Even though the move is allegedly to disrupt the finding of Al Qaeda related groups in Somalia, but is the latest Barclays anti-terror move just a bit too draconian for a majority of ordinary Somali citizens?
By: Ringo Bones
This could probably be the very first precedent of “non-fatal collateral casualties” in the on-going war on terror. Given Barclay’s “altruism” of doing their part of disrupting the day-to-day operations of Al Qaeda related groups – like the recent Al Shabaab attack on the Westgate Mall in Kenya back in September 21, 2013- wherever they may be, should the local innocent civilians have to suffer the consequences?
With the recent decision of Barclays to end its deal with remittances companies in Somalia citing that they are just a financial front for Al Qaeda related terror groups, 3 Somali remittance firms have launched a legal action against Barclays over their rather draconian measure to disrupt terror groups in Somalia. Barclays claims that the remittances are used to fund Somalia based terror groups with sympathies to Al Qaeda that are currently launching terror attacks throughout Africa – which the latest high profile attack is the Kenyan Westgate shopping mall hostage taking and shooting incident by Al Shabaab operatives back in September 21.
Somalia gets 60 percent of its foreign currency flow via remittances and the truth of which is that this “lifeline” service is primarily used to fund local small to medium business being run by ordinary Somalis with nothing to do with Al Qaeda whatsoever. Given that most of Somalia has just reached a state of normalcy after two decades of armed anarchy, is Barclay’s recent decision to end its remittance deal with Somalia for all intents and purposes just punishing the wrong group of people?