Libya terrorized by more than 200 thousand invader mercenaries working for NATO and U.S. colonialist


Libya terrorized by more than 200 thousand invader mercenaries working for NATO and U.S. colonialist

The UN envoy to Libya denounces what everyone already knew: 200,000 mercenaries and international terrorists under the protection of NATO and the U.S. have taken over Libya ..equivalent to the entire British army .. Why? And who sent them there?

Two years after the invasion of NATO militias continue to terrorize Libya

The assassination of Gaddafi was ordered by U.S. 
and NATO must not go unpunished 

Libya’s future looks dismal as the focus of media attention is directed elsewhere. A session of Parliament had to start ravaged by militants, ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the city of Tawergha population and murders are the result of the NATO intervention in what was the most modernized country in Africa.

 The second anniversary of the NATO intervention in favor of the Libyan rebels and against Muammar Gaddafi has gone largely unnoticed by governments and foreign media in 2011 were so concerned about the safety and human rights of the Libyan people.This is not surprising since all Libyan rights is crumbling as a country and the Libyans are at the mercy of militias who exploit those who once claimed to protect.

A sample of the news coming from Libya in recent weeks gives us a glimpse of what is happening and it’s worth repeating because it totally ignores the foreign press that thronged the hotel before Benghazi and Tripoli. For example, last Sunday [31 March 2013] the chief of staff of Prime Minister Ali Zeidan disappeared in the capital and seems to have been hijacked. You may have been in retaliation for the government ministers statement that militias acting with impunity. That same day, a group of the militia broke into the Justice Department demanding the resignation of minister after accusing him of running an illegal jail.

KIDNAPPED PARLIAMENT

All indications are that the situation is worsening rather than improving. The March 5 Libyan parliament met to discuss whether they should purge and disable the Libyans who had worked as officers during the 42 years Gaddafi was in power, which would also include people who were long dissidents and played a prominent role during the uprising against Gaddafi, but that decades ago had been ministers under the previous regime.

The protesters calling this purge MPs forced to relocate for their safety to weather service offices outside Tripoli where they were attacked by armed men broke into the building as they disappeared the police who were guarding. Some of the MPs were held hostage 12 hours while others faced a shootout to escape.

Libya  stench filled by 

terrorists acts of NATO and U.S.

Outside control Tripoli armed men is even more absolute. This only draws attention from the rest of the world when there is an act of spectacular violence, including murder in Benghazi last September the U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens by jihadist militia. This was the only act of extreme violence in Libya that was widely covered by foreign media, but only because the GOP made him a political issue in the United States. But the ambassador and his guards are not the only foreigners who have been killed in Benghazi since the overthrow of Gaddafi. An Egyptian human rights group reported last month that an Egyptian named Ezzat Coptic Attalah Hakim had been tortured to death in the city after being arrested with 48 other traders in the market town of Benghazi.

CRUELTY WITH BLACK POPULATION

Few exceptions, human rights organizations are reporting on the situation in Libya in a more impartial and rigorous international media. Consistent with this, the organization Human Rights Watch (HRW), which are based in New York, produced a detailed report on ethnic cleansing in Tawergha city where 40,000 people forced to flee their homes, in addition to being subject to “arbitrary arrests, torture and killings.”

Misurata militias attacked the population, mostly black, for their support of Gaddafi. HRW used satellite imagery to document the destruction of Tawergha, most of which occurred since the end of the war in 2011 when they were destroyed were damaged and 1,370 locations. Fred Abrahams, special adviser at HRW, said the images confirm that “the looting, fires and demolitions were organized and aimed at the systematic destruction to prevent residents return.”

There is a strong contrast between this lack of interest and comprehensive coverage on Libya during the war. In the spring of 2011 I was reporting on the fighting around the city of Ajdabiya south of Benghazi. There was some phoney war atmosphere that did not appear in reports enthusiasts. I remember watching funny at the southern entrance of Ajdabiya how they positioned the TV cameras not to reveal that there were more journalists than insurgents.

Never saw a position defended by the rebels even roadblocks between Ajdabiya and Benghazi if, two places that always depended on NATO air force for defense. Of course, there were brave rebel units and delivered, as were journalists who wrote about them, but without the support of NATO would quickly defeated the insurgents.

THE VOID OF GADDAFI

The fact that the overthrow of Gaddafi was achieved mainly thanks to foreign intervention has serious consequences for Libyans today. This means that although the insurgents claim and believe that his victory was due solely to his own work, have proved too weak to fill the vacuum left by Gaddafi’s version of Arab nationalism. Without this there is little Arab nationalism to counter Islamic fundamentalism and tribalism.

Does this matter? For many Libyan Gaddafi and his family discredited Libyan nationalism. Many of the disasters that happened to Iraq after 2003 they are starting to happen to other Arab states in different ways. As Iraqis are beginning to realize that the outward forms of democracy are not too important unless there is an agreement between the main political forces on the rules of the game that determines who holds power.

National self-determination should be the cornerstone of any new order. However, a problem of the revolts of the Arab Spring is that they are too dependent on foreign aid. But as happened in Iraq and Libya shows, foreign intervention is always interested. The revolutionaries of all regions seek help from outside powers opportunistic, but to achieve long-term success, must end as they can to this dependence. And they must build a strong and within the law because if I do a fresh batch of dictators are willing to replace them.

 Patrick Cockburn

Criminal Imagene of “democracy” imposed by NATO and U.S. in Libya

the same as trying to impose on Syria, Venezuela, Iran and North Korea

source:  Mirko Senda libia-sos.blogspot.ch

 

About these ads

The recolonization of Africa began with the death of Gaddafi


The recolonization of Africa began with the death of Gaddafi

(Part 1)
By:  Salman Nagham

 

A few days ago Spain’s National Radio interviewed a renowned expert on Middle Eastern politics and North Africa which stated that Libya is in a process of democratic transition with some problems” and that “the most important thing is that it has one hundred percent recovered crude supply. “ 

Hearing these manifestations of an expert on Spanish public radio, the average Spanish interprets the “humanitarian war” was a success and that the Libyan people got rid of their tyrant and has control of its natural resources.

Nothing is further from reality, because Libya, who enjoyed the Human Development Index highest in Africa and perhaps was one of the few countries in the developing world development had full control of their natural resources, especially oil, gas and Gold today is a failed state where Islamist militias roam terrorizing the population. Meanwhile, oil and gas wells have been literally surrounded by two lines of heavily armed mercenaries say predatory corporations working at full capacity. 

But the death of Muammar, who so cynically held by Hillary Clinton was off camera at an interview , the worst was yet to come.

Part of the jihadists and insurgents mercenaries were sent to Turkey, where they would be trained to join the  Free Syrian Army , while another large contingent of jihadists with sophisticated weaponry supplied by NATO and also looted the arsenals of Gaddafi, was sent south to Salafists join the AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) and Tuareg nationalists, to instruct them in the Holy War and initiate the destabilization of the entire region surrounding the Sahara Desert, so rich in natural resources.

Tuareg tribes who had been previously trained militarily by a U.S. command, and have integrated oddly shaped nationalism and Salafism to be led by international jihadist and AQIM guerrillas under the command of which have devastated the country’s north within days imposing Sharia in all the cities under their control, as happened in Somalia militia Al Chabab few years ago.

It’s just another phase of  AFRICOM  led by France and commanded and coordinated jointly by the U.S. intelligence services, English and French, in which the French nation has acted again as arsonist-fireman, as he did in Libya under Sarkozy’s right-wing mandate.  

This time, however, paradoxically, has been the ‘socialist’ François Hollande in charge of fire and plunge the region into chaos and anarchy, using Islamist groups as a tactic before Western military intervention in support of the subsequent intensification the planned sacking of West and Central Africa. One more example of the double standards prevailing in international politics. 

This new episode of ‘war on terror’ in favor of democracy and human rights to justify a new international interference hideth blatant profit that is usually satisfied in three phases whenever conflict is artificially created from the outside.A first selling weapons to both sides, a second settling and plundering the resources of the “liberated country”, and a third rebuilding infrastructure will most likely be destroyed again in a few years. 

The new phase of AFRICOM has just begun, and the strategy has scored two great goals geoeconomic. The first is that the financial crisis plaguing Europe especially to be paid by the poorest of the global world. The second, and perhaps more important, is to counter the growing economic power, China’s financial and commercial on the African continent. 

And to get it, not hesitate to create new conflicts in countries like Algeria, Niger, Chad, Nigeria and others. 

While Salafi Islamists are considered terrorists and a great danger to the international community in Mali, the same in Syria are considered revolutionary for democracy. (****I mean you must be an idiot if you can understand what’s going on! On the one hand the west are financing the salafists to destroy Syria while on the other hand they are considered terrorists my ass!! really wake up people they are feeding you BS its time to get up and turn off your T.V and get out and start protesting against your government because what America/Israel they are pushing Europe to war and unless you, yes YOU, I AM TALKING TO YOU, WHO YOU ARE READING MY BLOG, WAKE UP AND DO SOMETHING before it’s too late  stop thinking of islamophobia which they have implanted through the media and made you hate anything to do with muslims same here about christians its time to join forces and become one. We have nothing to divide God is one whether I call him Allah or God its the same, do not let some bigots and warmonger divide us just for them to make more money  while you and I lose our children.)

 

The recolonization of Africa began with the death of Gaddafi (Part 2)

 

The exploitation of Africa began centuries ago by Arab-Muslim slave traders, and intensified a century after the arrival of Europeans in America, when slavery was the basis of holding colonies ‘new continent’ American.

In the eighteenth century, slavery went from coast to exploration and subsequent progressive conquest of Africa by the European powers, which would end up sharing the continent with the Treaty of Berlin, 1877.

Decolonization began after World War I and was consolidated after the second. But the colonial powers, especially Britain and France, continued to control the continent economically through puppet governments and corrupt.

In the late nineties China appears as unexpected new player in the African region and started a war based geo economic competition for African resources and markets.

Africa had hitherto been the major supplier of mineral products consumed by industry ‘first world’, especially hydrocarbons, but also gold, diamonds, platinum, uranium, iron, copper, coltan, sulphates and zinc.

Meanwhile, it has long been called ‘third world’ was the scene of bloody wars in which child soldiers were involved, as well as famine and mass displacement of populations that were always forgotten by the media. Their countries were often ruled by elites subservient and heavily protected that enslaved their people while they were living in opulence.

The Chinese presence has been ‘crescendo’ since early 2000, when the Iraq war and sanctions on Iran would deprive him of much-needed oil supplies for industry, as the ‘factory of the world’ needs natural resources and new markets to export their products and services ‘low cost’.

The ‘soft colonization’ of China is based on obtaining raw materials in exchange for loans at a low-interest rate for infrastructure construction under the direction of Chinese engineers.

undefined

In 2000 was held the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in Beijing, which meant the formalization in the international sphere of Chinese claims in Africa. The result was the signing of contracts worth millions and investment for development in several African countries.

Since that date, loans granted by China have a larger capital to an interest rate lower than those granted by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. and the European Union. On the other hand, have already put the groundwork for the creation of an African Development Bank funded with Chinese capital.

Today, hundreds of Chinese companies managed by a diaspora of more than a million Chinese citizens are established in different African countries.

undefined

China, in parallel with the progressive commercial and financial implementation in Africa, has also been culturally implanted through its Confucius Institutes, as a way to spread knowledge of the Chinese language and culture in order to enhance mutual understanding of face a future exchange. In this sense, the great Asian giant adopts the same strategy of cultural diplomacy that are being implemented for several years Britain and France, with the institutions of the British Council and the Institut Français, respectively. Also Spain has exploited this strategy with its network of Cervantes Institutes spread all over the world.

undefined

China’s entry into an area of influence was exclusively Western geostrategic implications from the outset. The creation of  AFRICOM  was the natural reaction of the Pentagon and the European Union, aware that international economic hegemony of resources depends largely African.

The partition of Sudan and occupation of  Libya , both for energy manifests, has been followed by the French-led operation in  Mali , whose uranium feed many of the more than forty Gallic country’s nuclear plants.

Nagham Salman is head of European research and policy analyst specializing in Middle Eastern affairs.

 source:actualidad.rt.com/expertos/nagham_salman

 

New US ambassador appointed


New US ambassador appointed

Deborah-K-Jones-1

 

New US Ambassador to Libya Deborah K. Jones (Photo: US State Department)

Tripoli, 13 March 2103:

US President Barack Obama has appointed a new ambassador to Libya. She is Deborah K. Jones. She is the first US ambassador since Chris Stevens was killed in Benghazi, along with three other diplomatic staff, on 11 September 2012. Since then the US embassy has been under temporary Chargés d’Affaires, first Laurence Pope and since the beginning of the year William Roebuck.

Jones’ appointment has not officially been announced by the US, although a source at the Libya Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Monday that it had approved the appointment.

It is expected to be formally announced later today, when US Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Prime Minister Ali Zeidan who is visiting the US at present.

From New Mexico, Jones joined the U.S. Department of State in 1982. She speaks Arabic, having studied it the Foreign Service Institute in Roslyn, Virginia and at the State Department’s Field School in Tunisia. She also speaks French and Spanish.

She was US ambassador to Kuwait between 2008 and 2011. Earlier she served for two years as the State Departments’ Country Director of the Office of Arabian Peninsula and Iran Affairs. She then became Desk Officer for Jordan and worked in the State Department’s Operations Center and on its Board of Examiners until 2005. From August 2005 to 2007, she served as Principal Officer at the US Consulate-General in Istanbul.

Asked about the her reported appointment, Chuck Dittrich, executive director of the US-Libya Business Association, said “if true, she would be a very good choice. She has been a successful US Ambassador to Kuwait, as well as Deputy Chief of Mission in the UAE and Consul-General in Dubai and Istanbul. She has the depth and breadth of experience needed to guide this important bilateral relationship through a critical period. Ambassador Deborah Jones will bring unique insight into the risks and great promise of the transition now occurring in Libya and her nomination would signal the Obama Administration’s commitment to maintaining a high level of engagement with Libya.”

The US embassy in Tripoli was not available for comment.

source:http://www.libyaherald.com/2013/03/13/new-us-ambassador-appointed/

 

CIA, Mossad staged 9/11 to further the Zionist agenda


CIA, Mossad staged 9/11 to further the Zionist agenda

STATUE-OF-ZION-MOSSAD

 

At some point in the future – it may be sooner than later – an evil regime is going to be betrayed. And when one is betrayed, others will surely follow.
Which will be the first? Israel?

Surely not! The USA’s foreign policy, its media and its political structures are completely corrupted by, and infected with, Zionism.

Yet, only two months ago, the New York Post quoted the famous realpolitik US diplomat Henry Kissinger as asserting that, “In ten years, there will be no more Israel.” Moreover, the mind-set of the USA State Department could be shifting. A study (Preparing for a Post-Israel Middle East) commissioned by all sixteen American intelligence agencies supports Kissinger’s assertion although it is not so specific on the timing.

Of course the study, all eighty two pages of it, is being condemned by Zionists as a hoax but the problem with that is the study’s argument and facts. If they are valid then they are valid. It’s as simple as that. Thus the study says that Israel cannot withstand powerful forces which include an international rejection of USA Zionist policy; a strong movement in favour of Palestine; the Arab Democratic Spring; and the Islamic Awakening.

So, if those things are valid, why should the USA continue to be associated with a self-pitying, paranoid, rancid, rabid, racist entity called Israel indulging in the progressive genocide of the Palestinians?

Indeed, the USA is having to face up to the reality that it, and Israel, are becoming pariah states. Clear evidence of this comes from the recent UN votes on sanctions against Cuba; on nuclear disarmament in Middle East; and on status for Palestine – all of which reveal incipient pariah status. Indeed, on the Palestine vote the chagrin on the face of USA representative Susan Rice told it all – she realised that a turning point had happened and there is no going back.

There is then the increasing awareness that the USA and Israel (wanting to further the interests of an expanding Zionist state by having a general war against Islam) were complicit in the murder of three thousand Americans on 9/11. About eighty seriously unresolved issues about 9/11 exist but the incontrovertible evidence of murder is that a skyscraper, Tower Number Seven, which was NOT hit by an aeroplane, crumbled into dust. First, it crumbled – just like that! And, second, it crumbled into dust.

Moreover, thirty minutes beforehand, a BBC journalist, Jane Stanley (taking her information from a piece of paper given to her) reported Tower Number Seven had collapsed – when it had not! BUT, thirty minutes later, it DID collapse – and into dust!

How did she “know” in advance? (Answer – she had been given that piece of paper).

More and more intelligent people are realising that modern skyscraper buildings do not suddenly collapse into dust and that BBC journalists are not soothsayers, crystal ball gazers, or psychics with great powers of material destruction. Furthermore, making a building collapse into dust is easily done if a combination of demolition explosives and some form of energy ray or similar is used.

Thus the world (and Americans in particular) is having to come to terms with the nasty evidence that, in order to further Zionist interests by initiating a general war against Islam, the CIA and Mossad were heavily involved in the murder of three thousand Americans. The noted analyst Kevin Barrett, has summed up this situation by saying, “Israel has reached the end of its shelf-life.” He continued, “The US is going broke and sacrificing thousands of lives in wars for Israel – wars that damage, rather than aid, US strategic interests.”

So, when the USA wakes up? to the fact that supporting a racist Israel is not in its strategic interests, why should it not decide to betray Israel and develop straightforward normal, relations with modern democratic states throughout the Middle East?

What about betraying Saudi Arabia? It is neither modern or democratic. Rather it is feudal, vicious and totalitarian. Is Saudi Arabia going to be betrayed by the USA?

It’s possible. Within a few years, the USA is expected to become energy-independent. When that happens, why should the USA continue to get itself universally hated by supporting a corrupt regime of thieves and torturers?

What about Iran? Why should not the USA, aided by the crony UK and other countries whose foreign policy is controlled by Zionists, betray Iran?

Er, no. The betraying of Iran has already been done. The USA has already committed every betrayal, deceit, perfidy and double-dealing that it is possible to imagine.

So what about Bahrain? What about the USA and the UK betraying Bahrain?

Whereon a reader might point to those six thousand American troops in Bahrain and say that the killer-Khalifa regime is certain to survive.

But is it? Recently, the UK Foreign Secretary was in Bahrain and, giving the clearest possible sign of the UK preparing to betray the regime, he refused to meet the Bahraini Prime Minister who has held his post for over forty years. Moreover, there is a lot of pressure to welcome “dialogue”.

So the UK is obviously thinking of a “solution” rather like that in Yemen – the head of the regime is removed and a new head is put in instead i.e., there is the appearance of change but no real change. In the case of Bahrain, of course, it will probably be announced that a Prince is to take over (although not the torturer Prince Nasser) with a constitutional monarchy just like, it will be claimed, that of the UK. However, although, there would be new ministers and a gloss of limited voting for structures with no real political power, the reality will be that the regime remains in power – exactly as in Yemen.

But the people of Bahrain are true democrats and will never agree to be betrayed. There will be continuing outrage if “dialogue” takes place but not with those in prison. Indeed, the outrage will be the greater if the “dialogue” takes place without ALL of the political prisoners being immediately released and compensation paid. On top of which there must be immediate compensation for all who have been tortured and for the families of those who have been killed.

To be frank, the UK “solution” and “dialogue” will not solve anything while, at the same time, Arab democracy and Islamic awakening continue. To which can be added the certainty that Zionist Israel will make yet another huge mistake e.g., by attacking Iran and dragging in the USA. If that were to happen, the progress of political change in Bahrain will become very quick as will also be the case in the other autocratic countries of the Middle East.

Now please take a moment to remember the time, only a short time ago, when friends clapped each other on the back and exchanged presents. Yes, not long ago, the USA and the UK were fulsome friends with Ben Ali of Tunisia and Colonel Gadhafi of Libya just as they were friends with Mubarak of Egypt and Saleh of Yemen.

Then look what happened.

All in all, it’s time for time for the killer-Khalifa regime to get out. Furthermore, it is advised to get out now, while it can, before it is betrayed by those it thinks are its friends but who, in reality, will soon be looking for a chance to stab it in the back.

source: theyellowbrickroadfreeblog.wordpress

 

America Shamed Again: A Colonized People


America Shamed Again: A Colonized People

By Paul Craig Roberts

 - Americans have been shamed many times by their elected representatives who cravenly bow to vested interests and betray the American people. But no previous disgraceful behavior can match the public shame brought to Americans by the behavior of the Senate Republicans in the confirmation hearing of Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

Forty Senate Republicans made it clear that not only do they refuse to put their service to America ahead of their service to Israel, but also that they will not even put their service to America on a par with their service to Israel. To every American’s shame, the Republicans demonstrated for all the world to see that they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Israel Lobby. (The Israel Lobby is not their only master. They are also owned by other powerful interest groups, such as Wall Street and the Military/Security Complex.)

The most embarrassing behavior of all came from the craven Lindsay Graham, who, while in the act of demonstrating his complete subservience by crawling on his belly before the Israel Lobby, dared Hagel to name one single person in the US Congress who is afraid of the Israel Lobby.

If I had been Hagel, I would have written off the nomination and answered: “You, Senator Graham, and your 40 craven colleagues.”

Indeed, Hagel could have answered: The entire US Congress, including Rand Paul who pretends to be different but isn’t.

The real question is: Who in the Congress is not afraid of the Israel Lobby?

The hatchet job on Hagel is driven by fear of the Israel Lobby.

Perhaps the worst affront Israel’s American representatives ever inflicted on the US military was the coverup of the Israeli air and torpedo boat attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. The Israeli attack failed to sink the Liberty but killed and wounded most of the crew. The survivors were ordered to silence, and it was 12 years before one of them spoke up and revealed what had happened (James Ennes, Assault On The Liberty). Not even Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could get Washington to own up to the facts.

The facts are now well known, but as far as Washington is concerned they are dead letter facts. The entire event has been moved to some parallel universe.

Why are the Senate Republicans out to destroy Hagel for Israel?

The answer is, first, back when Hagel was a US Senator he refused to be intimidated by the Israel Lobby and declared, “I am a US Senator, not an Israeli Senator.” In other words, Hagel did the impermissible. He said he represented US interests, not Israel’s interests. Hagel’s position implies that the interests of the two countries are not identical, which is a heresy.

The second part of the answer is that Hagel doesn’t think that it is a good idea for the US to start a war with Iran or for the US to permit Israel to do so.

But a US war with Iran is what the Israeli government and its neoconservative agents have been trying to impose on the Obama regime. Israel wants to get rid of Iran, because Iran supports Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon, thus preventing Israel from annexing that territory and its water resources, and because Iran supports Hamas, the only Palestinian organization that tries to oppose Israel’s total theft of Palestine, although Iran has never supplied Hamas with effective weapons.

The two organizations that oppose Israel’s territorial expansion, Hizbollah and Hamas, represent large numbers of Arab peoples. Nevertheless, both are declared, on Israel’s orders, to be “terrorist organizations” by the servile US Department of State, which in all reality should be called the Israeli Department of State, as it never puts US interests before Israel’s.

In other words, Hagel did not grovel. He did not say how much he loved Israel and how it would be his great honor to sacrifice all other interests to Israel’s, how he has waited his entire life for the chance to serve Israel as the US Secretary of Defense.

Hagel is not an opponent of Israel. He merely said, “First, I am an American.” His lack of craven subservience is unacceptable to the Israel Lobby, which has branded him an “anti-semite.”

Lindsay Graham, in contrast, has what it takes to be Israel’s perfect choice for US Secretary of Defense.

Graham will go out of his way to please the Israel Lobby. He will pull out all stops and behave with maximum servility to a foreign power in his effort to embarrass the President of the United States and his nominee, a war veteran and former US Senator who simply thinks that the US Congress and the executive branch should put American interests first.

Senate Majority Leader Reid has used Senate rules to keep Hagel’s nomination alive.
If Lindsay Graham succeeds in doing the Israel Lobby’s dirty work, he will have handed a defeat of the US President to the Israeli Prime Minister, who has demeaned the President of the United States for not doing Israel’s bidding and attacking Iran.

Americans are a colonized people. Their government represents the colonizing powers: Wall Street, the Israel Lobby, the Military/Security Complex, Agribusiness, Pharmaceuticals, Energy, Mining, and Timber interests.

Two elected representatives who tried to represent the American people–Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich–found representative government to be an inhospitable place for those few who attempt to represent the interests of the American people.

Like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Gerald Celente, I stand with our Founding Fathers who opposed America’s entanglement in foreign wars. In an effort to prevent entanglements, the Founding Fathers gave the power to declare war to Congress. Over the years Congress has gradually ceded this power to the President to the extent that it no longer exists as a power of Congress. The President can start a war anywhere at any time simply by declaring that the war is not a war but a “time-limited, scope-limited, kinetic military action.” Or he can use some other nonsensical collection of words.

In the first few years of the 21st century, the executive branch has invaded two countries, violated the sovereignty of five others with military operations, and has established military bases in Africa in order to counteract China’s economic penetration of the continent and to secure the resources for US and European corporations, thus enlarging the prospects for future wars. If the Republicans succeed in blocking Hagel’s confirmation, the prospect of war with Iran will be boosted.

By abdicating its war power, Congress lost its control of the purse. As the executive branch withholds more and more information from Congressional oversight committees, Congress is becoming increasingly powerless. As Washington’s war debts mount, Washington’s attack on the social safety net will become more intense. Governmental institutions that provide services to Americans will wither as more tax revenues are directed to the coffers of special interests and foreign entanglements.

The tenuous connection between the US government and the interests of citizens is on its way to being severed entirely.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

source:  ”Information Clearing House

Libya: The Second Anniversary of a Bloody Coup


Libya: The Second Anniversary of a Bloody Coup

By Maximilian Forte Global Research,

libya Victims-of-NATO-attacks-on-Tripoli1

This weekend, marking the second anniversary of the start of protests that would usher in a bloody and prolonged NATO-led coup to overthrow the Libyan Jamahiriya and Muammar Gaddafi, offers many reasons to celebrate for those whose intention was the demolition of Libyan self-determination, African integration, and a domestic system of extensive social welfare and stability. In return, Libyans have won the right to live in fear, as they have won the freedom to be ruled by countless armed despots each engaged in torture, abductions, and persecution of minorities.

In spite of what seems like an unstoppable momentum towards greater strife and social disintegration, romantic imperialists in the West still insist on speaking in the most unwarranted terms of the “street revolution,” that has “brought freedom and hope to millions of people here” (Globe and Mail, 15/2/2013). In the warm glow of fires that consume others, some among us find reason for a warming self-congratulation. Symbolic of the depth of Western respect for Libya’s “new freedom” is this very statement, from the government of Canada itself, warning Canadian travellers: “Do not criticize the country, its leadership or religion. Harsh penalties may be imposed.”

The few remaining pro-”revolution” propagandists in the West are not only unwilling to simply state that what they support is globalized regime change and a new colonizing wave that would make non-Western self-determination and sovereignty principles something to be wrecked and thrown aside, they are equally immune to irony. After all, blessed Benghazi, which was to be “saved” at all costs, saved against all else, by Western military intervention is now the same city from which Western interests flee in order to save themselves (Reuters, 24/1/201331/1/20135/2/2013The Star, 24/1/2013):

WESTERNERS SHUN BENGHAZI
Few Westerners live in Benghazi, which has borne the brunt of a wave of violence against diplomats and international bodies, including the killing of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and a gun attack on the Italian consul’s car this month.
Britain’s recent call to its nationals to leave immediately due to a “specific and imminent” threat to Westerners highlights the insecurity plaguing Benghazi.
The assault on the U.S. mission, for which no arrests were made, grabbed world attention. But there had already been attacks on British, Red Cross and U.N. properties here….
Randy Robinson, principal of British School Benghazi, said: “One of our staff was car-jacked  Our residence last spring was robbed with teachers in a room held at gunpoint as thieves cleaned out the apartments. We have to take care.”
Two years ago the anti-Gaddafi uprising had the strongest support in Benghazi but today a very different mood has emerged.
“Most people here would say they are very unhappy,” a local oil worker said. “Some say they are worse off than before.”

So let’s celebrate the “new Libya,” this “revolution for freedom,” in all of its glory. Let it be an example to others.

Now there is a call from Western media and the usual RAND voices urging NATO to establish a “mission” in Libya (CSM, 15/2/2013). And if foreign occupation, or foreign boots on the ground were allegedly anathema to the Libyan “revolutionaries,” that too changed well before Gaddafi was overthrown, and is being revived at present: military forces from Italy, and once again from Qatar, have landed in Libya, to help it celebrate its “revolution” (RT, 13/2/2013).

The thing about authentic, legitimate revolutions these days is that all of their legitimacy comes from external sources and is dropped from the air in explosive 2,000 pound bursts of authenticity. Real revolutions, it would seem, require foreign guardians and can only survive under the tutelage of colonial powers (Washington Times, 5/2/2013). Beautiful thing then, these revolutions. Sirte, in particular, was rapidly beautified as a result of this revolution:

Once independent, wealthy, and powerfully defiant, today Libyan resources are almost being given away to foreign powers that “mentored” Libya’s revolution. Foreign investors in Libya’s oil sector are being given years of tax exemption, as if they need it; specifically aimed at encouraging Gulf state investors, Libya grants the investor 65% from a project’s value;

“various large scale projects will be given Saudi companies in order to strengthen brotherly ties, remove previous disputes between the two countries, establish a new strategic partnership and benefit from the expertise of Saudi companies. Aarusi also said that all obstacles facing Gulf investors will be overcome…”

and, “last but not least Aarusi said he expected this Saudi company [whose name he refuses to reveal] to be totally in charge of starting up the sugar and cement factories in mid-2013,” whose aim is to export to Europe and Gulf states (Al Arabiya, 4/2/2013). Along with Gaddafi himself, what the “new Libya” buried in that unmarked grave was resource nationalism and a sense of integrity and dignity in the face of foreign vulture capitalists.

Then there is the IMF, in its newly acquired role of dictating to Libya, another reality permitted by the “street revolution” (Arabian Business, 6/2/2013). After all, as the IMF’s Christine Lagarde herself has recently said, the “Arab Spring” must be followed by a “Private Sector Spring” (IMF, 9/1/2013). Libya, formerly a significant actor in international investment, buying up properties and shares of lucrative enterprises across Europe, is now the target of investors (IMF, 9/1/2013).

The IMF knows when it can take advantage of a situation smelling of ripe disaster: “The budget deficit was 27.0 percent of GDP in 2011, compared to a budget surplus of 16.2 percent in 2010. Similarly, the current account surplus narrowed from 19.8 percent of GDP in 2010 to 1.3 percent in 2011″ (IMF, 4/5/2012). Thus the IMF can now instruct Libya to eliminate universal price subsidies, to reduce public sector wages, and to eliminate incentives for individuals to seek employment in the public sector: “the recent surge in the public sector payroll to 1.5 million (80 percent of the labour force) will need to be unwound” (IMF, 4/5/2012).

The IMF has had its sights on Libya from before Gaddafi was overthrown by NATO and NATO’s local neo-colonial dependants  days before Gaddafi was murdered, the IMF had a mission on the ground in Libya (IMF, 20/10/2011) and had previously decreed its recognition of the rebel National Transitional Council as the government of Libya, thrashing international law as the Libyan government under Gaddafi still existed (IMF, 10/9/2011). But you won’t find Naomi Klein writing the Libyan chapter of the “shock doctrine” (Gulf News, 26/10/2011)–Naomi Klein was too busy throwing her support behind a Canadian politician, Nathan Cullen, who voted in support of NATO’s intervention in Libya, with little regret. The protection of civilians was paramount, of course, and here is another view of what that protection looked like:

Maximilian C. Forte is a professor of anthropology in Montreal, Canada. He teaches courses in the field of political anthropology dealing with “the new imperialism,” Indigenous resistance movements and philosophies, theories and histories of colonialism, and critiques of the mass media. Max is a founding member of Anthropologists for Justice and Peace. He is the author ofSlouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa” (Baraka Books, 2012).

SLOUCHING TOWARDS SIRTE:
NATO’S WAR ON LIBYA AND AFRICA

by Maximilian Forte

AVAILABLE TO ORDER FROM GLOBAL RESEARCH

NATO’s war in Libya was proclaimed as a humanitarian intervention—bombing in the name of “saving lives.” Attempts at diplomacy were stifled. Peace talks were subverted. Libya was barred from representing itself at the UN, where shadowy NGOs and “human rights” groups held full sway in propagating exaggerations, outright falsehoods, and racial fear mongering that served to sanction atrocities and ethnic cleansing in the name of democracy. The rush to war was far speedier than Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Max Forte has scrutinized the documentary history from before, during, and after the war. He argues that the war on Libya was not about human rights, nor entirely about oil, but about a larger process of militarising U.S. relations with Africa. The development of the Pentagon’s Africa Command, or AFRICOM, was in fierce competition with Pan-Africanist initiatives such as those spearheaded by Muammar Gaddafi.

Far from the success NATO boasts about or the “high watermark” proclaimed by proponents of the “Responsibility to Protect,” this war has left the once prosperous, independent and defiant Libya in ruin, dependency and prolonged civil strife.

Newly Liberated Libya Rejects Attack on Mali Islamists


Newly Liberated Libya Rejects Attack on Mali Islamists

France took the lead in pushing for military intervention to overthrow Gaddafi. Now it’s fighting Islamists, many of them from Libya, armed with weapons that France air-dropped to them, that Qatar smuggled to them or weapons from Gaddafi’s stockpiles,  and the Libyan government is opposing any action against the Jihadists who have overrun much of Mali.

Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zaidan said Saturday that Libya rejects military attacks on Mali, calling for solving the Malian crisis through dialogue, the state TV reported.

“We reject the attacks on Mali, and Libya’s position was clear, so we asked to give an opportunity for dialogue,” Zaidan said.

Libya will not be a base to launch attacks on Mali, Zaidan said, denying rumours of using Lawiig, a Libyan far south town, as a military base for the French forces’ operation.

Solving the crisis through dialogue wasn’t what the Libyan rebels were calling for with Gaddafi. Or with Assad. But some crises are solved with dialogue. Others with bombs. Islamists crises can’t be solved with bombs. But crises involving dictators that Islamists want to overthrow can always be solved with bombs.

Libya however has already served as a base for the attack on Algeria. Islamists are deeply embedded in the new Libyan government and in its military and security services. That state of affairs contributed to the Benghazi attack and likely to the Algerian attack as well.

Zeidan then went on to say that there were “no terrorist groups in Southern Libya”.

Absolutely.

The terrorists who attacked the In Amenas gas complex in eastern Algeria appear to have been of several nationalities, and may have trained in jihadist camps across the border in southern Libya.

None whatsoever.

The fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi might see the al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorist groups filling up the void, US analysts have said.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) that was branded by the US as a terrorist organisation in May 2010 has been operating from its base in Algeria, and has now extended its reach to the borders of Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Chad and Libya, Fox News reports.

Gaddafi had earlier not only provided intelligence on the terrorists’ operations to the US, but has also publicly spoken out against them.

Branding the group members as ‘bad Muslims’, Gaddafi said: “The security forces found a mosque in al-Zawiya. In a mosque! Weapons, alcohol, and their corpses – all mixed up together.”

Now that the Libyan dictator has gone into hiding, many analysts have raised concerns whether southern Libya will become a magnet for jihadist groups.

Cully Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defence who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that the al-Qaeda affiliate might turn out to be an adaptive enemy.

Well that Obama policy worked out great. Maybe next he can stop relying on half-measures and just give the terrorists all our nuclear codes.

source:  By   frontpagemag.com

 

 

Iraq, Libya, Syria: We have no right to play God


Iraq, Libya, Syria: We have no right to play God

The evil of the illegal interventionist wars

By  Jonathan Cook

In a traditional cowboy movie, we know what to do: look for the guy wearing the white hat to make sure to encourage and which carries the black hat to see who deserves to die horribly preferably before the credits roll . If Hollywood learned early to play in these more tribal emotions, do doubt that Washington‘s political will are less sophisticated writers?

Since 9/11, the United States and its allies in Europe are convinced that we are conducting a series of “white hat” wars against “black hat” Middle Eastern regimes. Each has been deceptively sold to us as a “humanitarian intervention”. The cycle of these wars is still far from complete.

But during the last decade, the presentation of these wars has necessarily changed. As Hollywood well understood, the public quickly tire of the plot devised the same. Invention, creativity and the increasingly complex are necessary to maintain our emotional commitment.

The statements by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu hand, there are only so many times we can be convinced that there is a new Hitler in the Middle East, and that the time is fast approaching when the evil genius will succeed in developing a weapon of order the world designed to destroy Israel, the U.S., or perhaps the planet.

In 1950 Hollywood, the public boredom solution was simple: High Noon sheriff put the noble, Gary Cooper, with a black hat, and a white gunman wrong. It offered a veneer of sophistication, but actually the same good guy-bad guy formula plays along family lines.

If Washington required a new story after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, did not have to work hard to write one. Was assisted by the rapid changes that are occurring in the political environment of the Middle East: the Arab Spring calling. Washington could not have overlooked the emotionally satisfying twists and turns made by the awakening of popular forces against the hand damping of autocratic regimes, many of them installed by the West for decades.

The reality, of course, is that the U.S. and its allies are pursuing the same agenda as before the Arab spring: ie it seeks to preserve its own geopolitical interests. In that sense, they are trying to contain and reverse the dangerous manifestations of awakening, especially in Egypt, the most populous and influential Arab states, and Gulf, our line of the world’s most abundant oil.

But for Washington, the Arab Spring presents both opportunities and threats, which are being heavily exploited.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq followed a pattern of “intervention” is now widely discredited and probably no longer viable for a West that struggle with the economic downturn. It’s not an easy sell for Western audiences that our armies should without help invade, occupy and “fix” Middle Eastern states, especially considering how ungrateful recipients of our generosity have proved.

Humanitarian wars could have run into the sand at this point there was the Arab Spring opened new possibilities for “intervene”.

The Arab awakening created a new set of dynamics in the Middle East, which opposed the traditional domination of the military and political elites: the democratic forces and Islamists were buoyed with confidence again, national business elites spied economic opportunities through collaboration with the West and oppressed ethnic, religious and tribal groups saw an opportunity to settle old scores.

Not surprisingly, Washington has shown more interest in the cultivation of the latter two groups than the first.

In Libya, the U.S. and its NATO allies took off his white hat and handed it to the so-called rebels, mainly comprising the tribes out of favor with Gadaffi. The West took a visible role, especially in its bombing raids, but rather made that local actors were presented as in the driver’s seat. The West was more than willing to appear as if relegated to a secondary role: to enable good.

After you declare illegal of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, was beaten to death by the rebels last year, the end credits. The movie was over for Western audiences. But for the Libyans it started a new film in a foreign language for our ears and no subtitles. The little information that has leaked out from suggesting that Libya is in anarchy, no better than the political wastelands created us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of regional militias run the country, extortion, torture and kill those who oppose them.

Few can doubt that Syria is next on hit list of the West. And this time, the writers in Washington seem to believe that the task of making a run, if highly repressive state in a hopeless case can be achieved without the West’s hand is visible at all. This time the white hat has been assigned to our allies, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, which, according to recent reports, are fueling an incipient civil war, not only by arming some among the rebels, but also preparing for pay wages too, in petrodollars.

The importance of Western governments of developing more “complex” narratives about the intervention has been driven by the need to weaken domestic opposition to continuing wars in the Middle East. The impression that these wars are being inspired and directed exclusively from “inside”, even for a heterogeneous opposition whose composition remains murky to outsiders, adds an additional level of legitimacy, and further suggests that the western populations that cost of treasure and deaths will not be born for us.

Whereas there is a broad consensus in favor of attacking Afghanistan, split Western opinion, especially in Europe, on the question of the invasion of Iraq in the same way. In the post 9/11, the villain in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, seemed a more credible threat to Western interests than Saddam Hussein. Critics of Operation Shock and Awe have shown absolutely right.

The Arab awakening, however, provided a different story for later Western intervention – that Washington had tried weakly to advance also Iraq after Saddam’s WMD could not be reached. It’s not about finding a person or a doomsday weapon, but a civilizing mission to bring democracy to oppressed people.

In the era before the Arab Spring, this seems risky than just another ploy to promote Western interests. But then, it seemed much more plausible. It mattered little that local actors are democratic elements who seek a new kind of politics or feuding ethnic groups seeking control of the old politics for their own ends and vindictive. The West’s aim was to co-opt them, voluntarily or not, to the new narrative.

This move effectively eroded the popular opposition to the following humanitarian war in Libya, and it seems that it is achieving the same objective in Syria.

Certainly has fatally undermined effective dissent left, has fought and splintered on each of these wars humanitarian. A few major leftist intellectuals aligned behind the project to overthrow Gaddafi, and several of them are already applauding the same destination for Bashar Assad of Syria. Now there is only a rump of the left view critical firm in its opposition to a new attempt by the West to design an Arab state implosion.

If this were just a cowboy movie, none of this would be more than a casual interest. Gaddafi was, and Assad is outlawed. But international politics is much more complex than a Hollywood script, as should be obvious if stopped for a moment to reflect on what kind of sheriffs who have elected and reelected in the West. George Bush, Tony Blair and Barack Obama probably has more blood on his hands than any other Arab autocrat.

Many on the left are struggling to analyze the new Middle East, with something like the sophistication of military planners in Washington. This failure stems largely on the willingness to allow merchants of war, blur the significant issues – in regimes, opposition groups and the coverage of the media – for each a “humanitarian intervention” .

Yes, selected schemes for destruction are uniformly brutal and ugly toward its own people. Yes, the nature the nature of their rule  must be denounced. Yes, the world would be better without them. But this is no reason for the West to wage war against them, at least not while the world is still configured as competition and self-interested nation states.

Almost all states in the Middle East have terrible human rights records, some of them even with a smaller number of interesting features that of Libya – Gaddafi or of Assad’s in Syria. But then those states, like Saudi Arabia are close allies of the terminal to the West. Only naive or dishonest to argue that Western-led states have been selected for the benefit of its citizens suffered. Rather, they have been chosen because they are seen as implacably opposed to U.S. and Israeli interests in the region.

Even in the case of Libya, where Gaddafi threatens West was far from clear to many Western observers geopolitical interests were, in fact, dominant. Dan Glazebrook, a journalist specializing in Western foreign policy, said that shortly before the West turned their sights on Libya Gaddafi had begun to galvanize African opposition AFRICOM, the African Command, created by the U.S. military in 2008.

AFRICOM’s role is to organize and direct the African troops to fight so that, in the words of a U.S. Vice-Admiral, “the free flow of natural resources from Africa in the global marketplace.”The overthrow of Gaddafi, AFRICOM chief rival eliminates both your plan and implement their mission: not a single U.S. soldier or Europe died in the operation to overthrow Gaddafi.

 (**** US soldiers & European soldiers did die in Libya although the media has not mentioned it and the families have signed a gag order never to admit that their son or daughter was killed in action in Libya. Documents are available if asked. editors note. alfatah69) 

Highlighting the hypocrisy at the heart of the interventionist agenda what about  not be dismissed as simple. Western mendacity fatally undermines the justification for intervention, stripping it of any semblance of legitimacy. It also ensures that those who are our allies in these military adventures, like Saudi Arabia, are what ultimately shape reaches regimes that emerge from the rubble.

And yes also, the people of the Arab world have the right to live in freedom and dignity. Yes, they have the right to rise up against their dictators. Yes, have the moral right to our sympathy, our advice and our best efforts of diplomacy in their and cause. But they have no right to expect us to go to war on their own, or to arm, and to take their governments down for them.

This principle must be maintained because, while the world is currently configured, humanitarian intervention does not warrant a new moral order, but the law of the jungle. Even if the West could be trusted to wage just wars, instead of promoting the interests of its elites, how can we guess what was needed to achieve a fair result – more still remain deeply divided societies of the Middle East?

Libya is most secure the average of pulverized because his country with bombs, and that crushed their institutions, good and bad for equal, because we left it drifting politically and socially, and because it then handed weapons and power to tribal groups to enable them to take revenge of their predecessors? It is doubtful. But even if the answer is not clear, in the absence of certainty that we are obliged to follow the medical maxim: “First, do no harm.”

It is the height of arrogance – no, more a God complex - to be as safe as some of our politicians and experts who deserve the gratitude of the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the likely cost more than a million Iraqi lives and millions more forced into exile.

Companies can not have democracy imposed from outside, as if it were an item to order from a menu of lunch. Western democracies, imperfect as they are, they fought for their people for centuries at great cost, including terrible wars. Each state has developed its own checks and balances to address the unique conditions political, social and economic hard-won freedoms prevailed there. Those are under constant threat, at least not in the same political and economic elites as vociferous campaign for humanitarian interventions abroad.

The reality is that the greatest freedoms are not granted by external benefactors, but fought and won by the people themselves. No modern society achieved democracy but by a gradual struggle, painful, where lessons were learned, often by mistake, which reverses and setbacks were plentiful, and where lasting success came with the realization of all parties to the legitimacy could not be achieved through violence. If we owe to other societies struggling for freedom anything, is our solidarity, not access to the arsenals of our government.

In fact, the duty of the West not to intervene but to intervene much less. Already massively tyrannies arm, as the Gulf so they can protect the oil that we consider our birthright, we cover military, financial and diplomatic Israel’s continued oppression of millions of Palestinians, a major cause of political instability in the Middle East, and we quietly support the Egyptian army, which is now trying to reverse the revolutionary gains of the last year.

Popular support for humanitarian wars could not be maintained without spreading propaganda disguised as news for our businesses owned by the media. In the past decade have been marketed agendas faithfully Middle East war work our governments. As the imaginary pretext of every war is exposed, the armchair generals assure us that lessons have been learned for next time. But when the script is given a makeover – and white hat passes a new law enforcement – the same media experts justify war discredited once again from the safety of their studies.

This is another reason to tread cautiously. In the case of Syria, the source of the certainty expressed by our newsrooms is often no more than a one man team in the British city of Coventry known as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. If Rami Abdulrahman did not exist, our interventionist governments and their courtiers in the media would have had to invent it. The Observatory produces the anti-regime news needed to justify another war.

This does not mean that the Assad regime has committed war crimes. Rather, it is that, although they were “humanitarian interventions” a legitimate company, we have no reliable information to make an assessment of how we can intervene, based on the “news” because in our media by partisan groups the conflict. The only thing that is clear is that once again we are being manipulated, and a known end.

These are enough reasons to oppose other humanitarian war. But there is another reason why it is extremely unwise for the left to play along with the current agenda of the West in Syria, but honestly I think that will be the beneficiaries ordinary Syrians.

If the West succeeds in slow motion, the representative’s intervention in Syria and other Arab state off for refusing to toe their line, the stage is set for the next war against the next target: Iran.

That’s not an argument condone Assad permanent rule. Syria must stop taking this decision.

But it is a warning to those who justify the endless meddling in the Middle East in the service of a Western agenda. It is a warning against waging wars whose destructive power is primarily aimed at the civilian population. It is a warning that none of these humanitarian wars is a solution to a problem, but they are only a prelude to further war.  And it is a reminder that we have no right to play God

source: libia-sos.blogspot.ch

U.S. Militarism In Africa: Humanitarian Missions Or Imperialist Aggression?


U.S. Militarism In Africa: Humanitarian Missions Or Imperialist Aggression?

Africom is spreading its activity throughout the continent

By Abayomi Azikiwe

Global Research, September 04, 2012

africom

Unbeknownst to the majority of people in the United States, the Pentagon is directing increased attention to the African continent. The formation of the United States Africa Command (Africom) in 2008 signaled this trend which had been developing for at least a decade.

This should not be surprising considering the history of the U.S. and its European antecedents. Since the mid-15th century Western European nations have been involved with Africa through the Atlantic Slave Trade and later the colonization of the continent. The profitability of the colonies of the Western hemisphere is directly related to the exploitation of African labor.

Although the official history of the U.S. prides itself on the notions of freedom of the individual, the capacity for reforms and amendments to the constitution, there is also the resistance to change embedded deeply in the fabric of political culture, law and the economic structures of society. The slave system in the U.S. was introduced by the British colonialists during the second decade of the 17th century in Virginia.

From the time of 1619 to 1865, some two-and-one-half centuries, slavery was a profitable economic system that provided the wealth and technology that sprung America to the industrial position that it occupied during the latter decades of the 19th century. By the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the so-called Spanish-American war would usher in a new era of imperialism that became increasingly dominated by the United States.

With specific reference to the economic system of slavery and its justification within the American legal system, African American historian W.E.B. DuBois wrote in his seminal work on the failure of Reconstruction in the aftermath of the civil war, that “Negro slaves in America represented the worst and lowest conditions among modern laborers.” (Black Reconstruction in America, 1935)

DuBois continued pointing out that “One estimate is that the maintenance of a slave in the South cost the master about $19 a year, which means that they were among the poorest paid laborers in the modern world. They represented in a very real sense the ultimate degradation of man (and woman). Indeed, the system was so reactionary, so utterly inconsistent with modern progress, that we simply cannot grasp it today. No matter how degraded the factory hand, he is not real estate.”

Exemplifying the total degradation of the African under the slave system in the U.S. was the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. DuBois recounts that “The whole legal status of slavery was enunciated in the extraordinary statement of a Chief Justice (Taney) of the United States that Negroes had always been regarded in America ‘as having no rights which a white man was bound to respect.’”

Within the sphere of the process of production under slavery in the U.S., DuBois emphasizes that “Under the competition of growing industrial organization, the slave system was indeed the source of immense profits. But for the slave owner and landlord to keep a large or even reasonable share of these profits was increasingly difficult. The price of the slave produce in the open market could be hammered down by merchants and traders acting with knowledge and collusion. And the slave owner was, therefore, continually forced to find his profits not in the high price of cotton and sugar, but in beating even further down the cost of his slave labor.”

Another historian who studied the impact of the slave system on the development of American civilization was Trinidadian C.L.R. James. He wrote in 1970 that “the triangular trade in sugar, rum and slaves in an instance of programmed accumulation of wealth such as the world has rarely seen. ‘American slavery’, says one author, ‘was unique in the sense that for symmetry and precision of outline, nothing like it had ever previously been seen.’ The element of order in the barbarism was this: the rationalization of a labor force upon which the whole process of colonization depended had the African at its most essential point. If he (or she) had not been able to work or sustain himself (or herself) or learn the language or maintain co-operation in his (or her) social life, the whole question of America as a distinct civilization could never have arisen. We might be then talking about a sort of New Zeland or perhaps Canada.” (James, The Future in the Present, 1980)

Yet even New Zeland and Canada could not have become capitalist states allied with imperialism without the forced subjugation and removal of the indigenous peoples of those lands. Canada, had been a slave territory under the British where the system was eliminated decades prior to the Civil War in the U.S. and consequently became a haven for runaway Africans fleeing the exploitative system to the south.

From Colonialism to the Cold War (1900-1990)

As a result of the Atlantic Slave Trade, colonialism was instituted in North America, the Caribbean and Latin America. The Haitian Revolution of 1791-1803 illustrated profoundly the fragility of the slave and colonial system and more importantly the capacity of human beings, no matter how degraded, oppressed and exploited, to organize, rise up, rebel and take power from the slave masters.

Between the period of the Spanish-American War, as we referenced earlier, to the conclusion of World War II, the industrial and technological advancement of the U.S. reached historic levels. The advent of the assembly line, speculative finance and the expansion of global markets for industrial products, placed the ruling class within the U.S. in a dominant economic and political position in relationship to its European counterparts and imperial Japan.

The character of the battles fought during World War II spared the U.S. from the destruction that destroyed the economic and social fabric of Europe and Japan. War production in the U.S. and the indebtedness of Europe catapulted the ruling elite in America to a dominate position within the world capitalist system.

After 1945, it was only the Soviet Union that was in a position to effectively challenge U.S. hegemony internationally. Other socialist-oriented revolutions in Korea (1945-48), China (1949), Vietnam (1945-54) and Yugoslavia (1945) provided additional challenges to the capitalist system both militarily as well as providing an alternative model for the organization of society, the planning of a national economy and the character of international relations.

This perceived threat to U.S. dominance resulted in the so-called Cold War. This war became hot in 1950 with the beginning of the Korean War that lasted for three years and involved the People’s Republic of China.

In Vietnam, the U.S. was keen to ensure French dominance which inevitably was defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. By 1961, the U.S. would send advisers to Vietnam in an effort to stop communism. In 1965, hundreds of thousands of occupation troops entered southeast Asia and remained there for a decade.

The Cuban Revolution of 1959 soon became socialist-oriented and the U.S. response to this phenomenon in its so-called “backyard” almost led to nuclear war with the Soviet Union in 1962. The Cuban Revolution encouraged the U.S. to enter the Dominican Republic in 1965 in an attempt to prevent another socialist intervention.

That same year in Indonesia, the potential for the seizure of power by the Communist Party, the second largest at the time just next to China, brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

With specific reference to Africa, the U.S. government after World War II paid lip service to the anti-colonial struggle, but in actuality supported the perpetuation of the status-quo. Although relationships between the U.S. administration and progressive African states were established in Ghana, Guinea, Algeria, Egypt, Tanzania and others, nonetheless, it became obvious even during the 1950s and 1960s, and was documented later, that successive Washington administrations were more concerned about containing Soviet, Chinese and Cuban influence than assisting a genuine process of de-colonization and independence.

Algeria, a former French colony that won its liberation through a protracted armed struggle between 1954-1961, sought relations with Washington. However, even under the Kennedy administration there were efforts to discourage Algiers from enhancing its cooperation with revolutionary Cuba. The invasion of Algeria by Morocco in 1963 was encouraged and engineered by the U.S. as a means of stifling and reversing the African Revolution.

In Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah in 1966, a police and military coup was masterminded by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the State Department. These facts came out during the revelations of the 1970s in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and the declassification of intelligence documents.

In reference to South Africa, African National Congress (ANC) leader Nelson Mandela was thrown into prison in 1962 after he had traveled to Algeria for military training provided by the late Ahmed Ben Bella of the National Liberation Front (FLN). It was the CIA operating in league with the racist apartheid regime that brought about the arrest and prosecution of Mandela who spent over 27 years in prison.

The former Portuguese colonies of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau represented a lifeline for Lisbon. Portugal was a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and enjoyed the support of the U.S. in its more than a decade of war against the liberation movements in these former colonies.

Even after the independence of Angola in 1975, the U.S. collaborated with the racist South African Defense Forces (SADF) and the reactionary UNITA and FNLA guerrilla groups in an effort to undermine the genuine and total liberation of this oil-rich Southern African nation. It was the intervention of Cuban internationalist forces in Angola between 1975-1989 that ensured the defeat of the SADF and consequently lead to the independence of Namibia. After the independence of Namibia in 1990, the apartheid regime, which benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. corporate investment and military assistance, agreed to release Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners in South Africa and enter into serious negotiations with the liberation movements for a transfer of power.

U.S.-Africa Relations in the Post-Cold War Period

Beginning in the late 1980s, the socialist states of Eastern Europe unraveled. In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed.

Yugoslavia, which had pursued an independent socialist path, broke-up over the course of the 1990s through civil war, partition and the eventual U.S.-NATO bombings of 1999.

China, although remaining socialist, shifted its domestic and foreign policy to accommodate large-scale trade and investment with the U.S. after the death of Mao Tse-Tung in 1976 and the ascendancy of Deng-Tsao-Ping. Many of the states in Africa which had proclaimed themselves socialist began to reverse policies related to state control of economic planning and anti-imperialist foreign policy.

Yet how has these developments impacted U.S. foreign policy toward Africa? If there is no real threat of socialist influence, why has the Pentagon increased its military involvement on the continent?

Why was the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) created in 2008? Has the establishment of a Pentagon base in the Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti increased instability in East Africa that could lead to a more unstable political situation in both East and Central Africa?

The answer to these questions lies within the actual developments in Africa over the last five years. Let us examine events in several African states and the role of the U.S. and its allies in the region.

Libya: A Humanitarian War?

The 2011 war against the North African state of Libya represented the first full project of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom). Since Libya’s Revolution in 1969, the U.S. had been at odds with the country and its leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi.

Libya is a former Italian colony and during World War II the U.S. moved in and began to construct the Wheelus Air Force Base. As the Cold War escalated after the War, Libya became an important outpost for the Pentagon.

When Gaddafi came to power the U.S. air base was closed and the country nationalized its oil resources. Later it was determined that Libya encompassed the largest known oil reserves on the continent.

In the early 1980s relations between the U.S. and Libya worsened with the shooting down of Libyan planes by the U.S. Air Force in 1981. In 1986, Libya was bombed in two cities, Tripoli and Benghazi, under the Reagan administration. The country’s government was accused of being behind an attack on a night club in West Germany that was frequented by U.S. troops stationed in the region.

Economic sanctions and a travel ban was imposed on Libya by the U.S. This state of affairs lasted until 2003, when on the eve of the war against Iraq, the U.S. moved to “normalize” relations with Libya in exchange for its purported disarmament of “weapons of mass destruction.”

Trade increased between Libya and the U.S. as well as several Western European states. This state of affairs continued until 2009 when a Libyan was released from a Scottish prison on humanitarian grounds.

He had been convicted during the 1990s for alleged involvement in the bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland. Of the two Libyans put on trial for this action, only one was convicted. At the time of his release the case was under appeal and may very well have been overturned.

Relations worsened between the U.S. and Libya after 2009, and by February 2011, when a rebellion erupted in the east of the country, the U.S. and NATO intervened through an arms embargo, a naval blockade and a massive bombing campaign that resulted in 26,000 sorties and nearly 10,000 airstrikes. The rebel Transitional National Council (NTC) was installed as the “legitimate” government of the country.

Approximately two million Libyans and foreign nationals residing in the country were displaced, thousands died in the war and the consequent instability engendered by the rebel group, the air campaign, naval blockade and the freezing of over $160 billion in foreign assets has had regional implications that have spread to neighboring Mali, where a rebellion in the north of the country precipitated a military coup and the possible intervention of a regional armed force to ostensibly stabilize the situation.

Today Libya is more divided than during any period of its post-independence history with secessionist efforts in the east, increased fighting in the south and the failure of the NTC to reign in militias under a national army.

Somalia: Another War for Oil?

In Somalia in the Horn of Africa, the involvement of the U.S. has extended back at least until the late 1970s when the Carter administration encouraged the-then military government of Mohamed SiadBarre to invade the Ogaden region of Ethiopia. After Somalia’s defeat at the hands of the Ethiopian military and Cuban internationalist forces then in the country to bolster its socialist orientation, the state of Somalia spun into instability and horrendous food deficits.

By 1991, the SiadBarre regime had collapsed under internal pressures and since this time there has really been no stable internationally recognized government in Somalia. In late 1992, thousands of U.S. Marines entered the country in “Operation Restore Hope,” which it was claimed at the time, was designed to provide humanitarian relief from famine.

In just a few months a national uprising was launched against the U.S. and United Nations presence in Somalia resulting in the deaths of many Marines as well as thousands of Somalians. Both the U.S. and U.N. forces withdrew in 1994, not to return until the recent period.

Since 2006, the U.S. has attempted to control the situation inside the country. The Transitional Federal Government (TFG) is essentially bankrolled by the U.S. and the African Union Mission to Somalia (Amisom) largely consists of U.S.-backed forces from Uganda, Burundi and Djibouti.

In October 2011, the Kenyan Defense Forces (KDF) invaded the south of Somalia in a bid to crush the Al-Shabaab Islamic resistance movement which has been labeled by the U.S. as a “terrorist” organization. It turns out that this intervention, “Operation Linda Nchi,” had been planned for two years between Africom, the TFG and the Kenyan government.

Despite this intervention as well, Somalia is still not stable and the humanitarian situation remains dire. The Pentagon and the CIA has deployed drones in Somalia resulting in the deaths of hundreds of nationals. These drones have fallen in displaced persons camps killing innocent civilians.

These attacks on Somalia is coupled with a formidable naval presence by the Pentagon and the European Union off the coast of Somalia in the Gulf of Aden, one of the most lucrative shipping lanes in the world. This presence is ostensibly geared toward fighting piracy which has been deemed a major problem in the region.

Somalia has been determined to be a major source of oil reserves. Drilling and speculation are taking place in the breakaway region of Puntland in the north by Canadian and British firms. U.S. firms claim to have purchased concessions for oil drilling and like Libya, these projects will inevitably be conducted by private corporate interests.

Kony 2012: Special Forces and Advisors to the Rescue

Perhaps the most well publicized U.S. military adventure in Africa recently has been the so-called “Invisible Children” campaign. On October 14, 2011, the Obama administration announced that 100 Pentagon Special Forces and advisors were being dispatched to four states in East and Central Africa to track down Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).

The LRA has been largely defeated in northern Uganda where it was founded. The remnants of the group have scattered into the Central African Republic, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Uganda is emerging as another oil producing state and has close political, military and economic ties to the U.S. The DRC is a treasure trove of strategic minerals and South Sudan is awash with oil.

Whether Kony is captured or killed the U.S. involvement in the region will continue and be enhanced. The U.S. is becoming more dependent upon oil imports from Africa, now approximately 25 percent of its overall supply from outside the country.

The Role of China

We would be remiss not to mention the growing role of China in African affairs. As I wrote in 2010, “the strongest growth in trade has taken place between Africa and Asian states, with the People’s Republic of China being the most significant. China’s trade with Africa was recorded at $93 billion in 2008, making it the second largest partner after the U.S. In Nigeria alone, a recently signed oil cooperation agreement with China is reported to involve between $32 billion to $50 billion in trade and investment.” (Africa & Imperialism)

This same article continues noting a United Nations report indicating “that trade between Africa and China, had increased by 1,000 percent during the period between 2000-2008.” As of 2010, “China accounted for 11 percent of the continent’s external trade, with the bulk of transactions taking place in the sectors of primary products, including fuel and minerals.”

Conclusion

These are some of the important issues that must be evaluated when assessing U.S.-Africa relations. The source of this relationship has been economic since the Atlantic Slave Trade and the period of direct colonial rule.

With the U.S. and Europe facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we will see enhanced efforts aimed at the capturing and domination of foreign resources and trade relations that are clearly linked to the massive re-structuring of the labor market inside the U.S.

Whether this intervention in Africa will continue on its present course depends upon political developments inside the U.S. and the level of opposition in Africa. What is clear is that until a more balanced and equitable system of trade and international relations develops, people inside the United States will continue to pay a heavy price for the dependence upon oil and other strategic resources in Africa and other parts of the world.

Abayomi Azikiwe is Editor, Pan-African News Wire

 

If there were Global Justice, Nato would be in the Dock over Libya


If there were Global Justice, Nato would be in the Dock over Libya

Liberia’s Charles Taylor has been convicted of war crimes, so why not the Western leaders who escalated Libya’s killing?

Seumas Milne

Seumas Milne- guardian.co.uk, 

Belle Mellor 1605

Illustration by Belle Mellor

Libya was supposed to be different. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan had been learned, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy insisted last year. This would be a real humanitarian intervention. Unlike Iraq, there would be no boots on the ground. Unlike in Afghanistan, Nato air power would be used to support a fight for freedom and prevent a massacre. Unlike the Kosovo campaign, there would be no indiscriminate cluster bombs: only precision weapons would be used. This would be a war to save civilian lives. (**** yes in some TV show or cinema script the reality was different!!!)

Seven months on from Muammar Gaddafi’s butchering in the ruins of Sirte, the fruits of liberal intervention in Libya are now cruelly clear, and documented by the UN and human rights groups: 8,000 prisoners held without trialrampant torture and routine deaths in detention, the ethnic cleansing of Tawerga, a town of 30,000 mainly black Libyans (already in the frame as a crime against humanity) and continuing violent persecution of sub-Saharan Africans across the country.

A year after the western powers tried to make up for lost ground in the Arab uprisings by tipping the balance of the Benghazi-led revolt, Libya is in the lawless grip of rival warlords and armed conflict between militias, as the western-installed National Transitional Council (NTC) passes Gaddafi-style laws clamping down on freedom of speech, gives legal immunity to former rebels and disqualifies election candidates critical of the new order. These are the political forces Nato played the decisive role in bringing to power.

Now the evidence is starting to build up of what Nato’s laser-guided bombing campaign actually meant on the ground. The New York-based Human Rights Watch this week released a report into the deaths of at least 72 Libyan civilians, a third of them children, killed in eight separate bombing raids (seven on non-military targets) – and denounced Nato for still refusing to investigate or even acknowledge civilian deaths that were always denied at the time.

Given the tens of thousands of civilians killed by US, British and other Nato forces both from the air and on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen over the last decade, perhaps Nato commanders prefer not to detain themselves with such comparative trifles. And Human Rights Watch believes that, whatever the real number of civilians directly killed by Nato bombing, it was relatively low given the 10,000-odd sorties flown.

But while Nato’s UN mandate was to protect civilians, the alliance in practice turned that mission on its head. Throwing its weight behind one side in a civil war to oust Gaddafi’s regime, it became the air force for the rebel militias on the ground. So while the death toll was perhaps between 1,000 and 2,000 when Nato intervened in March, by October it was estimated by the NTC to be 30,000 – including thousands of civilians.

We can’t of course know what would have happened without Nato’s bombing campaign, even if there is no evidence that Gaddafi had either the intention or capability to carry out a massacre in Benghazi. But we do know that Nato provided decisive air cover for the rebels as they matched Gaddafi’s forces war crime for war crime, carried out massacres of their own and indiscriminately shelled civilian areas with devastating results – such as reduced much of Sirte to rubble last October.

There were also Nato and Qatari boots on the ground, including British special forces, co-ordinating rebel operations. So Nato certainly shared responsibility for the deaths of many more civilian than its missiles directly incinerated.

That is the kind of indirect culpability that led to the conviction last month of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, in the UN-backed special court for Sierra Leone in The Hague. Taylor, now awaiting sentence and expected to be jailed in Britain, was found guilty of “aiding and abetting” war crimes and crimes against humanity during Sierra Leone’s civil war in the 1990s. But he was cleared of directly ordering atrocities carried out by Sierra Leonean rebels.

Which pretty well describes the role played by Nato in Libya last year. International lawyers say legal culpability would depend on the degree of assistance and knowledge of war crimes for which Nato provided cover, even if the political and moral responsibility could not be clearer.

But there is of course simply no question of Nato leaders being held to legal account for the Libyan carnage, any more than they have been for far more direct crimes carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only Briton convicted of a war crime over the bloodbath of Iraq has been Corporal Donald Payne, for abuse of prisoners in Basra in 2003. While George Bush has boasted of authorising the international crime of torture and faced not so much as a caution.

Which only underlines that what is called international law simply doesn’t apply to the big powers or their political leaders. In the 10 years of its existence, theInternational criminal court has indicted 28 people from seven countries for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Every single one of them is African – even though ICC signatories include war-wracked states such as Colombia and Afghanistan.

That’s rather as if the criminal law in Britain only applied to people earning the minimum wage and living in Cornwall. But so long as international law is only used against small or weak states in the developing world, it won’t be a system of international justice, but an instrument of power politics and imperial enforcement.

Just as the urgent lesson of Libya – for the rest of the Arab world and beyond – is that however it is dressed up, foreign military intervention isn’t a short cut to freedom. And far from saving lives, again and again it has escalated slaughter.

Twitter: @SeumasMilne

source:guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/15/global-justice-nato-libya