U.S. Shutdown Somalia's Internet.

[DanS]

"you seem to keep forgetting this isn’t just about Al-Barakat, it’s about the country in which the firm is situated and their role in ensuring income to the country"

Not in my view. It's quite simply about al Barakat and its support of al Qaeda. While you want to help Somalia, you're only hurting Somalis (both in-country and emigres sending money home) by allowing this fronting of al Qaeda to persist at a private firm.

"Secondly, does Saudi Arabia’s and Pakistan’s cooperation compensate for the fact there wouldn’t be a Taliban without Pakistan’s support as there wouldn’t be an Al-Qaeda without Saudi Arabia support? Who plays with fire... right?"

Saudi Arabia lost billions of dollars on 9/11 and an incalculable amount of good will on this side of the pond. There have been very vocal calls to break the long-standing alliance. And what do you think we're doing talking with the Russians about oil, just when a price war with OPEC is in the offing?

There is a lot of speculation that the Pakistani regime will not survive the winter. Also, undoubtedly the people of Pakistan, already in a precarious situation and near destitution, are suffering economically because of 9/11.

I don't know if "compensate" is quite the way to look at it, but they are paying and will continue to pay for this support.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Colon
Dan, first of all, you seem to keep forgetting this isn’t just about Al-Barakat, it’s about the country in which the firm is situated and their role in ensuring income to the country.

If we shut down an illegal activity, is it our responsability to set up a replacement? Or the responsibility of the market?

What if this were just a company that was half "legitimate" and half Belgian smuggling (my taxi-driver friends have given me the skinny on those.)

And how did we shut it down, anyway. We can only take action on funds that are in the US, right? It's not like we waltzed into Somalia and told them to stop everything.


What if this company can only exist as a going concern with Bin Ladin support? (It does make you wonder that no replacement/competition springs up...)

[Lefty Scaevola]

Is case any of you have not thought about this in a larger context. Somalia, with the most Al Quaeda camps after Afghanistan, is a likely target in the war against international terroism. We are very likely to be doing a lot more there than shutting down money transfers.

[TCO]

If so, we'll have new threads for that...

[Colon™]

GP, Dan, (sorry for lumping you together but parts of my posts apply to both of you)

This is going to be my last post in this discussion after this one because I don’t have time for this right now and I don’t really see any point in it either. I’ve given my view and (Dan) you’ve given yours, I think they’re both valid and any further debate would essentially be a rehash or stray off.

Now, regarding the hits SA and Pakistan received. I don’t think you can compare the loss of Western goodwill and the threat of greater competition in the oil market with stuff like diplomatic exile, trade embargoes or bombing campaigns other countries received.
Sure Both countries received blows but is it in proportion with the role they’ve played, and that compared to that of Somalia?

US dropped all sanctions related to Pakistan nuclear tests and the country got the Western credit spigots re-opened, which sort of cancels out the negative economic effects. Since the Pakistani Rupee is back at the level it was before 11 September and the stock exchange stands even much higher, the markets seem to agree. Pakistan also lost the pariah status they had since the military coup. The war won’t last forever, so all in all it’s more of a suspended punishment they’ve got.
And there isn't any guarantee that the Wahhabi sect or Saudi businessmen won’t continue support terrorists after an interlude of several years.

You seem pretty certain about Al-Barakat relations with Al-Qaeda but that isn’t a settled issue since there hasn't been trial. Suspicion doesn’t equal fact.

The company’s main business is international remittance, postal and telephone services and when you put such a company on list of organisation linked with Al-Qaeda you could indeed just as well waltzed into the country since not one country or company unwilling to offend US wants to have the slightest association with terrorists.
Besides, US’ regional ally, Ethiopia, which contains a large Somali diaspora, has been cracking down on all illegal remittance companies (meaning all that use hawala) in country that transfer money to Somalia as well.

There are competitors in Somalia, but non of them is nearly as big and they rely on al-Barakat’s communications infrastructure. If Deutsche Bank’s and Deutsche Telekom’s foreign assets are closed and contracts terminated from one day to the other, you don’t expect the competition in Germany to fill the gap instantly either because it simply doesn’t have the means for that. And, according to UN humanitarian workers in Somalia, money transfers into Somalia have indeed plunged in the aftermath of the listing. (by half, they estimate)

[DanS]

A rehash article of what we've been discussing to be published in tomorrow's Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36303-2001Nov29.html

...and another laying out OBL's MO...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36432-2001Nov29.html