UN Traces Missiles that Hit Belarusian Aircraft to Eritrea
Friday, 19 March 2010 08:24 Asmarino Editorial
Below is a report by Matt Schroeder on how the UN traced the downing of a Belarusian aircraft to two SA-18 Igla shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles provided by Eritrea. But before we do that, we would like to put this finding within its proper context to underscore how much the Eritrean regime has become a threat both to its people and the region.
The proper context by Asmarino Editorial
In Nov 28, 2002, two SA-7 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles were fired by Al-Qaeda operatives at an Israeli Arkia aircraft that took off from Nairobi (Kenya) airport, carrying 261 passengers and 10 crew members. Even though the missiles were fired from a range of two kilometers, the aircraft was unharmed and managed to make it all the way to Tel Aviv, Israel. Had it been the SA-18 Igla, a more sophisticated weapon and one that has about 5 kilometers range, it most certainly would have downed the aircraft, killing 271 people. If so, it would have been one of the most successful operatives of Al Qaeda and a tragedy to Israel. The point is this: Eritrea has been providing the terrorist group Al Shabaab with sophisticated shoulder fired missiles that even Al Qaeda itself didn’t have. Now that Al Shabaab has become an Al Qaeda affiliate, it is easy to imagine these easily portable missiles being used in major airports. This is especially true in cases of Nairobi and Addis-Ababa, where Somali insurgents could easily infiltrate given the proximity and large Somali populations in both Kenya and Ethiopia.
What makes the Eritrean case unique among terror-sponsoring nations is that it is lead by an immensely stupid regime that doesn’t know where to stop. For instance, in the 30 years war of liberation, the Arabs – especially Iraq, Syria and Libya – were providing arms to the Eritrean Fronts. Yet, there is not a single case where they provided shoulder-fired missiles. That is to say, even in support, the Arab nations knew where to draw the line. They didn’t want to be held liable if any one of the Fronts used such a missile to down an Ethiopian or any other Airliner from Asmara or Addis-Ababa airports. Not so in the case of the Eritrean Regime. In its scorched earth approach, it provides a notorious Islamist group with all the sophisticated weapons it has without figuring the long range consequences of such an act. What about if either Al Shabaab itself or any other Al Qaeda group is to use one of these missiles to down an Airliner outside Somalia? If it is an Ethiopia Airliner, it would surely lead to war. And if it is a western Airliner, it would surely lead for a more stringent sanction, at minimum, and a call for regime change, at maximum.
One of the reasons why the Eritrean regime is so confident in its dealings with the terrorist organization Al Shabaab is that it believes it goes against the interests of Al Shabbab to put Eritrea in such a predicament. They don’t seem to have learned a lesson from Sept 11 event, where a terrorist organization – Al Qaeda – put its host nation, Afghanistan, into an existential risk. Besides, Eritrea is not Al Shabaab’s ideological ally; strategic alliances are of temporary nature and easy to break. For instance, if the late reports are to be believed, it seems Eritrea’s help is shifting from Al Shabaab to Hizb Al Islam. If this leads to a total break up of the relationship, then there would no inhibition from the Al Shabab side on what for and where to use these missiles. But, above all, it is the idea that the Eritrean regime has more sway than Al Qaeda over Al Shabaab that is amusing. If Al Qaeda wants these missiles, their ideologically partners will surely comply; one shouldn’t try to find logic behind dogma.
…………………………………………………………………………..
Below are the reports from Matt Schroeder:
New Information on Somali MANPADS
Arms Trade, Man-portable Air Defense Systems, Matt Schroeder, Somalia
The latest report from the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia contains additional information about the shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles used by Islamic insurgents to shoot down a Belarusian cargo aircraft in March. Below is an excerpt from the UN report:
On 23 March 2007, at approximately 1700 hours, an IL-76 cargo plane belonging to Transaviaexport, a Belarusian company, was shot down after a missile fired by Shabaab fighters hit the left wing. The plane, with 11 crewmembers and passengers, was hit at low altitude following take-off. It had earlier delivered logistics and spare parts for another aircraft that had made an emergency landing at Mogadishu International Airport. The missile used to shoot down the plane was an SA-18 (MANPAD, Man Portable Air Defence System). The SA-18 was reported to be part of a consignment of six SA-18s that had been delivered by Eritrea to ICU/Shabaab. Two missiles were fired at the plane; one hit the target and the other missed. The Monitoring Group showed the Committee a video of the actual firing of the missile, during the midterm briefing on 27 April 2007.
Written by Matt Schroeder \\ tags: arms trafficking, manpads, Somalia,
Missile Watch: Somalia
Arms Trade, Man-portable Air Defense Systems, Matt Schroeder, Somalia
The latest report of the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia sheds new light on the SA-18 Igla missiles illicitly acquired by armed Somali groups in recent years. Since 2006, UN investigators and journalists working in Somalia have documented the transfer of dozens, possibly hundreds, of shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles to Islamic insurgents. The missiles range in sophistication from the relatively primitive SA-7b Strela to the third generation SA-18 Igla. In March 2007, two SA-18s were used to shoot down a Belarusian Ilyushin-76 cargo plane shortly after it departed from Mogadishu airport. All eleven crew members were killed.
Missile Watch No. 2: Somalia
Arms Trade, Man-portable Air Defense Systems, Matt Schroeder, Somalia
CNN and AFP are reporting that the Shabaab, a militant wing of a Somali insurgent group, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), has threatened to treat “as an enemy combatant” any plane that attempts to land at Mogadishu Airport. According to AFP, the threat, which was posted on the Internet, was confirmed by Shabaab leader Mukhtar Robow. The web posting reportedly includes a list of grievances used to justify the threat, including the airport’s use by “Ugandan and Bulgarian mercenaries,” money generated by the airport for the Ethiopian government, and harassment of “Somali religious personalities” by “US and Israeli secret services…” The warnings are accompanied by a graphic of a man pointing a shoulder-fired missile at a plane as it is landing.
The threat is not to be taken lightly. Last year, the FAS identified Somalia as one of three MANPADS proliferation hotspots worldwide in response to numerous reports of illicit missile activity, most of which involved the ICU and the Shabaab. In 2006, UN investigators identified at least six shipments of MANPADS and other weapons to the violent Insurgent group, including a shipment of “50 units” of ”shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles and second generation infrared-guided anti-tank weapons” from Eritrea, “45 units” of surface-to-air missiles from Iran, and three surface-to-air missiles from Syria. In each case, the missiles were part of larger arms shipments that also included dozens of assault rifles, machine guns, and other small arms and light weapons. The Associated Press later reported that the ICU had received 200 shoulder-fired missiles from Eritrea alone.
In March 2007, the Islamists fired two advanced SA-18 missiles at a Belarussian cargo aircraft as it was departing from Mogadishu International Airport. One of the missiles hit the plane, causing it to crash and killing all eleven people on board. UN investigators later concluded that the missiles used in the attack were part of a consignment of six SA-18s acquired from Eritrea. This summer, the UN traced another SA-18 found in Somalia back to a batch of Russian missiles that were shipped to Eritrea in 1995. The Eritrean government denies allegations that it provides missiles and other weapons to the ICU.
Many veterans of the Revolutionary Democrats, particularly the senior leaders from the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM), have not been enlisted to run for either the regional councils or the
Federal Parliament. From Sebhat Nega to Mulugeta Alemseged and Teklewoyni Assefa to Debretsion Gebremichael (all council members of the TPLF), many have been left out from the list of candidates their organisation has fielded for the forthcoming national elections. This move is seen by political pundits as the start of a succession process that the incumbent recently said it would embark upon, with a three-phase process taking five years. The other mass of departures from the electoral game is seen at the top leadership of the ANDM, where the four most prominent veterans of the armed struggle - Addisu Legesse, Bereket Simon, Tefera Walwa and Taddese (Tinkishu) Kassa - were all dropped out of the electoral contest. It is interesting to note that little of this unprecedented political development is observed with the other junior parties in the ruling coalition, the Oromia People’s Democratic Organisation (OPDO) and the South Ethiopian Peoples’ Democratic Movement (SEPDM). With the exception of Kuma Demekssa, whose mayoral position in Addis Abeba would not allow him to run now, all the executive committee members of the ruling EPRDF, representing the OPDO, have made it onto the list. The case is no different with their comrades in the south. Above are identified members of the EPRDF’s Executive Committee who are listed to run for the election (green colour) and those opted out from the electoral debacle (red)!
Full story: Addis Fortune
If every able voter has watched the 2010 election debates, I am sure he/she has grasped some ideas about what the post election period will be. The debates may have inspired many while at the same time they may have brought some dilemma on how to conduct a smooth transition that rewards votes to the party that really deserves them. It has been evident from the inception that the opposition parties have the double load of overcoming the heavy handed influence of the EPRDF by proving they are better suited to serve the country. As one of the ruling party's spokesmen and some opposition candidates stressed, the main goal of conducting an election is to bring about a better party to leading the country. If it is all about bickering and self aggrandizement, then elections wouldn't be necessary. In spite of all the uniform belief about the positive contributions of voting for a deservedly capable candidate, history tells us that unpredictable things can happen. One promising attitude from observing the debates is that there is a common understanding that this time it won't even closely resemble the 2005 election which resulted not only in a disaster but also nearly polarized the country.
The lessons learned from the debates is that all sides have made clear they meant business. The opposition have notable differences among each other but mostly the over all distinction from the ruling party is identified in the debates. What unifies the opposition parties is their shared commonality about the conducts of the ruling party in terms of adopting revolutionary democracy as the sole resolve for the country's future prospect. Some underscored the initial socialist orientation of the ruling party with-hard-to-deny facts that it has come a long way from that ideology by conforming its policies to changing realities in the country. To be fair, before the end of the cold war, it could be said the direction of the country's future that was oriented toward socialism heavily reflected in the working agendas of the rebels as well as those who were against them. As Mr. Redewan said, it is the ability to learn and make speedy internal transformation that counts. The other point noted by the opposition, if elected is the promise they like to make the supreme law of the nation above every one. They unanimously criticize the regime for acting as if it is above the law in the policies it acquires toward adding new rules, in some cases overnight, to challenge its opponents. The ruling party mostly shrugs this claim aside by stressing its action is the result of implementing the policies of revolutionary democracy whenever it believes the challenge is a destabilizing factor.
My hope is, this debate has and will improve the democratic culture of the population in conducting a smooth election, in which case it will have brought the understanding that there shouldn't be any surprises in any outcome, and it definitely shouldn't be a surprise if the incumbent party wins, as they should be given credit for making this possible. The most important goal of the election season should be making the future brighter.
Posts
