[labo22]

The western governments remain the major stakeholders of the political stale mate in Djibouti; they have their military bases to look after their respective countries' strategic interest. The important question we are posing here is "Does the West has moral authority to lecture Piggy" regarding the butchery of 21 Dec this year. What Piggy did and contentious to do is a form of "State Sponsored Terrorism". The western governments have been doing the same thing too, but the only difference is that Piggy used his military power on his own people, Kubood-bood-adaa-booraneh, while the other western governments, and their allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been using their military might against other weaker States in violation of International Law.

Ce message a été modifié par labo22 - 26 décembre 2015 - 09:46 .

[ELMI_]

labo22, le 26 décembre 2015 - 01:38 , dit :

The western governments remain the major stakeholders of the political stale mate in Djibouti; they have their military bases to look after their respective countries' strategic interest. The important question we are posing here is "Does the West has moral authority to lecture Piggy" regarding the butchery of 21 Dec this year. What Piggy did and contentious to do is a form of "State Sponsored Terrorism". The western governments have been doing the same thing too, but the only difference is that Piggy used his military power on his own people, Kubood-bood-adaa-booraneh, while the other western governments, and their allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been using their military might against other weaker States in violation of International Law.

Labo,
USA doesn't use military power on his own people that's the difference.Why nation (here USA) attaks an other Nation by milititary power?Search simple question?

[ELMI_]

.... etc

[ELMI_]

[labo22]

ELMI_, le 27 December 2015 - 12:29 AM, dit :

Labo,
USA doesn't use military power on his own people that's the difference.Why nation (here USA) attaks an other Nation by milititary power?Search simple question?

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield.

IF the US practices the extreme dangers of lawlessness of allowing its Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield. What one expect from Piggy, he just only needs to say the victims of Boldhoqo ware all terrorist,the West has to go along with narrative, its just his turn to use the so-called war on terror card.

Ce message a été modifié par labo22 - 27 décembre 2015 - 10:49 .

[ELMI_]

labo22, le 27 décembre 2015 - 02:49 , dit :

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield.

IF the US practices the extreme dangers of lawlessness of allowing its Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield. What one expect from Piggy, he just only needs to say the victims of Boldhoqo ware all terrorist,the West has to go along with narrative, its just his turn to use the so-called war on terror card.

labo,
you need polical sciences (war) since neolithic.

don'y say thanks my brother see .

Ce message a été modifié par ELMI_ - 27 décembre 2015 - 11:49 .

[labo22]

The U.S. called on Djibouti to immediately release opposition leaders and condemned violence in the Horn of Africa nation, where at least 7 or 29 people ( depends who you ask) died last week at a religious ceremony.
It obvious that the US government is downplaying the massacre of Dec. 21 2015, when the State Department spokesman issued the following statement;
“We urge the government of Djibouti to respect its citizens’ rights to freedom of exp​ression and peaceful assembly and association, and to exercise restraint,”
By definition this statement is misleading to say the least. As we all know what has happened in Djibouti that dreadful day was 2 completely separated skirmishes.
1- The traditional religious gathering-
This is yet another misleading info from the US government, the annual religious ceremony event cannot be categorized or used to describe as lack of “freedom of exp​ression and peaceful assembly and association” the terminology of universal Human rights Article 11 Right to protest and freedom of association doesn’t apply this particular massacre.
2- Brutal attack of the opposition leaders-
It is blatant violation of article 11 of universal Human rights, The right to protest and marches, demonstrations, press conferences, public and private meetings, counter-demonstrations, ‘sit-ins’, motionless protests etc.

[ELMI_]

labo22, le 28 décembre 2015 - 03:39 , dit :

The U.S. called on Djibouti to immediately release opposition leaders and condemned violence in the Horn of Africa nation

WE ARE WAITING IF DJIBOUTI GOVERNERNEMENT respects U.S deciscion.WE TRUST IN GOD

[labo22]

ELMI_, le 29 December 2015 - 12:15 AM, dit :

WE ARE WAITING IF DJIBOUTI GOVERNERNEMENT respects U.S deciscion.WE TRUST IN GOD $$

The terminology we use is very important, don't be like Balaloo (kiss ass kabogoreh that proudly call him representative of Yonis Moussa) According to the US Statement The U.S. "called on" Djibouti to immediately release opposition leaders, means "officially ask a person or organization to do something" in this case government of Djibouti, US lost its sphere of influence just like French government did many years ago.
We know that the western governments has many other means and covert operation to replace Piggy if they choose so, that is one of the reason Piggy has been saying indirectly there are other governments behind the opposition group.

Ce message a été modifié par labo22 - 29 décembre 2015 - 03:23 .

[ELMI_]

labo22, le 28 décembre 2015 - 07:19 , dit :

The terminology we use is very important, don't be like Balaloo (kiss ass kabogoreh that proudly call him representative of Yonis Moussa) According to the US Statement The U.S. "called on" Djibouti to immediately release opposition leaders, means "officially ask a person or organization to do something" in this case government of Djibouti, US lost its sphere of influence just like French government did many years ago.
We know that the western governments has many other means and covert operation to replace Piggy if they choose so, that is one of the reason Piggy has been saying indirectly there are other governments behind the opposition group.

my brother is in jail
but if guelleh my hear guelleh ,if you do bad you(guelleh) will loose your sons

bisharo
oeil pour oeil dent pour dent:more that the death ( you and me i can kill your son liban in mosque)

Ce message a été modifié par ELMI_ - 29 décembre 2015 - 03:39 .

[labo22]

If the US and other western governments use relatively strong language, such as, we urgently called on Djibouti to immediately release opposition leaders and refrain from mass arbitrary arrest of its citizen, and western countries add their serious concern on the worsening situation.

Only then, Piggy might soften his position, but what they cannot logically tell him to release a group that he already labelled terrorist. It's complicated option for the western governments to win that argument, Piggy has been staunchest supporter of war-on-terror.

Given his fragility, the regime is closely monitoring non state actors such as activities of foreign funded NGOs specially USIAD to ensure their activities do not compromise his ambition to stay in power.

Ce message a été modifié par labo22 - 29 décembre 2015 - 04:58 .

[labo22]

The only things that the west is aware-of, is the public demands for democratic change are more of a threat to the order of things in Djibouti than terrorism, so in this regards they are safe from the real elements. What happens if civil war breaks out in Djibouti since Piggy is not going to quit the power without fistfight.

Thus far we have only heard vague calls to respect human rights from the U.S. government, and it has done little to seriously press Piggy for change, simply because Piggy holds the decider card of his strategic real state location, that is why neither the United States nor other Western allies will view the domestic political scene with much importance.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California, has called for regime change. "The United States must demand that President Guelleh step down after his unprecedented third term expires in 2016," According to a letter obtained by The Daily Beast , Hunter wrote to National Security Advisor Susan Rice, "The United States must have a stable, committed partner in Djibouti"not Ismail Omar Guelleh.".

Piggy knows well that the US and its allies would not be able to call publicly 'regime change', the colossal mistakes of the previous regime changes are still lingering around.

But the media campaign and covert operation are already in full-swing, we will be discussing these issues later on....‘Yes Youth Can’?! means something for Piggy. otherwise he would not have said somebody is behind the opposition group.

Ce message a été modifié par labo22 - 04 janvier 2016 - 12:20 .

[labo22]

Congress has been quietly concerned over deteriorating human rights in a leading U.S. military base in the Middle East. Congressional sources said the Republican-controlled House and Senate have raised concerns over the prospect of major unrest in Djibouti,.....

[labo22]

labo22, le 10 January 2016 - 05:01 AM, dit :

Congress has been quietly concerned over deteriorating human rights in a leading U.S. military base in the Middle East. Congressional sources said the Republican-controlled House and Senate have raised concerns over the prospect of major unrest in Djibouti,.....

There is a reason why Western countries carefully word their disapproval behaviours of Djibouti Enterprise but they are very wary of insisting on regime change, simply because they are not only fearful of what may emerge, but also not jeopardize strategic interest.

Djibouti Enterprise by diversifying the range of state actors invested in Djibouti from a dependence on France in the late 1990s to the current group of countries, it has reduced its dependence on a single source of revenue; even if one investor pulls out in protest of government abuses, Djibouti's government still has access to a large pool of revenue. This position weakens the ability of any one country to push for reform.

Despite increasing authoritarianism, the Guelleh regime has not met with the condemnation that many other African nations receive from the West. Indeed, the US gov. has been virtually silent on the matter. The Department of State publishes Bilateral Relations Fact Sheets that list, among other things, impediments to democracy in different countries, and how the United States is helping to overcome them. The Fact Sheets for nine countries in East Africa and the Horn of Africa are revealing. Of the countries reviewed, seven made reference to democratic institutions, five referred to the human rights situation, five to governance and four to political and/or constitutional reform. The Fact Sheet for Djibouti, however, makes no mention of human rights, democratic institutions, or political and constitutional reform, and only makes passing reference to "governance challenges" representing a hindrance to economic growth.

The strategic importance attached to Western military bases in Djibouti goes a long way toward explaining the almost total lack of democratizing pressure from Western governments. If Western governments were to speak out against abuses by the Guelleh's poor governance or push for democratic reforms, there might be a risk of losing access to geo-strategically important military bases. Knowing the importance attached to these bases, any threat to withdraw aid or support will be viewed as threat by Djibouti Enterprise.

The Pentagon’s deputy assistant secretary for Africa underscored the importance of Camp Lemonnier to U.S. interests claiming the “[the base] is not an outpost in the middle of nowhere that is of marginal interest… this is a very important location in terms of U.S. interests, in terms of freedom of navigation, when it comes to power projection” (Whitlock 2012). President Obama reaffirmed the importance of Djibouti and President Guelleh for the United States in 2014, station that Camp Lemmonier is a “critical facility that we maintain in Djibouti” and that the United States “could not do it without [Guelleh’s] co-operation. We [the United States] are grateful for him agreeing for a long-term presence there” (Al Jazeera 2014).

the signing of new ten-year lease for Camp Lemmonier in 2014, Obama pledged more assistance for Djibouti’s armed forces and development aid to stimulate the economy (AL Jazeera 2014). Rather than having aid linked to the implementation of democratic reforms as it has been in many other African countries, the Unites States uses aid in Djibouti as a bargaining chip to secure leases for Camp Lemmonier.

High levels of corruption and patronage mean there are few incentives for the ruling elite to strengthen democratic institutions or implement democratic reform. With high levels of patronage and corruption, rent-seeking elites tend to work against the formation of strong institutions that might curb or curtail their access to easily corruptible revenue. This has been evident in Djibouti with the Guelleh regime’s systematic efforts to undermine the establishment of a strong judiciary, legislature, media, and other institutions that could hold the government accountable. Meanwhile, by depriving the education system of funds and doing little to reverse the under-development experienced by much of the population, the ruling elite stymies the development of an educated and empowered populace. Large volumes of easily corruptible rents combined with a strong patronage network reinforce these structures and, in turn, Guelleh’s grip on power.

Ce message a été modifié par labo22 - 12 janvier 2016 - 04:51 .

[labo22]

Why Djibouti is exempted from International Pressure for Democratic Reform?

Levitsky and Way argue that in the post-Cold War environment, regimes move toward or away from competitive authoritarianism largely in response to external influences (2010, 43-44). Since the 1980s, Western governments have tried to pressure many African regimes into instituting liberal democratic reforms through different measures, which includes making the implementation of such reforms a precondition for mobilizing Western development assistance (Aust and Jaspers 2006, 25). In other cases, Western governments have vigorously condemned the authoritarian actions of African regimes.
Despite increasing authoritarianism, the Guelleh regime has not met with the censure that many other African nations receive from the West. Indeed, the USG has been virtually silent on the matter. For example, the Department of State publishes Bilateral Relations Fact Sheets that list, among other things, impediments to democracy in different countries, and how the United States is helping to overcome them. The Fact Sheets for nine countries in East Africa and the Horn of Africa are revealing. Of the countries reviewed, seven made reference to democratic institutions, five referred to the human rights situation, five to governance and four to political and/or constitutional reform. The Fact Sheet for Djibouti, however, makes no mention of human rights, democratic institutions, or political and constitutional reform, and only makes passing reference to "governance challenges" representing a hindrance to economic growth. While the U.S. Department of State draws attention to the use of excessive force in Djibouti, including torture by security forces, harsh prison conditions, arbitrary arrest, and prolonged pretrial detention, there is no evidence of any department official condemning such acts or criticizing the regime's human rights record (U.S. Department of State 2011). Even the expulsion of the U.S. based Democracy International failed to provoke a strong reaction from Washington. This lends support to claims by groups operating in Djibouti that the Guelleh regime counts on the United States 'for backup or to turn a blind eye' to such abuses (Brass 2008, 526).
The United States and other Western governments have been almost silent on Djibouti’s reversion to full-scale authoritarianism. An examination of the U.S. presence in Djibouti sheds light on the reasons for this silence. Statements by President Obama and the Pentagon indicate that since 2001 and the establishment of the military base at Camp Lemmonnier, Djibouti has become central to security interests. The United States appears unwilling to risk continued access to the base by condemning Guelleh’s heavy-handed tactics. Instead, the Unites States chooses either to turn a blind eye or support the regime while the ruling elites line their pockets with high rents and substantial amounts of foreign aid. This lack of Western censure has enabled the Guelleh regime to implement increasingly repressive and authoritarian policies. Moreover, given the relatively public nature of foreign covert military operations in Djibouti, including the use of a civilian airstrip for the launch of drones, the Unites States and other Western actors may actually prefer working with low levels of accountability.

Ce message a été modifié par labo22 - 20 janvier 2016 - 04:24 .