sector has been minimal.

That said, Lebanon’s oil and gas potential has drawn the interest of the wider world. Last year, 52 companies applied to pre-qualify to bid for exploration and production rights. 46 made the cut.

On top of that, foreign money has been coming in to aid civil society organizations keen to monitor the sector and push for transparency in an industry many link – rightly or wrongly – with corruption and back-room deals.

Mona Sukkarieh, an analyst with the local consultancy Middle East Strategic Perspectives, told NOW in an email exchange that local civil society organizations need “more training” on oil and gas issues and noted that this “explains the availability of foreign funding, whether from international organizations, foreign NGOs or foreign governmental institutions.”

She noted that foreign NGOs – like Publish What You Pay, and others – have been “instrumental” in helping train local civil society groups on how to approach the sector.

Laury Haytayan, the Lebanon representative of Revenue Watch Institute, said her organization is not yet properly working in Lebanon but that she is partnering with the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies to create a Lebanon-based hub to help train and assist civil society organizations interested in monitoring and influencing not only oil and gas activities, but all extractive industries in the region.

“We’re working with LCPS on setting this up,” she said. “We’ll be training civil society, the media, and maybe later public sector employees.” Haytayan said instructional courses for civil society organizations on the extractive industry will be held in a few months. LCPS could not be reached for comment.

For its part, the Lebanese Transparency Association is keen to keep an eye on officials vis-à-vis oil and gas but has no specific program dedicated to the sector. Unlike the other sources interviewed for this article, Yehia Hakim, director of the LTA, told NOW the petroleum administration has not reached out to his group to discuss transparency issues.

Haytayan and Kaissy, from Publish What You Pay, told NOW the LPA has held several workshops with civil society organizations and, thus far, has a good track-record on transparency.

Speaking of the LPA, Haytayan said, “they’re well intentioned and really open to civil society and open to experts and reaching out to the population to explain what they’re doing.”

The LPA did not respond to a request for comment on this article.

As for what civil society organizations should be focusing on at the moment, Kaissy said, “the first thing, the obvious thing, is to have this bid [round] as open as possible. It shouldn’t be a closed bid. The tenders have to be very transparent.”

Sukkarieh, the consultant, however, cautioned that civil society organizations must also work to broaden their focus.

“Much of the activity that has been carried out so far, and activities being planned, revolve around promoting transparency in revenue management and combating corruption,” she told NOW. “There seems to be little interest in attempting to influence the decision-making process, or the drafting of legal texts, or designing future institutions and how they should work, adopting instead a more passive approach.”

For her part, Kaissy is hopeful that civil society will play a positive role as the oil and gas sector takes off in Lebanon.

“I am very optimistic about how involved civil society is going to be in the future,” she said.

*This article was amended on March 15 because Revenue Watch Institute was misidentified as Revenue Watch International and Laury Haytayan's name was misspelled. NOW regrets the error. 

WAA SU AALE MIYEYNA XAAQ UGU LAHAYN UNA QALMIIN BEELAHA GABOOYAHA SOMALILAND INAY KA MID NOQDAAN ERGOOYINKA GUDIDA FULIINTA GOLAHA DHAXE EE XISBIGA KULMIYE UU ANSAXIYEY?


BY-BARKHAD XAAJI CABDI’’MRGABOYE’’
ASC/Marka hore waxan salamaya dhamaan saxaafada horta ee  reer Somaliland iyo akhristaha sharafta badaan iyo dhamaan shacaabka reer Somaliland madaxda iyo masuuliyiinta xukuumada iyo xisbiyada qaraanka Somaliland,

Waxaan marka  hore soo dhaweynaya  anigoo ah muwaadiin u dhashay qaraanka jsomaliland guusha laga gaaray xaliinta khilaafkii xisbiga kulmiye ee ergooyinka xubnaha shirweynaha gudiga fuliinta xisbiga kulmiye laakiin aanan anigu beel ahaan aanan ku faraxsanayn ansaxiinta ergooyiinkaas la ansaxiyey hadaanu nahay beelaha gabooye ee reer somaliland,

Waxaan ruuntii aad u la yaabay sida badheedhka caad ee loo duudsiyay muwaadiniinta beelaha gabooye ee aan marnaba loo xusiin ama loo qiimeyn mudnaantii iyo xaquuqday ku lahayeen ergooyinka gudida fuliinta xisbiga kulmiye u matalayay beelaha gabooye kaas oo ergooyinka gudiga loo qaybsaday habka saami qaybsiga beelaha reer Somaliland  ee  gudiga fuliinta xisbiga kulmiye iyo sida looga tagay ee aan mudnaantay mudnaayeen beelaha gabooye la siinin  ee loo quursaday waa midaan ku salaysnay sinaan iyo cadaalad kana baaxsan xaquuqda muwaadinimo ,Hadaanu nahay muwaadiniinta beelaha gabooye waxan u aragnaa quursi iyo cadaalad xumaan saami qaybsigaa xisbiga kulmiye ku ansaxiyey ergooyinkaas waana midaan marnaba aanan qaadan kariin quursigasi ,waxaa ka sii daraan sida xaata xubnaha ATHERS ka loogu xusay ee aan uba dhalaan jsomaliland loogana tagaay beeshii GABOOYE ee u dhalatay jsomaliland taas waxay cadaynaysa inan marnaba beesha gabooye waxbaba loo haynin waxna ayna ka ahayn dalkooda hooyo ee jsomaliland muwaadiniinta beelaha gabooye ,taas waxay cadaynaysa siduu xisbiga kulmiye madaxdiisa iyo masuuliyiintiisu dulmiga iyo duudsiga ugu hayaan muwaadiniinta beelaha gabooye ee reer somaliland waa wax laga xumaado oo Ayaan daro iyo cadaalad xuman ku ah xisbiga kulmiye.

Waxa hadaba  iga su aala muwadiniinta beelaha gabooye miyeyna u qalmiin in ay ka mid noqdaan ergooyinka iyo xubnaha xisbiga kulmiye? Miyayna dastuurka xisbiga xaquuq ugu lahayn inay ku yeeshan xaquuqdooda muwadinimo ?xisbigase kulmiye maka xaaraanba in beelaha gabooye ay ku yeeshaan gudiga fuliinta iyo golihiisa dhaxeba?
Waxaa ku soo gunaanadayaa haddii aanay xisbiga kulmiye madaxdooda iyo masuuliyiintoodu aanay cadeyn in beelahan muwaadiniinta aanay xaquuqda iyo mudnaanta ay ku lahayn xisbiga kulmiye cadaynin in go,aan ay ka gaarayaan beelaha gabooye waxaan sidoo kale halkan ku cadaynaya oo aan ugu baaqaya in aanu kala noqonayno kalsoonidii xisbiga kulmiye aanu u haynay iyo in ay si degdega iska casilaan haday jiraan xubno ku jira xisbiga kulmiye oo beelahan gabooye ah waxaan sidoo kale ana ku dhawaaqi doona inan iska casilaayo xubiintii aan ka ahaa xisbiga kulmiye hadaan si deg dega aanay madaxda iyo masuuliyiinta xisbigu noo cadaynin waxaanu uga weynay mudnaantaanu beel ahaan xaqa iyo xaquuqda ugu lahayn iyo waliba xubnahaan ku lahayn ergooyinka xisbiga kulmiye oo u qalma sharaftayada iyo qiimaha beelahayagu leehyihiin.

Wabilahi towfiiq.

Gudoomiyaha Qurba Joogta Beelaha Gabooyaha Somaliland Ee Waqooyiga America.
Xoghayaha Xisbiga Kulmiye Ee Magaaladda Toranto .
By-Barkhad Xaaji Cabdi’’MrGaboye’’
Email:abokoriye1@hotmail.com
Kicthener Ontario Canada.


Somalia launches ideology war against Al-Shabaab



MOGADISHU – Somalia has declared an ideological war against Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Shabaab group, creating a government office for Muslim scholars to refute Al-Shabaab's militant ideology and influence public opinion.

"You are a very important part of the governance of this nation and play a leading role in the fight against Al-Shabaab," Premier Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed told religious leaders Saturday, according to a press release mailed to Anadolu Agency by his office.

"That is why I'm creating a government office for religious scholars to incorporate you closer to the government and help bridge the gap between the people and the government," he added.

"You will have a leading role in helping influence public opinion and be part of the decision-making of this government," vowed the prime minister.

He vowed to create a framework of increased cooperation between the government and religious scholars.

"It is our national and religious duty to fight against Al-Shabaab… You have a big role in defending our religion, our people and our country," Ahmed told the scholars.

Two Somalis were killed and three others injured in a car bombing outside a hotel in central Mogadishu earlier today.

A bomber rammed his explosives-laden car into the garage of the Makkah Al-Mukarama hotel, which is popular with government officials.

In November, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud vowed that 2014 would witness the end of the Al-Shabaab.

The group was driven out of the capital Mogadishu in 2011 but still controls many smaller towns and rural areas in the south of war-torn Somalia.

The Horn of Africa country has suffered from on-again, off-again violence since the outbreak of civil war in 1991.

The country had appeared to inch closer to stability with the recent installation of a new government and the intervention of African Union troops tasked with combatting Al-Shabaab.

Misguided

Nor Barud, the vice chairman of the Somali Religious Union, vowed support for the government's ideological war against the dreaded militant group.

"This is a very critical time to clarify what is wrong and what is right," he told the meeting.

"The religious leaders are leaders of the people so we must clarify the religious issues of the country," he added.

Most of the pro-government scholars are drawn from the Somali Sufi sect and a number of moderate Salafist movements.

"Al-Shabaab are claiming to be religious but killing innocent people in sacred places like mosques show they are not true Muslims," said Barud. "They are misguided."

Al-Shabaab claims to want to establish Islamic sharia across Somalia.

It had a popular following when it was launched back in 2006 with many Somalis believing the outfit’s intention was to protect Somalia from the invasion of the mainly Christian Ethiopian army.

However, the killings of fellow Somalis and the destruction of tombs of Sufi saints saw its popularity dwindle.


Africa’s economy grows, but many stomachs are empty



By Kingsley Ighobor
Each year, governments, journalists, development experts and others look forward to the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report. The report includes a ranking of countries based on life expectancy, literacy, quality of life and so on. Once it is released, governments and citizens of countries with high rankings immediately trumpet their achievements. Those with lower rankings, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which was last in 2013 in Africa, come in for criticism.
When UNDP announced it would launch its first-ever Africa Human Development Report in 2012, many expected that it would also include a general country ranking. Instead, the regional report focused on the theme “Towards a food secure future”, with extensive analyses and recommendations on that topic. If the intention of the 190-page report was to generate debate on filling empty stomachs in Africa with nutritious food, that goal was accomplished — probably beyond expectations.
Setting the tone
Helen Clark, UNDP administrator, and Tegegnework Gettu, then director of the Programme’s Africa bureau, set the tone in the opening pages of the report. Ms Clark writes: “It is my hope that this first Africa Human Development Report will energise a debate on how to strengthen food security… and lead to more decisive action.”
Mr Gettu’s preface is a provocative clarion call to African leaders. “Africa is not fated to starve,” he writes. “That is an affront to both its dignity and its potential… Africa must stop begging for food… Had the African governments over the last 30 years met their people’s aspirations, the report would not be necessary. One quarter of the people in sub-Saharan Africa would not be undernourished, and one third of African children would not be stunted.”
Nigeria’s former President Olusegun Obasanjo echoed Mr Gettu’s theme, saying that African leadership should be indicted in the area of food production. “It tells us what we know: that the poverty of Africa is the making of African leaders over the years.”
During Asia’s green revolution, for example, many Asian countries spent up to 20% of their budgets on agriculture, while African countries currently spend between 5 to 10% on the sector. This is despite African leaders’ commitment in 2003 to allocate at least 10% of national budgets to agriculture. At the moment, Africa spends more on the military than on agriculture.
Hunger amidst plenty
There is a harsh paradox of suffering amidst plenty of a continent with rich, arable land but unable to feed its citizens. “Hunger and malnutrition remain pervasive on a continent with ample agricultural endowments,” notes Mr Gettu. “Africa has the knowledge, the technology, and the means to end hunger and insecurity.”
Sub-Saharan Africa is the world’s most food-insecure region and where poverty is particularly alarming, according to UNDP. Up to 25% of sub-Saharan Africa’s 856 million people are undernourished, with 15 million people facing serious risks in the Sahel and an equal number in the Horn of Africa.
The worsening food situation dampens glowing reports on Africa’s fast-growing economies, which have expanded by an annual average of 5% to 6% during the past decade. However, notes Ms Clark, “Impressive GDP growth rates in Africa have not translated into the elimination of hunger and malnutrition.”
Ms Clark canvasses coordinated solutions. “Building a food-secure future for all Africans will only be achieved if efforts span the entire development agenda.” Without good roads, for example, surplus food cannot enter the market.
Important steps
The right steps can be taken right away to stem the tide of food insecurity. Some of these steps are listed in the UNDP report: “Greater agricultural productivity of smallholder farmers more effective nutrition policies, especially for children greater community and household resilience to cope with shocks and wider popular participation and empowerment, especially of women and the rural poor.”
It appears that many African leaders agree with these steps. For example, Africa’s first elected female president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia, considers the role of women in food security “profound and critical”. According to President Johnson-Sirleaf, better education and access to food assets such as land, capital and labour will likely increase productivity by 20%. Her position aligns with the report, which urges countries to “end decades of bias against agriculture and women,” because women’s education can lower malnutrition in children more than an increase in household income. Compared with other regions, African women have the least access to land.
Former Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki once linked nutritious food to mental and physical well-being, and added that “it also enables people to exercise their freedoms and capabilities in different fields”. Kenya is rated as a high-risk food-insecure country. During his time in office, President Kibaki said that a five-year drought had a huge negative impact on agriculture. Kenya’s agricultural sector has however been revived from a negative growth of 2.3% in 2009 to over 6.3%.
Analysts believe that agriculture is the main driver of the Kenyan economy, which the IMF projects will grow at 6.2% this year. Anders Ostman, a former head of the Swedish International Development Agency in Africa, advised Kenya and other African countries to pay more attention to agriculture. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta said last year that his government would assist farmers to adopt modern farming technology that will bring about a “revolution” in agriculture.
However, Africa faces some headwinds in agricultural development. Opinion is unanimous that climate change will have a negative impact on agriculture. “Africa is most susceptible to variations in agro-climate,” according to the late Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who noted that “climate change exacerbates the problem of food insecurity.” The semi-arid region from Senegal to Chad and the Horn of Africa, particularly Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, have all been affected by severe climate conditions, according to the Africa Human Development Report.
In addition to the impact of drought on food security, famines often also get the headlines, even though uneven access to food due to low incomes is as much a problem. “The silent crises of chronic malnourishment and seasonal hunger do not receive nearly enough attention,” notes the report. Increased agricultural production does not necessarily guarantee food security unless there are improvements in access to health, better roads, more job opportunities and empowerment of women.
Bright spots
Notwithstanding the deplorable food situation in sub-Saharan Africa, there are many bright spots, including Nigeria, where the government’s Agricultural Transformation Agenda is expected to ensure food sufficiency and create 3.5 million jobs by 2015. Ghana has already halved poverty by boosting cocoa farmers, becoming the first sub-Saharan country to achieve the first Millennium Development Goal, which is to reduce by half the proportion of people living in poverty and hunger by 2015.
Malawi undertook a huge seed and fertiliser subsidy programme and turned its food deficit into a 1.3 million tonne surplus in just two years. In Senegal child malnutrition was lowered from 34 to 20% between 1990 and 2005 through increased national agricultural budgets. By increasing agriculture’s budget from 1.6% in 2008 to 7.7% in 2009, Sierra Leone grew 784,000 tonnes of rice, above the domestic requirement of 550,000 tonnes.
As the continent posts world-beating economic growth rates, it needs to move faster to fill empty stomachs with nutritious food. Time will tell whether the current set of African leaders can achieve that goal.

The real impact of Israel’s ‘Jewish state‘ demand


By Hussein Ibish, Now.

Many commentators, including this author, have carefully picked apart the myriad problems involved with Israel’s new demand that the Palestinians formally recognise it as a “Jewish state.” But at least one of its most problematic aspects has been significantly under-examined and underappreciated. The new demand negates, both in effect and intention, the greatest of Palestinian concessions, their 1993 recognition of the State of Israel.

There is an international consensus in favour of a two-state solution, and even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman now say they, too, support this goal after long careers opposing it. And in the quarter-century campaign to achieve a conflict-ending two-state agreement through direct talks, there remains a dangerous anomaly. One side, the Palestine Liberation Organization, recognised Israel up front. All other details aside, they have long since performed the sine qua non of a two-state agreement by recognising Israel. The other side, Israel, has never recognised a Palestinian state or, in any formal, written, or legal sense, even the Palestinian right to a state.

There are a great many difficulties with the “Jewish state” demand, and Netanyahu’s formulation “the nation-state of the Jewish people” in particular. This phrasing is full of highly problematic definite articles, and suggests a trans-historical claim to this land on behalf of an entire but undefined ethno-religious group the world over, not just the present Jewish Israeli majority. It harkens back to pre-state Zionism, defining Israel as if the state had not actually been created and several generations of Jewish and Arab Israelis had not been born there.

This framing also begs the question about the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, who already face significant discrimination in many sectors because they are not Jewish. This is one of the reasons the PLO finds the demand so problematic: they will not agree to implicitly endorse the restrictions Palestinian citizens of Israel now face, or may face in the future.

Moreover, Israel itself cannot define what a “Jewish state” means, exactly. There were several attempts in the last Knesset to introduce legislation to clarify the term; all of them failed miserably because while there is a consensus among Jewish Israelis that their state is in some sense “Jewish,” there is no consensus whatsoever as to what that entails. So, in effect, Palestinians are being asked to agree to something that even the Israelis cannot define with any degree of specificity.

The “Jewish state” demand was first introduced in 2007 at the Annapolis meeting, never having been mentioned in previous Israeli negotiations with the Palestinians, let alone with Egypt or Jordan. It was dismissed by not just the Palestinian delegation, but also the American one, both recognising it as an attempted end-run around the final status issue of Palestinian refugees. The matter was accordingly dropped.

However, when Netanyahu was reelected in 2009, he made the “Jewish state” phrase the centrepiece of his relations with the Palestinians. He now not only insists that this is an important issue – sometimes he even says it is the only real issue (although how Israelis missed “the only real issue” with the Palestinians until 2007 is impossible to explain).

Many commentators have long understood that Netanyahu has made this such a focus of his policy for two clear reasons. The first is to put his own stamp on a process that had been defined before he came to power. The second is to continue the attempt to defuse the refugee issue, particularly as a quid pro quo for Israeli compromises on Jerusalem.

A frequently-cited third interpretation is that the single-minded insistence on this demand could reflect a cynical effort to find something most Israelis would find important that Palestinians cannot agree to. If the aim is to sabotage peace talks, such an initiative would be invaluable. It’s possible that this is, or at some stage was, part of the calculation.

Netanyahu has won over many Israelis and their friends to this new de facto final status issue, basically by playing on Israeli anxieties that an agreement might not actually end the conflict. Yet, it has always been agreed that a peace treaty would mean an end of conflict and all claims.
What has yet to be fully recognised is that the single most significant impact of this “Jewish state” demand is that it effectively dismisses and reverses the 1993 Palestinian recognition of Israel. This concession made it ridiculous for anyone to argue that the core of the problem was Palestinians’ refusal to recognise Israel. But now, hey presto, it is once again possible to present Palestinian recognition of Israel as a major issue, because it wasn’t recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state”.

It doesn’t matter that no one ever asked the Palestinians to do so until 2007, or that there are a great many complications, ambiguities, and grave difficulties associated with it. It has become a mantra of much of the pro-Israel constituency the world over that the 1993 recognition of Israel by the PLO is all but irrelevant, and that until Palestinians recognise Israel as a “Jewish state”, their intention to end the conflict and live in peace remains very much open to question.

So, this new demand solves the problem that one side is lived up to its core commitment under a two-state solution – recognising the statehood of the other party – while the other side has not. It pushes the diplomatic, psychological, and political clock back before 1993, to an era where Palestinians are once again being asked to demonstrate their willingness to live in peace with Israel by uttering some magic mantra.

It elides the fact that, from a Palestinian and Arab point of view, the 1993 recognition of Israel was the mother of all concessions: a recognition that Palestinians were surrendering their political claim to around 78% of what had very recently been their country, in the sense that they were a large majority there until 1948. So now we are left negotiating over the territories conquered by Israel in 1967, without even touching the areas that became Israel in 1948. The enormity of this vast concession, this overwhelming – almost impossible – agreement by the Palestinians, was never fully recognised by Israel or the international community. And now, with the Jewish state demand, it’s dismissed altogether as almost totally irrelevant.

In fairness, if ordinary Israelis and their supporters were more convinced by Palestinian words and deeds that this is the case, they would be less moved by Netanyahu’s obsessive focus on the new “Jewish state” demand. It speaks, cleverly, to deep-seated Israeli anxieties. However, by effectively negating, at least at the psychological and cultural registers, the 1993 Palestinian recognition of Israel, it magically appears to even the scales once again.

But the truth remains that one party, the Palestinians, has recognised the independent statehood of the other, Israel. And Israel has never recognised an independent Palestine or the Palestinian right to an independent state. There are, apparently, still many things the Palestinians must do to “earn” such a right, if they are ever to have it at all, and that includes some sort of recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state”.

Until they do that, Israel and its hard-core supporters will bat aside the fact that Palestinians have actually recognised Israel, unrequited, since 1993, and speak and act as if that were irrelevant and the Palestinians haven’t recognised Israel at all until they repeat the novel catechism now being placed before them.

As a diplomatic, psychological, and political sleight-of-hand, it’s extraordinarily brilliant and effective. But its impact is to complicate diplomacy on a two-state solution and make peace more difficult to achieve, while obscuring the reality that Palestinians have recognised Israel but Israel has never recognised Palestine.
Hussein Ibish is a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine.

This article was originally published on Now.\

Sunday, March 16, 2014

URURKA QALINLEYDA IYO HALABUURKA SOOMAALIYEED (SOMALI PEN) MA XISBI SIYAASADEED BAA?


IBRAAHIN YUUSUF AXMED ”HAWD”

Burburkii weynaa ee innagu dhacay dhaqanxumooyinka ka dhashay waxaa ka mid ah sheegashada magacyo iyo xilal ku dhisan dhalanteed ama danaysi xun. In magacyo iyo xilal aan la isu ogayn oo la isu aqoonsanayn la sheegto waxaa ka sii daran hawlahaas oo aan qofka sheeganayaa gudan karin aqoon ahaan iyo karti ahaanba.

Hawlahaa markooda horeba waxaa loo qoondeeyaa in loogu danaysto si aad uga leexsan oo aad uga liidata sida loo sheegayo. Urur siyaasadeed, urur samafal, urur diineed, urur dhaqameed, jaalliyad qurbejoog… intaas oo waji iyo in kaleba waxani waa ay ku yimaaddaan. Waxyaalaha iyada oo aan la ahayn sida dhalanteedka ah la isugu boqro waxaa ka mid ah fannaan, abwaan, qoraa, suxufi, aqoonyahan, sheekh iyo xitaa madaxweyne. Dhaqankaa soomaalidu ma ay lahaan jirin ee waa aafo innagu cusub. Gabyaagu gabyaa buu ahaan jiray bulshadu u aqoonsan tahay, sheekhu sheekh buu ahaan jiray sidaa lagu og yahay, suldaanku suldaan buu ahaan jiray dadkiisu ku oggol yihiin, hoobalku hoobal buu ahaan jiray sidaa loo yaqaan, qof walibana waxa uu ku astaysan yahay buu dhab u ahaa, waayo waxa ay ahayd wax uu ku sifoobay oo loo aqoonsaday.


Somali Pen (Ururka Qalinleyda Iyo Halabuurka Soomaaliyeed) aniga oo aan rasmi ugu biirin, oo xitaa xeerkiisa arag, weligayna meel arrinkiisa lagu hayo tegin, ayaan haddana la shaqeeyay oo dhiirrigeliyay. Wax aan u arkayay xil anigaba ii yaallay oo la iga furtay. Urur magacaas leh in la sameeyo iyo in la la shaqeeyaaba waajib bay ahayd. Waa loo baahnaa samayn urur mideeya dadka halabuur ahaan isku xirfadda ama isku hiwaayadda ah. Taas ayaa waxtar u ah in la wada difaacdo xuquuqda fikirka iyo halabuurka, in la isla kaashado korinta waxa la wada jecel yahay oo af soomaaligu ugu horreeyo, iyo in la noqdo madal lagu ilaaliyo habsamida qulqulka fikirka iyo halabuurka bulshada. Xilkan culayskiisu waxa uu sii muuqanayaa kolka la og yahay baahida laxaadka leh ee hor taalla afka iyo qoraalka soomaaliyeed.

Somali Pen haddaba wax ay ahayd in uu u taagnaado ilaalinta dadka uu matalayo xuquuqdooda, danahooda iyo xorriyadda fikirkooda. Si taa la mid ah wax ay ahayd in uu wada daboolo dadka uu magacooda huwaday aragtiyahooda. Wax ay kale oo ay ahayd ururkaasi in uu matalo damiirka iyo xorriyadda fikir ee idil ahaan bulsho weynta soomaaliyeed. Haddaba muddo dheer oo ururkaasi magaca dadka soomaalida sitay ka dib waxaa la joogaa goortii la la xisaabtami lahaa.

Ugu horreynba sida ururradeenna caadada u noqotay mugdi weyn baa ku jira anshaxa Somali Pen ku shaqeeyo.

Haddii aynnu u fiirsanno waxaa inoo muuqanaysa in aanu dhab uga run sheegin waxa uu ku magacaaban yahay, hubaashiina ku dhisan yahay dhalanteedkii iyo danaysigii aynnu kor ku soo xusnay. Somali Pen arrintiisu wax ay dhaharatay kolkii la hoos geeyay mid ka mid ah kelitalisyada tirada yar ee dunida ku sii hadhay. Jabuuti oo la og yahay dulmiga siyaasadeed ee yaalla iyo xorriyad la’aanta fikir ee bulshadu qabto, ayaa ururkii la hoos geeyay. (Halkan ka arag falalkii ugu dambeeyay kelitalisnimada iyo argaggixinta uu Ismaaciil Cumar Geelle dadkiisa ku hayo: http://www.wardheernews.com/dawladda-jabuuti-oo-xubno-badan-oo-mucaaradka-ka-tirsan-xabsiyada-ku-gurtay/).

Somali Pen waxa Jabbuuti geeyay waa in magaca ururka lagu socodsiiyo damaca xun ee kelitaliyahaa. Ujeedku waa in magaca halabuurka iyo qalinleyda soomaaliyeed kelitalyahaa lagu maamuuso oo lagu qurxiyo, loogana dhigo cod iyo tamar uu bulshadiisa madaxa kaga garaaco. Xitaa xubnaha ururka ee aan siyaasadda ninkaa u jajabnayni kolka ay Jabbuuti joogaan wax ay ku qasban yihiin in ay kelitaliyahaa ammaanaan, ama in ay ammaanistiisa aan xaqa ahayn madaxa u ruxaan. Laakiin Somali Pen taa beddelkeeda ayay ahayd in uu u taagnaado. Wax ay ahayd in uu nodqo codka xorriyadda iyo baaqa xaqa.

Guddoomiyhii hore ee ururka, Aadan Xasan Aadan (Beleloo) wax aad moodi jirtay afhayeenka Ismaaciil Cumar Geelle, imikana waaba Wasiirka Awqaafta. Aadan mooyi in uu weli ururka xubin ka yahay, taas oo aanu xaq u yeelan karin isaga oo wasiir ah, kollayba se arrinkiisu waa tusaale foolxun oo muujinaya ururkaasi sida uu siyaasadda ugu milmay.

Wargeys dhaqan-aqooneed oo afka Somali Pen ku soo bixi jiray, kaas oo aan runtii u hanweynaa dadaalna ku darsaday, lana dhihi jiray Hal-abuur, waxaa la degay oo lagu wada nacay ammaanista iyo qurxinta kelitaliye Ismaaciil Cumar Geelle. Ururku wax ay ahayd in uu wada xaqdhawro oo dhex ka noqdo aragtiyaha siyaasadeed ee ay dadka uu matalaa ku ka la duwan yihiin. In kelitaliye loogu hiiliyo oo midiidin looga dhigaa dhexdhexaadnimo ma aha. Taa waxaa la mid ah sida aanu Ismaaciil weligii dhexdhexaad uga noqon qaybaha badan ee Soomaaliyadii burburtay.

Dhinac kale haddii laga eego, dadka Somali Pen dhisay, iyo in badan oo xubnihiisa ka mid ahi, waa dadkii dumiyay maamulkii Soomaaliya iyaga oo diiddanaa kelitalisnimadii Maxamed Siyaad Barre iyo xorriyad la’aantii fikir. Kolkaa sidee buu damiirkoodu u oggolaaday in ay u sacabtumaan kelitalisnimada Ismaaciil Cumar Geelle? Bulshada reer Jabbuuti iyaduba sow u ma qalanto oo xaq u ma leh xorriyad siyaasadeed iyo fikir? Runtii Somali Pen waxa uu fadqalallo ku yahay siyaasadda gudaha Jabbuuti, waayo awooddii iscaabbinta bulshada ayaa ku waxyeelloobaysa.

Haddii aad kelitaliye ammaanto oo maamuusto ogow wax aad adhaxda ka jebisay kii ku hoos dulmanaa ee hiilkaaga u baahnaaye. Xubnaha Somali Pen ee Geelle midiidinka u ahi kolka ay sidaa yeelayaan waxgarad badan oo dalkaa u dhashay baa caloolxumo waddooyinka la tuban oo ciil dibnaha ruugaya. ”War dadkan kelitaliyaha nagu ammaanaya yaa naga qabta?! ayay meel walba ka lee yihiin.

Urur ay ahayd in uu u taagnaado ilaalinta xorriyadda fikir ee dadka afka soomaaliga ku hadla oo dhan, haddii kelitaliye lagu ammaano qudhiisa ayaa xorriyadda fikirka cadow u ah. Haddii ay ahayd Somali Pen in uu noqdo damal fikirka xorta ahi hadhsado, ma aha in uu noqdo durbaan lagu taageero dulmi iyo kelitalisnimo.

Haddaba dhammaan xubnaha Somali Pen waxaa ku waajib ah in ay ka fekeraan sidii ururkaa loogu duwi lahaa tubta toosan si uu waxtar u noqdo. Waana in laga dhigaa madal lagu difaaco laguna xoojiyo halabuurka iyo guud ahaan xorriyadaha fikirka. Waa in si buuxda looga madaxbanneeyaa danaha siyaasadeed iyo waxyaalaha lagu qaybsan yahay.


Ibraahinhawd@hotmail.com

www.ibraahinhawd.com

Russia vetoes UN Security Council resolution on Crimea - WATCH VIDEO

Russia has vetoed a United Nations resolution condemning the referendum on Ukraine's Crimean regionas illegal.

New York - Fadhi Golaha Ammaanka ee Qaramada Midoobay ku yeesheen, xaruntooda magaalada New York, ayaa xubnaha badankoodu isku raaceen in la canbaareeyo isla markaana sharci daro lagu tilmaamo aftida saacadaha soo socda ka dhacaysa, Degaanak Crimea ee Ukraine, hasa yeeshee waxa Qaraarkaas codka diidmada Qayaxan VITO ku hor istaagay Ruushka oo isagu ah waddanka laga yaabo in Crimea ay ku biirto aftida ka dib.

Shan iyo tobanka xubnood ee Golaha Ammaanka ayaa 13-ka mid ahi taageereen qaraarkan oo Maraykanku soo jeediyay, halka dawlada Shiinuhu ka aamustay, Ruushkuna Vito ku kala diray, waxaana markii codka diidmada Qayaxan ee Ruushku isku hor taagay, bilaabmay canbaarayn maldahan oo dalalka Golaha Ammaanku Ruushku dusha uga tuurayeen, waana markii sideedaad ee golaha ammaanku ku guul daraysto xal midaysan oo xiisada Ukraine uu ka gaadho.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

The Silent New York Trial Of An Al Qaeda Terrorist

A Day In Court: The Trial Of An Al Qaeda Terrorist Who New York Forgot About

An artist sketch shows Suleiman Abu Ghaith, a militant who appeared in videos as a spokesman for al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks, appearing at the U.S. District Court in Manhattan March 8, 2013. Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden and one of the highest-ranking al Qaeda figures to be brought to the United States to face a civilian trial, pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to kill Americans. The U.S. District Court in Manhattan is only blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg           
By

NEW YORK -- Outside the U.S. District Courthouse, crowds of people stream past on an otherwise normal Wednesday lunch break in Manhattan. People chat about colleagues at work, what they’ll be doing the coming weekend, the crisis in Ukraine. A French tourist stops to photograph the impressive façade of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan building and moves on.

There’s no hint of the dramatic story unfolding beyond the building’s gilded entrance, which on this day is a portal into a dark and momentous history whose climax took place only a few blocks away. Asked if they’re aware of what’s going on inside, most people shake their heads. The same is true of the NYPD police officer who slouches nonchalantly against the passenger door of his car, who also answers that he doesn’t know. What is happening? he asks.

What is happening is the ongoing civil trial of the most senior adviser to Osama bin Laden since the Sept. 11 attacks. Reputedly at the late bin Laden’s request, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, 48, became the voice of al Qaeda in the months leading up to 9/11, though few would have recognized him until after American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175 few into the Twin Towers. After that fateful day, al Qaeda, in the eyes of the world, had arrived. Abu Ghaith’s mandate, according to prosecutors, was simple: to terrorize the West with words and recruit the next generation of al Qaeda fighters.

S still image of Abu Ghaith A man identified as Suleiman Abu Ghaith appears in this still image taken from an undated video address. The son-in-law of Osama bin Laden who served as al Qaeda's spokesman has been arrested and detained in Jordan in an operation led by Jordanian authorities and the FBI, U.S. government sources said on Thursday. The sources said Abu Ghaith, a militant who had appeared in videos representing al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, attacks on New York and Washington in 2001, had initially been picked up in Turkey.  REUTERS/Handout
Abu Ghaith can be seen in videos saying Americans were ultimately responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and urging Muslims to fight “Jews, Americans and their allies” in powerful sermons that were transmitted around the world. Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said in a Washington Post article on March 7 that Abu Ghaith was “the vortex of al Qaeda’s operations at arguably the most important time in the movement’s history.”

Few would have expected that Abu Ghaith would one day sit in a courtroom just a few blocks away from the World Trade Center. The attack is the most traumatic event in the city’s history, yet even at the site itself -- which has become a major New York tourist destination, with vendors hawking postcards of the Twin Towers, few people are aware that the voice of the most feared terrorist organization in the world, who, in the aftermath of 9/11, raged that the attacks on America “shall not stop,” is on trial in the very city where the attacks began.

The reasons have to do with the forward momentum of a dynamic city like New York, with Americans’ willingness to abdicate responsibility to their government for pursuing, capturing and punishing its attackers, and with time and emotional fatigue.

Still, the courthouse is only a few blocks from the scene of the crime.

Just over a year ago, Abu Ghaith was captured by CIA operatives while getting off a flight in Jordan on his way from Afghanistan to visit family in Kuwait. Jordanian officials handed him over to U.S. authorities, and within days he was in custody in a federal prison in New York.

In announcing the arrest last March, Attorney General Eric Holder asserted, “No amount of distance or time will weaken our resolve to bring America's enemies to justice. To violent extremists who threaten the American people and seek to undermine our way of life, this arrest sends an unmistakable message:

There is no corner of the world where you can escape from justice, because we will do everything in our power to hold you accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

It was a year before Abu Ghaith went to trial.

Images of the 9/11 attacks with the Brooklyn bridge
The second tower of the World Trade Center bursts into flames after being hit by a hijacked airplane in New York September 11, 2001.  REUTERS/Sara K. Schwittek

The trial commenced on March 5 with little fanfare. Among the resulting news articles, many seemed unclear about the charges; often, in headlines, Abu Ghaith was (and in some cases still is) reported as being on trial for helping plan 9/11. Sometimes it sounds like he is the first terrorist to be tried publicly in connection with 9/11, which he isn’t; that was Zacarias Moussaoui, who was sentenced to life in prison in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia after being found guilty of conspiring to kill American citizens.

Five other 9/11 conspirators have bounced between the military and civilian court systems, though to date none of them have actually been tried. The only other 9/11 trial took place in Hamburg, Germany, in which Mounir El Motassadeq was sentenced to 15 years -- likely far less than he would have received had he been convicted in the U.S.

Abu Ghaith was essentially the al Qaeda spokesman for 9/11, and he is the closest thing New York has seen to a 9/11 terrorist on trial. The fact that his trial is so little known is perhaps by design, said a woman who identified herself as a documentary filmmaker but declined to give her name. “You know that if it’s quiet, it’s been managed well. The last thing they want is a media circus,” she said as she sat outside of the courtroom.

But it isn’t as if the trial is taking place in secret. And New Yorkers have obviously not forgotten 9/11.

When President Obama was elected in 2008, he said, in the face of intense pressure, that he would oversee the closure of the contoversial U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. Six years later, not only is the prison still open, but few people seem to really care about it anymore. Given that blasé attitude toward what had fairly recently been a source of widespread outrage and the object of an Obama campaign promise, it is also possible that people just don’t care anymore about a man like Abu Ghaith.

Yet clearly, the U.S. government does. When the indictment against Abu Ghaith was unsealed on March 6, Preet Bharara, the current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said: “Today’s action is the latest example of our commitment to capturing and punishing enemies of the United States, no matter how long it takes.”

Abu Ghaith became Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law after he married bin Laden’s daughter Fatima, and worked for al Qaeda prior to 9/11, though not much is known about his life before that. He worked as a teacher in Kuwait after the government banned him from preaching at mosques for verbally attacking the government in the wake of the first Gulf War. A year after the 9/11 attacks, Kuwait withdrew his citizenship over his issuance of a fatwa against American citizens. Abu Ghaith reportedly lived under house arrest in Iran from 2003 to 2013, when he managed to escape using a fake Saudi passport. He is not accused of planning or executing the attacks on Sept. 11; the specific accusations against him are for making threats against the U.S. and its citizens, primarily in the aftermath of 9/11, and for being the head recruiter for Al-Qaeda’s ground troops.

At his trial, not surprisingly, 9/11 is a constant presence.

The front of the U.S district court house
United States Marshals stand guard as lawyer Stanley Cohen (2nd L) arrives outside the Manhattan Federal Courthouse for the Suleiman Abu Ghaith trial in the Manhattan Borough of New York March 5, 2014. Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, went on trial in New York on Monday, becoming one of the highest-profile defendants to face terrorism charges in the United States.  REUTERS/Carlo Allegri

On this particular day of the trial, as the 10 a.m. start time approached, international news crews – mostly from the Middle East – began appearing at the barriers in front of the courthouse. Otherwise, the queues delineated by the barricades were empty, and there were just a few onlookers.

After passing the pensive-looking U.S marshals out front, the media encountered more security inside. When asked, one marshal conceded that extra security had been assembled for this “very high-profile” case. As the trial resumed, reporters took notes on the opening statements, but soon the film crews waiting in the vestibule packed up their equipment and left, and most of the reporters inside weren’t far behind.

"Osama bin Laden asked the defendent to deliver al Qaeda to the world," said Michael Ferrara, the prosecution lawyer. "He threatened further attacks against America and asked Muslims around the world to pick up arms and fight America."

Ferrara said he would prove in the course of the trial that al Qaeda was a terrorist organization and that Abu Ghaith has helped them in their attacks. In one video, says Ferrara, Abu Ghaith is seen saying, "When al Qaeda threatens, it delivers."

The opening statements were revealing, in different ways. The prosecution sought to keep the focus on 9/11 and read aloud comments from the videos released by Abu Ghaith on behalf of al Qaeda. “The storms shall not stop, especially the airplanes storm,” read Ferrara, from a speech Abu Ghaith made in the wake of 9/11.

The government contends that Abu Ghaith went to training camps all over Afghanistan and recruited bombers, that he instilled hatred and encouraged violence against America and its citizens. They say he was the voice of al Qaeda.

A few moments after the opening remarks by the assistant U.S. attorney, the judge cleared his throat, reminded one juror to stay awake and then summoned the defense lawyer, Stanley Cohen, to make his opening statement. Cohen stood up and made his way over to the jury. He introduced himself and said: “Ladies and gentlemen, you’ve just been to the movies.”

The defense for Abu Ghaith was simple. Cohen reminded the jury that this was not about 9/11, not about the USS Cole or any embassy bombings that have taken place. “After 13 years, this is about words and associations,” Cohen said. The basic facts that were established, he said, was that Abu Ghaith had killed no one and that the prosecution had set out to substitute “evidence for fear.”

Cohen then set about dismantling the prosecution’s two main witnesses, saying they were the only real terrorists who will be heard in the courtroom and that their words against Abu Ghaith were being heard only because they cut a deal to avoid a long sentence.

But then Cohen, who has a long bushy beard and a greying mane of hair that’s pulled into a ponytail, began describing his own cinematically themed story for the jury.

He started out by describing the story of Captain Thomas Preston, a regimental officer at the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770. After the massacre, Preston was accused of murder along with eight of his troops. Such was the dislike of the British at that time that no lawyer would take the case. Preston requested the assistance of John Adams, who would later go on to become the second president of the United States.

It was clear what Cohen’s point was. He was trying to ensure a fair trial for Abu Ghaith and was pleading with the jury, through his story about Preston, that they should separate the trial from the events of 9/11 and the hatred they may feel for al Qaeda, in the same way Adams had asked the jury in 1770 to forget that the soldiers were British.

All John Adams had to do was prove that it was not Preston who shouted “fire” on the day of the massacre. Cohen said that throughout his time in Boston, Preston was accused of saying many nasty things against the patriots, but, ultimately, as was eventually proven in court, he was not the man who shouted “fire” on the day. As Cohen put it in the Manhattan court, Abu Ghaith, despite his nasty words about America and its citizens, was not the man who shouted “fire” during 9/11 or any other terrorist-related event. The acquittal of Preston and six of his fellow soldiers, much to the disbelief of those living in Boston at that time, was one of Adams’ proudest moments and a victory that prompted his famous quote that  Cohen repeated in court: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

The cinematic touches seemed dated, as if the scenes were outtakes from a circa 2005 blockbuster drama. Abu Ghaith sat upright with a determined look on his face, and despite having spent a year in a New York prison, he appeared to be in a confident mood, something his lawyer confirmed to IBTimes outside of the court during a brief interview.

“He’s a strong man with a strong belief system,” Cohen said, standing on the courthouse steps. Notably, there was no one else around to argue otherwise.

The trial is expected to finish by the end of March.

TAIWAN: Joining search for plane shows int'l assimilation: scholars



Taipei, (CNA) The Republic of China's move to send Navy and Coast Guard Administration vessels to help with the international search for a missing Malaysia Airline plane has highlighted the nation's contribution to non-conventional security issues and its role in assimilating into international cooperation, scholar have said.

In a show of the spirit of humanitarian rescue, Taiwan has dispatched a Lafayette-class vessel, the Chengkung-class Navy frigate and two Coast Guard Administration (CGA) vessels to join the international search.

Tiehlin Yen, deputy executive director of the Center for Security Studies in Taiwan under National Chengchi University's Institute of International Relations, said he is happy to see that the government has taken the positive action.

Viewed from the perspective of changes in the international situation, it's best for Taiwan's diplomacy to participate in "non-conventional issues" such as climate change, natural disasters and rescue operations, he said.

By doing so, Taiwan will have the opportunity to improve its international image, he said.

Yen said that the search operation cannot be accomplished by one single nation alone, and Taiwan's participation and the process of multinational coordination, mission assignment and cooperation with other nations, have demonstrated Taiwan' s assimilation into international cooperation.

Huang Kuei-po, secretary general of the Association of Foreign Relations, said the government's dispatch of Navy and CGA ships is in line with the spirit of East China Peace Initiative put forth by President Ma Ying-jeou, which advocates that relevant parties set aside disputes and jointly tap resources.

But Huang also said that the humanitarian rescue mission should be simple with nothing to do with sovereignty.

Amid criticism that Taiwan's rescue has come too late, Premier Jiang Yi-huah also said that although "we have been a little late, we have not been absent from the rescue operation."

Taiwan's Navy frigate and two CGA vessels arrived Friday evening in an area of the South China Sea where the Boeing 777-200 possibly went missing.

In addition, its Air Force has been sending a transport plane every day to its assigned sea area starting March 10. It takes the plane three hours to reach the area, where it searches for two hours, and spends 3.5 hours on its return trip, so it's on duty between eight to 10 hours daily.

Taiwan's participation in the search has won international recognition and Taiwan has been assigned search areas. In view of logistic needs, Taiwan's vessels have also obtained consent from Malaysia to dock in its port.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 disappeared from radar screens in the early hours of March 8 after taking off from Kuala Lumpur en route to Beijing.

Air traffic controllers lost contact with the aircraft, which was carrying 227 passengers -- including Taiwanese national Chuang Hsiu-ling -- and a 12-member crew.

No debris from the plane has been discovered so far, leaving investigators perplexed, without any clues to determine what might have happened to the plane.

(By Tang Pei-chun and Lilian Wu)
enditem/cs

Earlier stories on the missing MH370 flight:
Second Taiwanese warship to join search for missing Malaysian jet
Vessels on search mission could dock in Malaysia: official
Chinese martial arts choreographer aboard missing Malaysian jet
Taiwan's military continues search for missing Malaysian plane
Taiwan Coast Guard vessels to help look for missing plane (update)
Taiwan warned of attacks; official sees no link to missing plane
Brother of Taiwanese woman on missing flight holding out hope
Taiwanese woman among passengers of missing Malaysian flight