Posts Tagged ‘U.N.’


Eritrea embassy in Kenya pays jihadists

September 13, 2011

A follow-up from the U.N.’s monitoring group’s report on the Horn of Africa has crossed our path.  According to this article from the East African on Aug. 7, Eritrea is an active state sponsor of al-Shabaab’s terror, and it uses its embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, to distribute funds to jihadi operatives:

The bad boy of the Horn of Africa: How Eritrea’s strongman uses Kenya as a terror finance hub

In early July, as Kenya’s President Mwai Kibaki headed to Addis Ababa to chair a meeting of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (Igad), a six-country partnership formed to address issues of drought, security and development in the Horn of Africa, he sounded a stern warning to Eritrea.

For Kibaki, a president who is not known for his love of dramatic public gesture, to adopt a hostile posture against another country, there must have been more to the issue than the government was revealing to the public.

In March, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Meles Zenawi — whose country has a strong security partnership with Kenya — had also warned that his government would use “all possible means” to depose Eritrea’s 67-year old strongman Isaias Afewerki, with whom he had fought a bloody secessionist war that killed 70,000 people between 1998 and 2000.

However, with the release of the UN Monitoring Group report on Somalia and Eritrea last week, it is now becoming clearer why Afewerki has gained the reputation of the bad boy of the Horn of Africa, a pariah state under international sanctions for sponsoring terrorism in the region.

While Eritrea has in the past been repeatedly accused of supporting Somalia’s Islamist militia Al Shabaab, a charge it strenuously denies, the current report catalogues Afewerki’s growing notoriety in the world of terrorism finance, and in particular the global web through which these funds are routed, with Kenya serving as a global transaction distribution hub.

The report details the country’s activities in funding the terror group, following the money trail from its citizens in the diaspora in Europe and North America, through Dubai and the Eritrean embassy in Nairobi, and into the hands of Al Shabaab, all the while concealed in convoluted and opaque informal financial networks.


Al Shabaab: “economic powerhouse”

August 16, 2011

“Al-Shabaab reportedly generates between $70 million and $100 million per year”

Al-Shabaab has become a top-tier terrorist organization from its extensive revenues.  Their wealth is largely based on Islamic taxes that al-Shabaab imposes in accordance with the Koran.  It is following the same broad-based sharia revenue model that launched the Taliban from being an obscure students’ movement into an multinational financial hegemon.  From CNN (h/t to Un:dhimmi via a RoP newslink) on Aug. 5:

Washington — The once ragtag Somalia-based al Qaeda affiliate group known as Al-Shabaab has grown into an economic powerhouse, raising tens of millions of dollars in cash every year from a variety of schemes involving extortion, illegal taxation and other “fees,” according to a United Nations report.

The United States believes the group is closely coordinating with al Qaeda groups in Yemen and may be plotting attacks in the region and abroad.

The terrorist group now “generates between $70 million and $100 million per year, from duties and fees levied at airports and seaports, taxes on goods and services, taxes in kind on domestic produce, ‘jihad contributions,’ checkpoints and various forms of extortion justified in terms of religious obligation,” according to the July 18 report from the U.N. Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea.

Read the rest of this entry ?


Kuwait’s al Qaeda charity funds Islamism in Spain

August 7, 2011

With little or no supervision or financial controls in place, six Islamic countries have flooded Spain with money to foster radicalism among its Muslim population, according to a new report from the Spanish spy agency CNI.

And due to its use of an al Qaeda sponsoring charity to build mosques in Spain, Kuwait is the worst of the donors.  A translated excerpt from a Jul. 31 El Pais article follows:

…[Minister of Justice Juan Carlos] Campo did not point a finger at any country, but Kuwait is the worse off in the CNI report. Through the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS), it has funded the construction of mosques in Reus and Torredembarra (Catalonia) from which “spread a religious interpretation contrary to integration in Spanish society [and] fomented the separation and hatred of non-Muslim groups.”

In 2008, RIHS was blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury Department “for providing financial and material support to al Qaida and al Qaida affiliates, including Lashkar e-Tayyiba, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya. RIHS has also provided financial support for acts of terrorism.”

Even the United Nations has classified RIHS as:

being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of”, “supplying, selling or transferring arms and related materiel to” or “otherwise supporting acts or activities of” Usama bin Laden (QI.B.8.01), Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01) and the Taliban.

El Pais also reports that RIHS plans to open a “delegation” in Spain.

For a related article in English, check out the frightening and depressing news from Hudson New York.


Iran to triple uranium output. Meanwhile, Moldova arrests 6 uranium smugglers

July 17, 2011

Head in Sand

Certainly it’s just a coincidence that the arrested uranium traffickers (h/t GoV) intended to sell their uranium to somebody in a “Muslim country” in Africa, and certainly that would be the final point of sale, considering all the threats from African nations to illegally enrich uranium for a nuclear program that violates international law.

Oh, wait, maybe it’s not Africa that has threatened to nuclearize.  And maybe it’s a certain other country that has promised to triple uranium enrichment.  I remember now—it’s Iran!

It is also Iran (as we noted last month) that could be entering a massive uranium buying agreement with Zimbabwe (undoubtedly paid for by the profits of the Iran’s economic jihad and funneled through proxies of Iran’s sharia banks).

But not to worry.  Nothing can go wrong with the United Nations weapons inspectors on the case (h/t Israel Matzav).


Link teases

June 29, 2011

• To ease Taliban peace talks, the U.N. will split its list of terrorists in two:  the irreconcilables & those to slip under the sheets with… more>>

• Congressional staffers aren’t happy about a growing “a culture of aid dependency” in Afghanistan.  But what do the Republicans think?  more>>

• We’ll just need a few of your British tax dollars to fund a lawsuit that my cocooned wife and I have against the French burqa ban… more>>

• “What’s wrong?” she asked. “Oh nothing,” said the dismayed inspector looking up from his ledger, “just the largest theft of funds in national history”… more>>

• “Engaging in riba, or the charging of interest? Haram! Blowing up the bank and making off with the cash? Halal!” writes Marisolmore>>


Recap of sanctions against Iran

May 31, 2011

Attorney Barbara Linney has provided readers with a good summary of sanctions laws against Iran that have expanded over the past year.  From Lexology on Apr. 28:

U.S. Developments. On July 1, 2010, long sought amendments to the Iran Sanctions Act (“ISA”) became law. As amended by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability & Divestment Act (“CISADA”), the ISA targets persons determined to have invested $20 million or more in Iran’s ability to develop or obtain petroleum resources. CISADA expanded the definition of petroleum resources to include petroleum, refined petroleum products, oil or liquefied natural gas, natural gas resources, oil or liquefied natural gas tankers, and products used to construct or maintain pipelines used to transport oil or liquefied natural gas. Also targeted are persons contributing to Iran’s conventional and nuclear weapons proliferation activities, persons supplying refined petroleum products to Iran, and those who supply goods, services, and technology that could facilitate or contribute to Iran’s ability to produce or import refined petroleum products (subject to certain materiality and value thresholds). Provision of ships or shipping services to deliver refined petroleum products to Iran is a sanctionable service. CISADA also imposed or required adoption of other measures designed to tighten the blockade of Iran, including increased penalties for violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Read the rest of this entry ?


UN funds rogue nuclear ambitions

April 7, 2011

First we pay the Taliban to “reintegrate” with the government of Afghanistan.  Then we consider arming Libyan rebels who include Al Qaeda.  Meanwhile, we fund “technical” and “peaceful” nuclear aspirations of rogue regimes.  Will the news of Western governments and international organizations supporting our enemies never cease?  From the Daily Beast on Mar. 22:

Iran, Sudan, Syria, and other countries the U.S. has named state sponsors of terrorism have received millions of dollars in U.N. nuclear technology aid—and Hillary Clinton won’t stop the flow of cash. Laurel Adams of the Center for Public Integrity reports.

The State Department is refusing to block U.N. nuclear technology aid to countries that are on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime.

The reason, says Hillary Clinton’s department, is that such a clampdown would hinder other countries that have nothing to do with terrorism.

The U.S. provides $20 million a year to help finance the International Atomic Energy Agency, which promotes peaceful use of nuclear energy. But some IAEA funds have gone to countries that could potentially use nuclear technology to build weapons, the Government Accountability Office warns in a new report.

Neither the State Department nor the IAEA have sought to limit the so-called technical cooperation aid to terror-linked nations such as Iran, Sudan, Syria, and Cuba, or countries that are not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, such as India, Israel, and Pakistan, the congressional watchdog says.

The former head of the program told investigators that requests for technical assistance are evaluated strictly on technical merits, thwarting efforts to assess national-security concerns.

“State officials told us that the U.S. did not systematically try to limit TC projects in Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria—which the department designated as sponsors of terrorism,” the report says. “These four countries received more than $55 million in TC assistance from 1997 through 2007.”

During the same time frame, India, Israel, and Pakistan received $24.6 million in technical assistance, even though none is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Nuclear equipment and technology, even if geared toward peaceful purposes, also can be used to develop nuclear weapons. Yet the former head of the TC program told the investigators that requests for technical assistance are evaluated strictly on technical merits, thereby thwarting efforts to assess national-security concerns.

The GAO has suggested repeatedly that the State Department withhold the U.S. contribution to IAEA that would go to countries accused of aiding terrorists.

“The United States has applied several types of sanctions limiting foreign assistance and trade to states it has designated as sponsors of terrorism and to other countries. To avoid the appearance of an inconsistent approach and to foster greater cohesion in U.S. policy toward such nations, we believe that it is fair for Congress to consider requiring State to withhold a share of the U.S. contribution,” the GAO says.

Withholding funds would undermine the Obama administration’s ability to convince other member countries to contribute to the fund, and since the funding is not traced to specific projects, it would punish all recipients in the program, the State Department said in response.

The IAEA provides minimal information on project proposals, usually just project titles, which further hinders efforts by the Energy Department to assess the risk of proliferation in countries requesting assistance.