Farmaajo's state visit reception in Cairo

Status
Not open for further replies.
@gurey @Cadmus
Eritrea Denies Targeting Ethiopia Dam as Egyptian Ties Deepen
May 22, 2017
75
3060


Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Reservoir
Advertisement
By Samuel Gebre

Bloomberg – Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki denied his country’s deepening relations with Egypt signify plans to disrupt neighboring Ethiopia’s construction of Africa’s biggest hydropower dam.

“The claim by the Ethiopian regime that the relation between Eritrea and Egypt is targeting the millennium dam is unfounded,” the Ministry of Information said on its website, citing a May 21 interview with Isaias in the capital, Asmara.

Egypt’s government has claimed Ethiopia’s construction of the hydropower dam on the main tributary of the Nile River contravenes colonial-era treaties that grant it the right to the bulk of the river’s water. Ethiopian officials reject the accords as obsolete and unjust. The plant, being built at a cost of $6.4 billion, is scheduled for completion next year and will produce as much as 6,450 megawatts of power.

Isaias traveled to Cairo in November to meet Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, when the two discussed deepening relations, the Cairo-based Daily News Egyptnewspaper reported.

Ethiopia’s government has said forces receiving support from Egypt and Eritrea are trying to destabilize the country. In October, Communications Minister Getachew Reda said the banned Oromo Liberation Front received financing and trainingfrom Egypt. In March, Ethiopian security forces killed 13 members of a rebel group that the government said had crossed into the country from Eritrea.

Eritrea achieved independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after decades of armed struggle. The two countries fought again in 1998-2000 over the disputed territory of Badme on their border in a conflict that left at least 50,000 people dead.
 

Abdalla

Medical specialist in diagnosing Majeerteentitis
Prof.Dr.Eng.
VIP
I just watched the whole thing. Beautiful stuff wallahi. Whatever we all argue about on here and beyond, President Farmaajo is who the world uses to represent us, until we sort out all inter-regional issues. All our dignity is carried by that man, even if each regional President (governor) believes he's at the top of the food chain. He carries himself with honor.
That's why I always advocate for a power-sharing framework. The SFG should take initiative and facilitate a comprehensive division of tasks. Until then it's everyone for themselves, nobody is going to wait for the SFG to catch up.

It seems like you guys are penning the SFG against the federal states. I haven't heard the SFG condemning any action of a FS president. Aside from the loser Osoble, the SFG has a great understanding with the FS. By calling the presidents of the federal states 'governors' you're undermining and downplaying their significance.
 
The only way for Egypt to stop the dam is by bombing it, which will only work if they are close enough to Ethiopia to do so. Somalia is too far from the dam (border with Sudan) to bomb. Egypt has already given up on the dam as they know it will only ruin their image and cause a rift between all Nile river countries/world. They have been defeated diplomatically and are now in the process of negotiating the fair share of the Nile resource between Ethiopia and Sudan.

Plus they already have a military base in Eritrea.
 
That's why I always advocate for a power-sharing framework. The SFG should take initiative and facilitate a comprehensive division of tasks. Until then it's everyone for themselves, nobody is going to wait for the SFG to catch up.

It seems like you guys are penning the SFG against the federal states. I haven't heard the SFG condemning any action of a FS president. Aside from the loser Osoble, the SFG has a great understanding with the FS. By calling the presidents of the federal states 'governors' you're undermining and downplaying their significance.
Who's "you guys?" I'm confused about this part.

The FGS won't come out and condemn anyone directly, because everyone from the qabil of the regional president will turn against the FGS. We are an ignorant nation, in love with politics, yet ignorant of political mechanism's and tactful behavior as a united nation.

I'm not personally pinning anyone against anyone. Legally, which is what international politics runs on, is from where I speak.

Even if my regional leader is himself only a governor, that's something that HE'S accepted and agreed to by signing the federal constitutional agreements, as i'm sure the sultans and ugaas' etc have also signed.

I am NOT my regional leader, even if he's from my qabil. His actions are his, and I don't have to defend him against anyone.

We need to stop equating a regional leader with a neo-sultan, a modern representative of specific qabils.

So you understand, that i'm not posting from a point of emotion here but from a perspective of International Politics, let's understand the legal and de facto understanding and definitions of a few key words, so you can see that i'm not involving emotions.

The legal title of President, is one who has supreme executive power and isn't answerable to any higher authority within his country.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/president
president noun

(the title given to) the person who has the highest political position in acountry that is a republic and who, in some of these countries, is the leader of the government:

President Kennedy
the president of France

No regional leader has this power. Silanyo and Gaas, in the eyes of international law, have the same limited executive power.

A regional FS is a state, but not a nation state, or in its proper term in international law, a sovereign state

"
A sovereign state is, in international law, a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] "

No FS president has complete sovereignty over his state. I'm not trying to antagonize anyone and i'm saying this with all due respect.
I deal with facts, not opinions when it comes to this area.


It doesn't matter what we call them, or what they call themselves. International law is black and white. There's no gray area.
 

Nice welcome. But how does he reconcile the clear contradiction in his foreign policy? Egypt is an big ally to KSA/UAE but also a has very bad diplomatic relations to Somalia's biggest ally: Turkey.
Well it's not really an issue if the Egyptians invited him anyways.


Somalia has nothing to do with petty gulf drama and it should stay that way.
 
Not to mention that they were historical allies with us, truly in the long run this was very naive. Who cares about how righteous you are or your image? In the end what matters is Somalia and her interests. Now we alienated the GCC meaning we have more adversaries to wreak havoc within the peninsula now.
They've never cared about us, they use to deport Somali habro and ayeyos back to wartorn Somalia while gaalo western countries would take them and give them a new life. Nothing changed for us for the better until turkey came around if were being honest.
 
The only way for Egypt to stop the dam is by bombing it, which will only work if they are close enough to Ethiopia to do so. Somalia is too far from the dam (border with Sudan) to bomb. Egypt has already given up on the dam as they know it will only ruin their image and cause a rift between all Nile river countries/world. They have been defeated diplomatically and are now in the process of negotiating the fair share of the Nile resource between Ethiopia and Sudan.

Plus they already have a military base in Eritrea.
Right on cue. Hi SUPERFAN, thanks for the ego-boost!

1. Egypt has agreements with ALL the countries in the Arab league, to stop the dam at all cost.

2. So....Modern bombers are only capable of a 1 hour flight..?? :deadrose::drakelaugh:
Go back to school, you're inadequate education betrays you. Even 4th graders learn about mileages, i.e How long will it take train A to reach point B etc.
Moronic willful ignorance.

3. Egypt has been defeated diplomatically?
Egypt is militarily the strongest superpower in Africa and the middle east.
They have Saudi Arabia by the balls, due to shared interests.
They have Trump by the balls, due to Americans wanting to protect Israel and even give them $3 billion every year to not pop off on Israel (4 times less than what your useless country receives.)

4. There will be NO negotiation, because the Dam will cut minimum 40% of the Nile river
It's Volume will be‎: ‎10,200,000 m3. You're dumber than dumb, if you believe Egypt will allow you to do that.

Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan have named two French firms -- Artelia and BRL -- to carry out a series of studies to assess the dam’s anticipated impact on the Nile River, which winds its way through all three countries.

Ethiopia, however, has refused to suspend the dam’s construction while the impact studies are being conducted.

At a Thursday press conference in Khartoum, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shokri called for the “honest implementation” of earlier commitments -- agreed to by the three countries involved -- regarding the dam’s construction, which, he said, must be carried out in line with international law.
This is why President Farmaajo is in Egypt right now. Good luck, to the soon to be history tplf.

You're wecome Superfan.
 
Why is Somalia vital to Egypt's survival?
Because the Somali coastlines allow access for the Egyptian and Arab league naval fleets, to send tomahawks etc from behind the Dam, which will fracture it gradually before the dam has been filled up. If this were to happen, than the habashi would stop all building activities and focus solely on exhausting their little foreign reserve currency to fight Egypt, with an expected outcome of state collapse before a full hot war can commence.

This is the preferred method by the GCC, which allows Khartoum to be saved in the process.
 
Last edited:
They've never cared about us, they use to deport Somali habro and ayeyos back to wartorn Somalia while gaalo western countries would take them and give them a new life. Nothing changed for us for the better until turkey came around if were being honest.
The FGS will milk them for what it's worth, since they need us so badly. This is the thinking of the FGS, to get a new military from them as they already have huge surpluses.
 

Abdalla

Medical specialist in diagnosing Majeerteentitis
Prof.Dr.Eng.
VIP
Why is Somalia vital to Egypt's survival?
Who's "you guys?" I'm confused about this part.

The FGS won't come out and condemn anyone directly, because everyone from the qabil of the regional president will turn against the FGS. We are an ignorant nation, in love with politics, yet ignorant of political mechanism's and tactful behavior as a united nation.

I'm not personally pinning anyone against anyone. Legally, which is what international politics runs on, is from where I speak.

Even if my regional leader is himself only a governor, that's something that HE'S accepted and agreed to by signing the federal constitutional agreements, as i'm sure the sultans and ugaas' etc have also signed.

I am NOT my regional leader, even if he's from my qabil. His actions are his, and I don't have to defend him against anyone.

We need to stop equating a regional leader with a neo-sultan, a modern representative of specific qabils.

So you understand, that i'm not posting from a point of emotion here but from a perspective of International Politics, let's understand the legal and de facto understanding and definitions of a few key words, so you can see that i'm not involving emotions.

The legal title of President, is one who has supreme executive power and isn't answerable to any higher authority within his country.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/president
president noun

(the title given to) the person who has the highest political position in acountry that is a republic and who, in some of these countries, is the leader of the government:

President Kennedy
the president of France

No regional leader has this power. Silanyo and Gaas, in the eyes of international law, have the same limited executive power.

A regional FS is a state, but not a nation state, or in its proper term in international law, a sovereign state

"
A sovereign state is, in international law, a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] "

No FS president has complete sovereignty over his state. I'm not trying to antagonize anyone and i'm saying this with all due respect.
I deal with facts, not opinions when it comes to this area.


It doesn't matter what we call them, or what they call themselves. International law is black and white. There's no gray area.
'You guys' are the anti-federalism people, mainly people from Mogadishu. Why do you guys focus on nonsensical issues as titles? I remember the talks between galmudug and ahlu sunnah failed because they couldn't agree on which name to use. Always focussing on the semantics never on the real issue. Since your entire post was about the word president, let me remind you that the heads of federal states in Ethiopia are called presidents, same goes for Switzerland as they have several presidents, the leader of a federal state in Germany is called minister president. I am very curious what article in 'international law' stipulates who should be called what?

If we get back to our inititial discussion about the division of tasks and power-sharing formula between the SFG and FS. I use to think that the issue of foreign policy was a terrain of the SFG. But the recent gulf issue illustrated that Somali regions don't even have the same interests and that the SFG foreign policy doesn't represent the interests of other regions. Perhaps the SFG sovereignty should be limited to fiscal policies and defense policy.
 
Right on cue. Hi SUPERFAN, thanks for the ego-boost!

1. Egypt has agreements with ALL the countries in the Arab league, to stop the dam at all cost.

2. So....Modern bombers are only capable of a 1 hour flight..?? :deadrose::drakelaugh:
Go back to school, you're inadequate education betrays you. Even 4th graders learn about mileages, i.e How long will it take train A to reach point B etc.
Moronic willful ignorance.

3. Egypt has been defeated diplomatically?
Egypt is militarily the strongest superpower in Africa and the middle east.
They have Saudi Arabia by the balls, due to shared interests.
They have Trump by the balls, due to Americans wanting to protect Israel and even give them $3 billion every year to not pop off on Israel (4 times less than what your useless country receives.)

4. There will be NO negotiation, because the Dam will cut minimum 40% of the Nile river
It's Volume will be‎: ‎10,200,000 m3. You're dumber than dumb, if you believe Egypt will allow you to do that.



This is why President Farmaajo is in Egypt right now. Good luck, to the soon to be history tplf.

You're wecome Superfan.
You're an idiot for thinking it's a one hour flight in the first place, so maybe you should go back to school? Jets unlike most other planes use large amounts of fuel and can only travel internationally through refueling in the air which is tricky and heavily risky. Why do you think Egypt originally asked Sudan if they could use their airfields to launch the attack? You should really stop talking out of your butt and start to think before you blabber with your useless rant.

Here's one article of many talking about the signing of the pact. https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL6N0WP1ZA20150323


"KHARTOUM, March 23 (Reuters) - Leaders from Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan signed a cooperation deal on Monday over a giant Ethiopian hydroelectric dam on a tributary of the river Nile, in a bid to ease tensions over regional water supplies"

So yes they have already given up on outright bombing the dam. They are now discussing on the timeframe of filling the dam. The impact assessment of the dam has already shown that if Egypt decreased its reserves at the Aswan dam and let Ethiopia store the water it would increase the total amount of water Egypt can utilize, as much of the water is lost in the high heat of the Aswan dam.

Keep trying though.
 
You're an idiot for thinking it's a one hour flight in the first place, so maybe you should go back to school? Jets unlike most other planes use large amounts of fuel and can only travel internationally through refueling in the air which is tricky and heavily risky. Why do you think Egypt originally asked Sudan if they could use their airfields to launch the attack? You should really stop talking out of your butt and start to think before you blabber with your useless rant.

Here's one article of many talking about the signing of the pact. https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL6N0WP1ZA20150323


"KHARTOUM, March 23 (Reuters) - Leaders from Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan signed a cooperation deal on Monday over a giant Ethiopian hydroelectric dam on a tributary of the river Nile, in a bid to ease tensions over regional water supplies"

So yes they have already given up on outright bombing the dam. They are now discussing on the timeframe of filling the dam. The impact assessment of the dam has already shown that if Egypt decreased its reserves at the Aswan dam and let Ethiopia store the water it would increase the total amount of water Egypt can utilize, as much of the water is lost in the high heat of the Aswan dam.

Keep trying though.

Dumb man Egypt already made alliances with South Sudan president to help him to stop the rebels and Egyptians are present in South Sudan.
 
Dumb man Egypt already made alliances with South Sudan president to help him to stop the rebels and Egyptians are present in South Sudan.
You litterally read three sentences and commented, try to read the rest. South Sudan has already signed a MOU with Ethiopia and are signatories of the Nile initiative.
 
Last edited:
He wasn't neutral but actually sided with Qatar. Egypt could be an ally against Ethiopia, UAE trains and finances some security forces in Xamar and KSA is our biggest market. I truly don't understand how this could be a difficult choice. Turkey wouldn't pressure Farmaajo to side with Qatar. Turkey has a long term foreign policy vision for Somalia and wouldn't be sidetracked by Arab drama.
The most just position is the neutral position IF he was truely neutral!

but farmaajo campain donation and "bribes" he paid the mp's with came from Qatar. His Chief of Staff is a former Qatari aljeezra journalist.

It's a mess I personally would have weight up the pro's and cons and would have went with the evil SA/UAE group just to be pragmatic.

But I would have done it brudgelny as I hate the corrupt UAE.

So far going with qatar has shown us litte economicly.
 

Von

With blood and Iron will we reach the fatherland
The only way for Egypt to stop the dam is by bombing it, which will only work if they are close enough to Ethiopia to do so. Somalia is too far from the dam (border with Sudan) to bomb. Egypt has already given up on the dam as they know it will only ruin their image and cause a rift between all Nile river countries/world. They have been defeated diplomatically and are now in the process of negotiating the fair share of the Nile resource between Ethiopia and Sudan.

Plus they already have a military base in Eritrea.
You're an idiot for thinking it's a one hour flight in the first place, so maybe you should go back to school? Jets unlike most other planes use large amounts of fuel and can only travel internationally through refueling in the air which is tricky and heavily risky. Why do you think Egypt originally asked Sudan if they could use their airfields to launch the attack? You should really stop talking out of your butt and start to think before you blabber with your useless rant.

Here's one article of many talking about the signing of the pact. https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL6N0WP1ZA20150323


"KHARTOUM, March 23 (Reuters) - Leaders from Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan signed a cooperation deal on Monday over a giant Ethiopian hydroelectric dam on a tributary of the river Nile, in a bid to ease tensions over regional water supplies"

So yes they have already given up on outright bombing the dam. They are now discussing on the timeframe of filling the dam. The impact assessment of the dam has already shown that if Egypt decreased its reserves at the Aswan dam and let Ethiopia store the water it would increase the total amount of water Egypt can utilize, as much of the water is lost in the high heat of the Aswan dam.

Keep trying though.
Haha frameworks? treaties? i think you've missed the class on the 'art of FP', it's not about promises it's about capability. will Ethiopia control a large amount of water that flows and is the life blood of Egypt, yes. Will Ethiopia use it to ... idk get Egypt to change its policies on certain matters, if I was Ethiopians I would use the dam for all its worth. I mean if Egypt didn't do as I say, a simple threat to cut the water supply is all it takes. The dam will cut into Egypt's very sovereignty.
 
'You guys' are the anti-federalism people, mainly people from Mogadishu. Why do you guys focus on nonsensical issues as titles? I remember the talks between galmudug and ahlu sunnah failed because they couldn't agree on which name to use. Always focussing on the semantics never on the real issue. Since your entire post was about the word president, let me remind you that the heads of federal states in Ethiopia are called presidents, same goes for Switzerland as they have several presidents, the leader of a federal state in Germany is called minister president. I am very curious what article in 'international law' stipulates who should be called what?

If we get back to our inititial discussion about the division of tasks and power-sharing formula between the SFG and FS. I use to think that the issue of foreign policy was a terrain of the SFG. But the recent gulf issue illustrated that Somali regions don't even have the same interests and that the SFG foreign policy doesn't represent the interests of other regions. Perhaps the SFG sovereignty should be limited to fiscal policies and defense policy.
1. I didn't say anything about what regional leaders HAVE to be called. I gave you specific definition of titles and words that ALL regional leaders use, it's not my fault that they lack knowledge of its true meaning on the international stage.

2. I'm not an anti-federalist. I preferre one nation, with one president and one government with a certain amount of devolution and autonomy for the local regions, but ignorant Somalis love to crusade for their qabil (being driven by crude emotions as opposed to logic.) So since we can't have a civilized country with one leader, because every sub sub clan wants to be put on a pedestal next to President Farmaajo, than a federal system will have to do.
My problem though, is with local regional leaders who don't know their place. They scheme and try to sabotage the entire Somali nation, just so they can be seen as a legitimate power by the inhabitants in their own regions. If true federalism is to work, than ALL regional leaders should know their position in life, when international law sees them as nothing but glorified district mayors. If this wasn't the case, 80's of the FGS problems wouldn't exist.

The difference here, is that each regional president represents mainly the interest of his own qabil and at most the qabils in the outer periphery of his own.
The president of the FGS represents and is SWORN to protect and serve every single Somali, even if he's a cosmonaut serving on Mars. And all the other nations know this, so the show him that respect that he deserves accordingly, such as above in Egypt.

There's a regional mindset, and than there's a global mindset.
 
You litterally read three sentences and commented, try to read the rest. South Sudan has already signed a MOU with Ethiopia and are signatories of the Nile initiative.
MOUs are not legally binding in international law. habashi are dumb enough to believe that an MOU is enforceable with relations to military jurisdiction. What she's saying is true.
 

Abdalla

Medical specialist in diagnosing Majeerteentitis
Prof.Dr.Eng.
VIP
1. I didn't say anything about what regional leaders HAVE to be called. I gave you specific definition of titles and words that ALL regional leaders use, it's not my fault that they lack knowledge of its true meaning on the international stage.

2. I'm not an anti-federalist. I preferre one nation, with one president and one government with a certain amount of devolution and autonomy for the local regions, but ignorant Somalis love to crusade for their qabil (being driven by crude emotions as opposed to logic.) So since we can't have a civilized country with one leader, because every sub sub clan wants to be put on a pedestal next to President Farmaajo, than a federal system will have to do.
My problem though, is with local regional leaders who don't know their place. They scheme and try to sabotage the entire Somali nation, just so they can be seen as a legitimate power by the inhabitants in their own regions. If true federalism is to work, than ALL regional leaders should know their position in life, when international law sees them as nothing but glorified district mayors. If this wasn't the case, 80's of the FGS problems wouldn't exist.

The difference here, is that each regional president represents mainly the interest of his own qabil and at most the qabils in the outer periphery of his own.
The president of the FGS represents and is SWORN to protect and serve every single Somali, even if he's a cosmonaut serving on Mars. And all the other nations know this, so the show him that respect that he deserves accordingly, such as above in Egypt.

There's a regional mindset, and than there's a global mindset.
I boldened the points I want to ask you about. You say we should be logical and that the SF presidents don't know their place. What is their role/place then according to the constitution?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trending

Top