America Supports “Democracy” by Hook and Crook

…

CIA Map of International drug pipelines

CIA’s secrete Operations worldwide and drug money

Farzana Shah wrote on Feb. 22, 2009, on Asian Tribune.com the following:

In Afghanistan US/NATO put blame on Taliban for the poppy cultivation in Afghanistan for financing their resistance to allied forces. Ironically, it was only in Taliban era when the world had seen a sharp decline in opium crop in Afghanistan. Taliban banned opium cultivation nationwide. A more important question is how and when this business of drug production and trafficking started in region? CIA has been using drug money since long to generate money to support its operations all over the world. It did not start in Afghanistan it was brought here after experimenting somewhere else.

This is something which is not a lead story in international media for obvious reasons despite the fact it is harming millions of lives around the globe.

1. CIA’s secret Operations

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on of the most active and dynamic intelligence setups in the world needs massive amount of money to carry on its clandestine operations all over the world. It has happened when CIA used local sources to conduct a coups, assassinations, regime change, etc. As US has a long history to support democracy by hook and crook measures, until and unless a dictator is ready to serve US interests to prolong its rule.

Operations like the one completed in Iran in 1953 to remove Prime Minister Mussadaq and backing Shah’s regime by using assets in civil society, or in Iraq in 1975 to arm Iraqi Kurds to destabilize Pre-Saddam in Iraq or more recently using its assets in Pakistan to pave the way of direct US intervention in Pakistan under pretext of hunting Al-Qaeda.

These kinds of operations need a lot of financial input. Usually CIA arranges revenue from its own means for this kind of operations where expenses can’t be predicted by any measure. Funds from Whitehouse always need a complete audit and detailed reports about usage of these funds. There are numerous occasions when CIA never shared details of operations with its own analytical wing nor with any other public office in Washington. Most of the time it is drug money that compensates these expenses.

CIA operations are not only single expenditure fulfilled by drugs there are also other deficiencies which are compensated with this money like financial institutes and banks in current financial crisis. UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa based in Vienna revealed that drug money often became the only available capital when the crisis spiraled out of control last year.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime had found evidence that “inter bank loans were funded by money that originated from drug trade and other illegal activities,” Costa was quoted as saying. There were “signs that some banks were rescued in that way.”

It is not only CIA anymore in trade for using it as gold mine to finance its illegal operations all over the world but US economy also need some liquidity in its banks, it doesn’t matter if it is coming by drug trade.

2. Drug Production & Consumption

Afghanistan is the largest producer of heroin’s main ingredient; opium and opium is nothing new in this part of the world. In Afghanistan and FATA, Pakistan it is being produced since centuries; used as remedy for various diseases. Commercial production of opium began just during the Russian invasion in Afghanistan where it is estimated to produce some 8250 metric tons (Source: AmericanFreePress.net, November 24, 2008) of opium per year which makes 85% to 90% of the world’s supply of opium. This also contributes towards Afghan warlords’ wealth directly. This is what CIA brought to the region: Opium production without a brand name obviously. Today’s world opium production map is as under;

world opium production map

Demand and trafficking of drugs globally. US is one of very high concentration drug trafficking territory thanks to Regan’s National Security Council who turned a blind eye towards South American cocaine socking into US in 1980 when CIA was backing all the drug traffickers of Contra movements in Nicaragua.

Markets for these drugs stretched world over from Western Europe to Far East, From Canada to Latin America and From China to Morocco, Africa. Profits related to this business also vary along with market’s location.

This business enriches not only the United States-friendly Afghan warlords but also elements of the Northern Alliance, the US key ally in the country. More disturbing is fact that this money also contributes in CIA’s operations against Pakistan as well.

Gulf Arab Regimes Must Be Democratized Now

…

Heads of States of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)

The world know very well that fair, free and transparent governance is essential demand and right for all nations without exceptions. The USA, France and Britain are increasingly imposing non-peaceful and military changes to Arab states and to North and West Africa. Gulf Arab states, like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, are instrumental in the western new invasive policy of bringing freedom, justice and democracy to other Arab states like Syria, Egypt and Yemen.

US Corrupt Diplomacy Assisting Islamists and Activists in Syria

…

According to Wikileaks Cables as posted at Al-Akhbar English it is clear that bringing democracy and human rights are the convenient way for the USA for selective regime change. This is done in the Arab region where the major rich partners of the USA are neither democratic in any way, nor even recognizing many basic human rights.

Deceptive US Diplomacy

The World must define exactly what the US administrations mean by “Diplomacy”, “Democracy”, “Human Rights” and “Foreign Policy”. These values are great but the USA must adhere to decent laws and acceptable code of conduct. The USA must not make immoral shortcuts to achieve their real goals; or pretend to serve these principles while actually peoples are being used and their ambitions are exploited, including the Americans.

Show us the Money!

Date: 9/23/2009 13:36
refid: 09DAMASCUS692
Origin: Embassy Damascus
Classification: SECRET//NOFORN
Destination: 09DAMASCUS477|09DAMASCUS534|09DAMASCUS620

Over the past six months, SARG security agents have increasingly questioned civil society and human rights activists about U.S. programming in Syria and the region, including U.S. Speaker and MEPI initiatives.
Over the past six months, civil society and human rights activists questioned by SARG security have told us interrogators asked specifically about their connections to the U.S. Embassy and the State Department. XXXXXXXXXXXX questioned about MEPI-funded Democracy Council activities as well as visiting State Department officials.

It is unclear to what extent SARG intelligence services understand how USG money enters Syria and through which proxy organizations. What is clear, however, is that security agents are increasingly focused on this issue when they interrogate human rights and civil society activists. The information agents are able to frame their questions with more and more specific information and names. XXXXXXXXXXXX suggest the SARG has keyed in on MEPI operations in particular.

Except for the Netherlands’ public stalling of the EU Association Agreement over human rights, Syrian activists have heard little in the way of support from the international community.

Murky Alliances

Date: 7/8/2009 13:03
refid: 09DAMASCUS477
Origin: Embassy Damascus
Classification: SECRET//NOFORN
Destination: 07DAMASCUS1156|09DAMASCUS185

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Syria Website published a “letter” on June 11 accusing external Damascus Declaration committees of violating the Damascus Declaration National Council’s bylaws on electing members to the General Secretariat. XXXXXXXXXXXX and explained the Muslim Brotherhood’s protest stemmed from the external Damascus Declaration committees’ failure to coordinate with the MB in setting up the external political structures meant to compliment the Damascus Declaration’s internal structures.

The rancor expressed in the MB’s letter suggested a growing fissure between expatriate Damascus Declaration representatives, especially between the MB and the small, but politically connected and increasingly active Movement for Justice and Development (MJD). More worrisome, however, is recent information suggesting the SARG may already have penetrated the MJD and learned about sensitive USG programs in Syria.

Background
Since 2005, internal squabbles among political parties signatory to the Damascus Declaration have stalled, but never obstructed, the organization’s forward progress. Disputes ranged from how vocal the organization should be in condemning U.S. policies in the region (ref A) to whether the Damascus Declaration should distance itself from the MB.

Nasserists and nationalists of varying stripes, especially those in the Arab Socialist Democratic Party, whose participation in the Damascus Declaration was permitted by the SARG as a wedge to create division among reformist ranks, proved especially adamant in their rejection of the MB. The Nasserists, XXXXXXXXXXXX told us, insisted the MB’s involvement provoked the SARG; for the Damascus Declaration to continue safely, MB participation would have to be jettisoned.

MJD vs. Muslim Brotherhood
Since 2008, expatriates have formed Damascus Declaration committees throughout Europe and the United States. Initially, XXXXXXXXXXXX remarked, little coordination existed among the nascent “external committees” in the U.S., Britain, Belgium, France, and Germany. The MB, despite having a developed network in Europe and being signatory to the original Declaration, was left on the margin.

The MB did not comment on the formation of the committees, nor was the MB’s input sought by those putting the committees together, XXXXXXXXXXXX said. XXXXXXXXXXXX added that the purpose of these committees was to put in place a temporary, seven person panel that could elect a small number of external representatives to the General Secretariat, an idea consistent with the founders intentions for the General Secretariat’s structure.

XXXXXXXXXXXX asked the representative of the London-based Damascus Declaration committee, Anas al-Abdah — who was also the leader of the Movement for Justice and Development, a self-professed moderate Islamic organization (ref B) — to contact the MB and invite them to participate in the formation and elections of the ad hoc political panel.

“After a year,” XXXXXXXXXXXX lamented, “nothing has been achieved. Abdah claimed he tried to contact them, but this is hard to prove.” XXXXXXXXXXXX added that other external Damascus Declaration committee members had reported back that they too had attempted to contact the MB without success. XXXXXXXXXXXX told us XXXXXXXXXXXX doubted attempts at contact commenced until it was effectively beside the point — that is, after the MB broke with the NSF and disavowed opposition activities in response to the Israeli attacks on Gaza. By then, he said, it was too late; the MB felt slighted by the external committees. When the MB broke from the NSF, XXXXXXXXXXXX said, “I tried to push XXXXXXXXXXXX to contact them directly,” to ask them to participate in the formation of the external political structure. “I said directly, not through (Anas) Abdah because I know competition among groups outside causes problems,” XXXXXXXXXXXX recounted. XXXXXXXXXXXX

According to XXXXXXXXXXXX, it was the external committees’ disregard for MB participation that prompted the Brotherhood to draft and publish its incendiary letter. XXXXXXXXXXXX said “some people are now saying the MB isn’t serious about joining in the Damascus Declaration’s work” and that the letter is just an excuse — they have already renounced opposition activities and do not plan to resume them against Syria. XXXXXXXXXXXX cautioned, “I think this comes from outside, not in Syria,” and that it is not true. XXXXXXXXXXXX argued MB participation in the Damascus Declaration was essential, observing, “The MB is the largest Islamic group in the country; the MJD is just a few people.”

MJD: A Leaky Boat?
XXXXXXXXXXXX had told us in the past (ref B) that the MJD (1) had many members who were formerly with the MB; (2) was at odds with the MB and sought to marginalize it abroad; (3) was seeking to expand its base in Syria, though it had not been successful; and (4) had been initially lax in its security, often speaking about highly sensitive material on open lines. The first three points speak directly to the ongoing feud and the MB’s recent letter of protest. XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX told us security services had asked whether XXXXXXXXXXXX had met with anyone from our “Foreign Ministry” and with anyone from the Democracy Council (Comment: State Department Foreign Affairs Officer Joseph Barghout had recently been in Syria XXXXXXXXXXXX; we assume the SARG was fishing for information, knowing Barghout had entered the country. Jim Prince was in Damascus on February 25, XXXXXXXXXXXX

Born not as a political party, but as an umbrella organization composed of many different groups, the Damascus Declaration has been handicapped by internal divisions among unlikely allies: the Kurds, the MB, liberals, national socialists, communists and others. XXXXXXXXXXXX MJD’s organizational successes so far might best be explained as the by-products of its relationship with XXXXXXXXXXXX and the USG. Evidence the organization has a sizable, influential constituency inside and outside Syria is difficult to discern. Post has seen no reporting on the size MJD’s base in Europe and the U.S. XXXXXXXXXXXX; therefore it would not surprise us if an external committee member like Anas Abdah, who heads both the Damascus Declaration’s external London committee and the MJD, would drag his feet when asked to contact the MB.

XXXXXXXXXXXX report begs the question of how much and for how long the SARG has known about Democracy Council operations in Syria and, by extension, the MJD’s participation. Reporting in other channels suggest the Syrian Muhabarat may already have penetrated the MJD and is using MJD contacts to track U.S. democracy programming. If the SARG does know, but has chosen not to intervene openly, it raises the possibility that the SARG may be mounting a campaign to entrap democracy activists receiving illegal (under Syrian law) foreign assistance.

Behavior Reform

Date: 4/28/2009 13:24
refid: 09DAMASCUS306
Origin: Embassy Damascus
Classification: SECRET
Destination: 09DAMASCUS129|09DAMASCUS185|09DAMASCUS272

This cable represents a follow-up to “Re-engaging Syria: Human Rights” (ref A) and outlines ongoing civil society programming in the country, primarily under the auspices of the Bureau of Human Rights and Labor (DRL) and the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI).

Both MEPI and DRL fund projects on which Post has varying degrees of visibility. Some programs may be perceived, were they made public, as an attempt to undermine the Asad regime, as opposed to encouraging behavior reform. In an effort to assist any Department level discussions on the SARG’s attitude toward human rights, this cable describes a possible strategy for framing the human rights discussion as an area of “mutual concern” for Syria and the U.S.

The New Policy Front
As the Syria policy review moves apace, and with the apparent collapse of the primary Syrian external opposition organization, one thing appears increasingly clear: U.S. policy may aim less at fostering “regime change” and more toward encouraging “behavior reform.” If this assumption holds, then a reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-SARG factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive as well.

The U.S. attempt to politically isolate the SARG raised stumbling blocks to direct Embassy involvement in civil society programming. As a result, the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and the Bureau of Human Rights and Labor (DRL) took the lead in identifying and funding civil society and human rights projects. Though the Embassy has had direct input on a few of these efforts, especially with DRL, most of the programming has proceeded without direct Embassy involvement.

DRL
DRL funded four major Syria-specific programs in the previous fiscal year. The grant recipients were (1) Freedom House, which conducted multiple workshops for a select group of Syrian activists on “strategic non-violence and civic mobilization;” (2) the American Bar Association, which held a conference in Damascus in July and then continued outreach with the goal of implementing legal education programs in Syria through local partners; (3) American University, which has conducted research on Syrian tribal and civil society by inviting shaykhs from six tribes to Beirut for interviews and training; and (4) Internews, which has coordinated with the Arab Women Media Center to support media youth camps for university-aged Syrians in both Amman and Damascus. In addition to these programs, the Embassy provided input on DRL grants awarded to Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), International War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), and The International Research and Exchange Board (IREX). Though Post does not directly monitor any of these programs, we have appreciated the opportunity to meet with representatives of CIPE and IWPR.

MEPI
In addition to smaller local grants, MEPI sponsors eight major Syria-specific initiatives, some dating back to 2005 that will have received approximately USD 12 million by September 2010. A summary of MEPI produced material on these programs follows:
-Aspen Strategic Initiative Institute, “Supporting Democratic Reform” (USD 2,085,044, December 1, 2005 – December 31, 2009). The institute, situated in Berlin, works with indigenous and expatriate reform-oriented activists and has sponsored conferences in international locations that brought together NGO representatives, media, and human rights activists from the Middle East, Europe, and the U.S., paying particular attention to Syrian Kurds. MEPI noted that “while this program has offered little intrinsic value and will not likely be continued beyond the terms of the grant, XXXXXXXXXXXX
-Democracy Council of California, “Civil Society Strengthening Initiative (CSSI)” (USD 6,300,562, September 1, 2006 – September 30, 2010). “CSSI is a discrete collaborative effort between the Democracy Council and local partners” that has produced XXXXXXXXXXXX “various broadcast concepts” set to air in April.
-Regents of the University of New Mexico, “The Cooperative Monitoring Center-Amman: Web Access for Civil Society Initiatives” (USD 949,920, September 30, 2006 – September 30, 2009). This project established “a web portal” and training in how to use it for NGOs. MEPI noted, “this program has been of minimal utility and is unlikely to be continued beyond the term of the grant.”
-XXXXXXXXXXXX
-XXXXXXXXXXXX
-International Republican Institute (IRI), “Supporting Democratic Reform” (USD 1,250,000, September 30, 2006 – August 31, 2009). “The project supports grassroots public awareness campaigns and the conduct and dissemination of public opinion polling research. XXXXXXXXXXXX
-XXXXXXXXXXXX
-XXXXXXXXXXXX
-MEPI has also proposed continued programming for IRI and the CIPE, as well as supporting independent journalists through joint efforts with NEA/PI.

Challenge Ahead: Programming In Syria
Regarding the most sensitive MEPI-sponsored programs in Syria, Post has had limited visibility on specific projects, due in no small measure to SARG-imposed constraints. XXXXXXXXXXXX. Through the intermediary operations of the Movement for Justice and Development (MJD) (ref B), a London-based moderate Islamist group, MEPI routes money XXXXXXXXXXXX. Our understanding is that the aforementioned Democracy Council grant is used for this purpose and passes the MEPI grant money on to the MJD.

The SARG would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change. This would inevitably include the various expatriate reform organizations operating in Europe and the U.S., most of which have little to no effect on civil society or human rights in Syria.

Strategic Thinking: Next Steps
The current review of policy toward Syria offers the USG an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to human rights through the strategic and incremental opening of dialogue between the two countries. The core issues facing a human rights strategy for Syria are (1) how best to advise the SARG that its tolerating dissent will be a key issue as our bilateral relationship moves forward; and (2) how to bring our U.S.-sponsored civil society and human rights programming into line a less confrontational bilateral relationship.

Conversations between U.S. and SARG officials have examined the parameters of what might constitute a “common interest” between the two countries, “shared concerns” upon which to center future bilateral discourse and achieve concrete results. This strategy might prove equally effective in raising human rights with the SARG by clearly articulating how recognizable and sustained behavior change in relation to human rights would enhance SARG’s image, which currently represents a stumbling block to advancing bilateral relations. In the past, both the Department and the White House have made public statements condemning the SARG for its human rights record; these statements have not, unfortunately, produced positive results. Visiting Congressional delegations have also made public statements that have not been met with the desired action by the SARG.

The SARG reacts defensively to public announcements, so more private channels of communication might reinforce a “common interest” theme, allowing the SARG to act without being perceived as bending under U.S. pressure.

Should the current administration wish to send such a message, action on any one of the following five concerns might shift the SARG’s image into a more positive light. (1) The release of specific imprisoned high-profile civil society and human rights activists; (2) credible movement to resolve the citizenship status of stateless Kurds; (3) loosening media restrictions, including Internet censorship; (4) lifting travel bans on Syrian citizens; and (5) following up on promises to establish a “Senate” that would create a legislative space for opposition politicians to work in.

The perennial challenge is how to build programming in Syria without drawing SARG scrutiny to Syrian contacts and Embassy personnel. XXXXXXXXXXXX. If our dialogue with Syria on human rights is to succeed, we need to express the desire to work in Syria to strengthen civil society in a non-threatening manner. We also need to ensure that programming here is fully coordinated, that the Embassy has the resources it needs to administer the programs, and that the programs are compliant with U.S. economic sanctions against Syria.

While DRL- and MEPI-funded programs have explored new areas where we can achieve results, some of our time-honored programs may also prove to be extremely effective. The attractiveness of U.S. culture is still a powerful engine for change in Syria. It is revealing that when the SARG sought to punish the U.S. for its alleged role in the October 26, 2008 attack in Abu Kamal, they avoided political targets and instead shut down the three main sources of American culture in Damascus: the American Culture Center (ACC), the ALC, and the Damascus Community School. Countering with more cultural programming, more speaker programs, and the IV exchange program remain our best tools for having a direct effect on civil society. To this end, VIPs coming to Syria might be uniquely positioned to request and receive opportunities for addressing public audiences.

President Mugabe Rejects Western Brutal Intrusion on Africa

…

President of Zimbabwe Robert G. Mugabe Rejects Western Brutal Intrusion on Africa

This is the speech delivered by the President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe at 12th Annual National People’s Conference (08 December 2011).

On behalf of our Party, the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front, I warmly greet and welcome you all to our 12th Annual National People’s Conference which is being hosted by the Bulawayo Province as unanimously agreed by our Party. This is an annual event which we deliberately set towards the end of every year so we have an effective, decision-making mechanism for running and servicing our Party between Congresses.

And because this particular Conference takes place just ahead of an election year, it automatically assumes the status and consequence of a real Congress. Thus by way of subject matter and decisions, this whole gathering assumes the full weight of our Congress.  Such is the gravity of this two-in-one gathering.
In the same spirit, I warmly welcome delegates from within our region and beyond who have joined us as emissaries of their respective parties.  We value this show of inter-party solidarity and hope you will find our proceedings both interesting and enriching by way of showing you how we tackle challenges we face in our own situation. Again, a warm welcome to you all!
Ladies and Gentlemen, Comrade Delegates.

President Mugabe Greeting People

We meet at a time of great events and epochal changes in the world.  A time of great, epochal changes to the north of us, in the Afro-Arab World of North Africa. There we have seen momentous turbulence now collectively known as the “Arab Spring.” This wave of popular demonstrations has definitely challenged political establishments, some of which had lasted for decades. Events in Libya and to a certain extent Egypt leave us unsure of what the end in those countries will be.

Much worse, we have seen clear evidence of intolerable Western intrusion on our Continent, intrusion whose worst form was the brutal and bloody tragedy we all saw in Libya.  The Western world intervened, seemingly in the name of the United Nations. On that flimsy veneer of legitimacy, the well-developed but autocratic nation of Libya was bombed to Stone Age with Gaddafi cruelly and brutally assassinated together with his children. Today, that country is rubble, littered with ruins caused by American and Nato terrorist bombs. Lots of lives were lost, ironically under Resolution 1973 of the United Nations whose informing principle was “the responsibility to protect” civilians. Nato, that is Europe and America killed Libyan civilians ostensibly in order to protect them! History could not have moved in a more cynical way.

Against this naked intrusion, Africa was both unprepared and ill-prepared.  Africa was disunited.  The already weak continent weakened itself even further.  Whatever our stance in the African Union, we undermined ourselves by voting for war on African soil. Today, we have a broken nation, a broken people, broken lives, broken hope. If this trend persists against our own acquiescence, we face the grim prospect of broken Independence. As a liberation movement, Zanu-PF cannot be indifferent to this most inauspicious turn of history. It is a turn which challenges our sacrifices yesterday, indeed, challenges our achievements today by way of the freedom and Independence we enjoy, and hope to pass on to posterity tomorrow and forever. The events in Libya have sound grim forebodings for our continent and we have to take a stance.

Before the guns of invasion had been silenced, indeed while the blood of the Libyan people was still being drawn, Europe, led by France and Britain, were already having a revivalist mini-Berlin Conference to divide amongst themselves the spoils of that war, principally oil and reconstruction projects. This amounted to a second pillage of Libya, indeed of our Continent, to utter silence on our part as the African Union. Countries like our own Zimbabwe, which is so richly endowed with minerals, and thus so dangerously marked by global imperialism, need to remain very vigilant, always ready to sacrifice for the defence of our Independence and natural resources.

Robert Mugabe President of Zimbabwe Calls for Elections

Ordinarily, a party like Zanu-PF, born and built in circumstances of a revolution, the fact of a people’s movement must establish instant affinities between us and any such movements wherever they may be. In them, we should see ourselves vicariously. But the North African movements raise grave concerns. As already indicated, we still have to grasp their identities in the context of the African revolution which must always be anti-colonial, anti-imperialistic.  Rather, we clearly see the serious efforts deployed by the same forces of imperialism to redirect the bursting energies of a rebelling people towards self-destruction.

Another lesson for all of us is that imperialism cannot be appeased, can never be placated through any concessions or deals. It does not keep its word. Gaddafi, we are told, invested in Europe and America. He even sponsored the re-election of those who shot at him in the end.  Much worse, he agreed to be disarmed by his enemies who fawned love and affection. Our revolution must never blink.  It must remain wide awake, always vigilant and equipped for its own defence. After all, Kwame Nkrumah, the Ghanaian founder leader and father of new Africa warned us a long time ago that only a dead imperialist is a good one. We must remain strong and steadfast against Western imperialism. We cannot cut deals with it.

We are going through a war-like phase of global capitalism.  Today it is oil; tomorrow it shall be our diamonds, platinum, uranium, gold, copper, nickel, iron, manganese, chrome and all.  We have all these coveted resources, which is why there will always be attempts to challenge our sovereignty.
Whereas in the past all development aid, capital and technology came from the West, we now have a whole new world to relate to, a world with a better appreciation of our situations and aspirations.  I am happy to inform you that this alternative capital and technology is already beginning to show itself in our systems.  We need to expand that collaborative thrust, all based on equal terms and mutual advantage.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Comrade Delegates.
In my analysis of the turbulent events of North Africa, I made reference to the dangers of economically excluding the masses from mainstream economic activity. Societies that run on unevenness, run on the principle of shutting out the vast majority of people from mainstream economy, are bound to come to grief, sooner rather than later. Zanu-PF has grasped and understood this primary lesson of societal studies! Unevenness and inequalities are core causes to instability. After all, our revolution was founded on ensuring and assuring the Zimbabwean people of some place in the economic sun.

We did not go to war so the white man continues to run our affairs here. We did not lose so many lives so all those widows, grief-stricken mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts and nieces would settle back to a life of want as in colonial Rhodesia. We fought a war; won that war to win total freedom, total Independence! With that victory the vote had to come. It came. With that victory, the instruments of power by way of Government had to come.  They came. With that victory, democracy had to come. It came, brought by us.  With that victory, education for all had to come. It came. With that victory, racial discrimination had to end. It ended. With that victory, social services and amenities had to reach all people in equal or at the very least comparable measure regardless of colour or creed. That, too, happened.  Yes, with that victory the land, the land, the land, itself the grievance of all grievances, had to come back to its true owners.  It did.  The land has come, never to go back under whatever circumstances.

Today I tell you that with that victory, our national economy, our natural resources have to come back to us, without any more delay! The resources must revert to us the true owners. They are God-given; the only ones we can ever have as Zimbabweans. They are finite; once scooped out, they subtract from our total stock. Ours is not to prosper children of other Nations while our own grow spectre-thin.  Ours is not to develop far away nations, while our own people are condemned to hunger, disease and indigence.  No!  No!  No!

Izvozvo taramba zvachose. Siyala! Tinoti takarwirei?  Takafirei?
Zanu-PF developed the policy of indigenisation and economic empowerment well before the Inclusive Government. It is our policy which today has taken the form of the law of the land. We conceived it, we developed it, and we pushed it through Parliament until it became law. By the same token, we are its sole defenders, against any and all odds. It goes back to the pith of our war aims, the pith of our whole struggle. It is a matter of life and death for us as an African people seeking real Independence. Let no one fool themselves into thinking we are bluffing. Let them ask the Rhodesians who will tell them Zanu-PF does not play games with matters of blood and sacrifice. This economy shall indigenise, in our lifetime!  We are the generation that has been fated by history to make that happen, fated to carve a new place of pride for the African underdog. We dare not flinch.

We have already made a beginning on this policy whose impact should be national. Zimplats pioneered implementation of a facet of this policy of many elements, pioneered modestly in my view. Let them not rest thinking they are done.

They are not, and we shall be asking them to move up, up, up until they satisfy our policy, namely that 51 percent control must rest with our people. Other nations do it; we cannot be different. Unki followed suit and like Zimplats, we will remind them more remains to be done.  In both instances, communities who house these resources have been rewarded through a community ownership scheme.  Our wish is to cover the rest of the country.

Today we still have the patience to negotiate, to sit and talk with these companies which have been exploiting our resources without putting back much into our communities.  Time shall come when we shall not have the patience to talk.  We hope it does not get to that.

We are a liberation movement.  Yesterday we did not fear to offer our own lives, however dear, to free our People.

It does not make sense that today we fear to enforce our indigenisation policy on grounds that the economy will collapse. We faced similar dire predictions during our land reform programme. We executed it regardless. Today agriculture is on the rebound, with our people in full charge. In that sub-sector, the shoots of a truly national economy are beginning to show, together with mining, agriculture is a financial carrier of the State, never mind the enormous if not insuperable difficulties which our farmers face with each season. We must never be daunted. After all Marange will always be in Zimbabwe, Unki in Zimbabwe, Zimplats in Zimbabwe, ZimAlloys in Zimbabwe. We would rather leave our resources intact than allow them to be exploited to our detriment. At 51 percent, we have been extremely generous.

Our country does not have an elected Government. I feel I am President to a political arrangement which is makeshift, undemocratic and illegitimate. The Global Political Agreement (GPA) which initially was meant to settle inter-party differences, today threatens to usurp an elementary and inalienable right of the people, that of freely choosing a Government which must run them. The people have been toppled by this thing called GPA. It was never meant to last beyond processes we all agreed were preliminary to the holding of elections. It was just an interregnum, a short transition to a more permanent political arrangement predicated on a free and fair election. But we have constitutional issues to resolve, issues which once debated by our people, drafted by our experts, would then be put back to the people through a referendum. There was a time frame to all that, time frame which has now been totally subverted in the name of budgetary constraints. Today we ask; why are our self-anointed democrats finding democracy too expensive to be an item for the budget, too costly and unimportant to be a priority? Is it because they have been in the kitchen long enough to discover its goodies, its warmth?

There have been too many shenanigans, subterfuges, wiles and tricks, all designed to stymie the wheels of democracy. We must denounce that. We must demand elections in the first half of next year, without fail. This state of so-called inclusiveness, which in reality is a state of national standstill, has not served this country well at all. True, it gave us peace, but that peace must yield a legitimate government free to pursue definite policies without hindrance. This is not so at present. So our Party needs to gear itself for elections. It needs to strengthen its structures, close ranks and pull in one direction so we secure a landslide victory in the elections which must come soon.

Lastly, we in Zanu-PF must renounce and denounce violence. We must reject violence. After all we are right. After all history is on our side. We are the only liberation movement there ever can be for Zimbabwe. We are conceivers of policies which are running the country. We have ideas of taking this country to a new pedestal of validating our people’s Independence. Everywhere else, there is clear bankruptcy, leaving us as the only real Party of ideas, programmes and courage to lead in this turbulent world, in these turbulent times. Our progressive ideas should be the sole tools of persuasion and mobilisation, never violence. Should we ever fight, it should strictly be in self-defence. Otherwise, peace, peace, perfect peace!

Long Live our Revolution!
Long Live Zimbabwe!
Long Live the People of Zimbabwe
Long Live our Freedom and Independence!
Aluta Continua!
On that note, I now have the pleasure and honour of tabling the Central Committee Report for your consideration.
I thank you.

Source: Chronicle (Zimbabwe).

Africa Lies Naked to Euro-American Military Offensive

…

Atlantic Euro-American Military Offensive on Africa

Glen Ford wrote at Black Agenda Report (BAR)on 11/30/20:

As the U.S. and its NATO allies move southward to further consolidate their grip on Africa, following the seizure of Libya and its vast oil fields, most of the continent’s leadership seems to welcome re-absorption into empire. “Africa is the most vulnerable region in America’s warpath, a continent ripe for the plucking due to the multitudinous entanglements of Africa’s political and military classes with imperialism.” AFRICOM is already in the cat-bird seat, placed there by Africans, themselves.

Africa Lies Naked to Euro-American Military Offensive by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

“The United States and its allies, principally the French, are positioned to ‘take’ much of the continent with the collaboration of most of its governments.”

The United States and its allies are engaged in an Asian and African offensive, a multi-pronged assault thinly camouflaged as humanitarian intervention that, in some regions, looks like a blitzkrieg. This frenzied aggression, still in its first year, saw NATO transformed into an expeditionary force to crush the unoffending Gaddafi regime in Libya and is now poised to topple the secular order in Syria. Although drawing on longstanding schemes for overt and covert regime change in selected countries, and fully consistent with global capital’s historic imperative to bludgeon the planet into one malleable market subordinate to Washington, London and Paris, the current offensive had a particular genesis in time: the nightmare vision of an Arab awakening.

The prospect of an Arab Spring at the dawn of 2011 sparked a general hysteria in imperial capitals. Suddenly, they stared in the face of geopolitical death at the hands of the Arab “street.” Washington understands full well that the emergence of Arab governments that reflect the will of the people would soon result, as Noam Chomsky is fond of saying, in the U.S. being “thrown out” of the region – the final toll of the bell, not just for the oil-hungry West, but for international capital’s annexes in the autocratic cesspools of the Persian Gulf.

“The prospect of an Arab Spring at the dawn of 2011 sparked a general hysteria in imperial capitals.”

With centuries of Euro-American domination flashing before their eyes, Washington, London and Paris quickly configured NATO to unleash Shock and Awe on the victim of choice in North Africa: Muammar Gaddafi. The momentum of that show of force has led an expanding cast of imperial actors to the gates of Damascus. But Africa is the most vulnerable region in America’s warpath, a continent ripe for the plucking due to the multitudinous entanglements of Africa’s political and military classes with imperialism. The awful truth is, the United States and its allies, principally the French, are positioned to “take” much of the continent with the collaboration of most of its governments and, especially, its soldiers.

AFRICOM, established in 2008 by the Bush administration and now fully the creature of President Obama’s “humanitarian” interventionist doctrine, claims military responsibility for the entire continent except Egypt. The U.S. military command has assembled a dizzying array of alliances with regional organizations and blocs of countries that, together, encompass all but a few nations on the continent – leaving those holdouts with crosshairs on their backs. As the U.S. bullies its way southward in the wake of the seizure of Libya, its path has been smoothed by the Africans, themselves.

The long U.S. war against Somalia, dramatically intensified with American backing for the Ethiopian invasion in late 2006, is now sanctioned by IGAD, the International Authority on Development in East Africa, comprised of Ethiopia; the puppet government in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu; Kenya; Uganda; the de facto French and U.S. military protectorate, Djibouti; and, nominally, Sudan.

“As the U.S. bullies its way southward in the wake of the seizure of Libya, its path has been smoothed by the Africans, themselves.”

This year’s French-led, but nominally United Nations operation to oust the regime of Laurent Gbagbo, in Ivory Coast, was vouchsafed by ECOWAS, the 16-member Economic Community of West African States, including Benin Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.

AFRICOM stages a huge, annual military exercise called African Endeavor, which trains African militaries to use “standard communications practices.” African armies are taught U.S. command-and-control procedures, on American-made equipment, that is serviced by American advisors. In 2009, the militaries of 25 African nations took part in the exercise. This year, 40 nations joined Operation African Endeavor, accounting for the vast bulk of the continent’s men under arms.

More insidiously, through AFRICOM’s “soldier-to-soldier” doctrine, U.S. and African military peers are encouraged to forge one-on-one relationship up and down the levels of command: general-to-general, colonel-to-colonel, major-to-major, and even captain-to-captain. AFRICOM hopes these peer partnerings will forge personal relationships with African armed forces over the long haul, regardless of whatever regime is in power.

In the Sahel, AFRICOM maintains close relationships with virtually every nation along the vast band of land south of the Sahara desert that stretches from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic, all under the heading of “anti-terrorism.” These include Mauritania, Mali, Chad, and Niger, plus Nigeria and Senegal. To the north, AFRICOM has similar ties to the Maghreb countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and, until this year, Gaddafi’s Libya.

“This year, 40 nations joined Operation African Endeavor, accounting for the vast bulk of the continent’s men under arms.”

AFRICOM is often the real power behind nominally African missions. AMISOM, officially the African Union’s so-called peace keeping force in Somalia, is in fact comprised of troops from Uganda and Burundi, U.S. client states that act as mercenaries for Washington, and paid for mainly by the Americans. They are soon to be joined by 500 soldiers from Djibouti. For years, AMISOM was all that saved the puppet regime in Mogadishu from instant annihilation in its tiny enclaves at the hands of the Shabab resistance. Today, the reinforced “African Union” fighters are on the offensive, along with Kenyan and Ethiopian invaders, aimed at smashing the Shabab in a pincer movement. U.S. drones based in Ethiopia and Djibouti bring death from overhead. Thus, a force nominally fielded by the African Union is an active belligerent in a U.S. engineered war that has set the Horn of Africa ablaze – a conflict also sanctioned by IGAD, the regional cooperative body.

It is only a matter of time before Eritrea, an adversary of Ethiopia and one of the few African nations outside the AFRICOM orbit, is attacked – doubtless by nominally African forces backed by the U.S. and French. Certainly, the thoroughly compromised African Union will be in no position to object.

No sooner than the last loyalist stronghold fell in Libya, President Obama extended his “humanitarian” interventionist reach deep into central Africa, sending 100 Special Forces troops to Uganda for later assignment to the Democratic Republic of Congo, the new nation of South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, the French neocolonial outpost where the Americans sent Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide after kidnapping him in 2004. Supposedly, the American Green Berets will hunt for the 2,000 or so fighters of the Lord’s Liberation Army – a force the Ugandans themselves could snuff out if they were not busy acting as America’s mercenaries elsewhere on the continent. (Washington’s other loyal hit man in the region, Rwanda, was cited by a United Nations report as bearing responsibility for some the millions slaughtered in Congo.)

“A force nominally fielded by the African Union is an active belligerent in a U.S. engineered war that has set the Horn of Africa ablaze.”

NATO’s aggression in Libya was made inevitable when Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon dishonored themselves at the United Nations Security Council by voting in favor of the bogus “No Fly Zone.” The momentum of the Euro-American offensive flows southward, and will soon set much of the continent afire. The Horn of Africa is already a carnal house of flame and famine, engineered by the Americans but fully joined by Africans and their regional institutions. In the west, ECOWAS legitimizes imperial policies, while in the Sahel, Africans scramble to identify targets for the Americans. Each year, most of the continent’s militaries gather round the Americans to learn how to command and control their own troops, thus making their armies useless to resist the real enemy: the U.S. and NATO.

Betrayed by a political/military class eager to integrate itself into the imperial system on any terms, Africa lies naked to the Euro-Americans.

It will be up to the slums and the bush to reverse this catastrophe. If the Americans and Europeans are to be resisted, Africans will have to fight their own governments, first.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

 

NATO War in Libya a Face of “Neo-Colonialism”

…

Thabo Mbeki Former president of South Africa

Former president of South Africa Thabo Mbeki strongly criticized NATO, the West and the UN Security Council for their involvements in the war in Libya.

There are troubling, ominous developments in Africa, wrote former president Thabo Mbeki in Sowetan posted on Nov 8, 2011. Africa’s fundamental right to self-determination, the very independence for which it fought so hard and long to achieve, is being undermined by a pernicious “new imperialism” that threatens to end in the re-colonization of Africa.

He pointed out that NATO far exceeded its UN mandate in Libya, which allowed for the protection of civilians, not regime change. And he argues that the intervention was never motivated by anything other than a fig leaf to legitimize the involvement of foreign powers. “It is clear that the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations in Libya served as a signal to various Western countries to intervene to effect ‘regime change’. These countries then used the Security Council to authorize their intervention under the guise of the so-called ‘right-to-protect’.”

President Mbeki added: “In the aftermath of the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War, the UN Security Council has been open to abuse with regard to respect for the rule of law and international law.”

The consequences of the international community’s complete disregard for Africa’s rights could be devastating, Mbeki said. Libya, in Mbeki’s view, is the beginning of a slippery slope. By letting the West determines its next government, Africa risks losing all the gains it has made over the last few decades, opening the door to the West who will reassert their control.

Recent events in Libya should raise alarm bells about the threat to Africa’s hard won right to self-determination, former president Thabo Mbeki said on Saturday 5 November 2011. Addressing the Law Society of the Northern Provinces in Sun City, Mbeki said it “seemed obvious” that a few powerful countries were seeking to use the council to pursue their selfish interests. They were also determined to behave according to the principle and practice that “might is right” and to sideline the principle of self-determination.

“I must state this categorically that those who have sought to manufacture a particular outcome out of the conflict in Libya have propagated a poisonous canard aimed at discrediting African and AU opposition to the Libyan debacle.”

He said this was done on the basis that the African Union and the rest of “us” had been “bought by Colonel Gadaffi with petro-dollars”, and felt obliged to defend his continued misrule. He said all known means of disinformation was being bandied about, included an argument that Gadaffi’s Libya had supported the ANC during the apartheid struggle.

“The incontrovertible fact is that during this whole period, Libya did not give the ANC even one cent, did not train even one of our military combatants, and did not supply us with even one bullet”.

“This is because Gadaffi’s Libya made the determination that the ANC was little more than an instrument of Zionist Israel, because we had among our leaders such outstanding patriots as the late Joe Slovo.”

Mbeki said Libya’s assistance to the ANC came after 1990, when it realized that the ANC was a genuine representative of the overwhelming majority of our people.

Assertions that the AU depended on Libyan money to ensure its survival were false and yet another fabrication.

“The (UN Security Council) Resolution (on a no-fly-zone) said nothing about regime change. However the fact of the matter is that the NATO actions had everything to do with the overthrow of the Gadaffi regime.”

The AU had in fact adopted a roadmap for the negotiated resolution of the conflict in Libya.

“To all intents and purposes the Security Council ignored the AU decision and later blocked the AU Panel on Libya from flying into the country to begin the process of mediating a peaceful resolution.

“Libya is an African country. In addition to this, in terms of international peace and security, the conflict in that country has impacted and will continue to impact directly and negatively on a number of African countries.”

Despite this, the Security Council chose to ignore the AU, he said.

For this and all speeches of former President Thabo Mbeki go to:

Thabo Mbeki Foundation

And for articles visit: Sowetan LIVE Website

“Westerns” Panic from Thabo Mbeki Attack on Neo-imperialism in Africa

…

Thabo Mbeki

A Simon Allison wrote, on 9 November 2011, an opinion article titled: “Former President Thabo Mbeki Troubled By a ‘New Imperialism’ in Africa” at The Daily Maverick , and it was also posted on All Africa.

I am really amused, astonished and outraged by the amount of bias; prejudice; and misinformation in that article. Simon Allison wrote among other things the following statements:

[Mbeki should take off his pan-African spectacles and look deeper into the issues.]

[Thabo Mbeki is troubled]

[Thabo Mbeki is not happy]

[It’s Libya that has got Thabo so worried.]

[But what Mbeki is really worried about is that if the West does it once, they could do it again. “It is clear to many on our continent that what has happened in Libya has established a very dangerous precedent. The question has, therefore, been raised - which African country will be next?” he asks.”]

[Is this not a way of tacitly condoning Kenyan imperialism?]

[Mbeki’s inconsistency reveals his biases. He’s invested so much of his political capital in the African Renaissance, a renaissance that looks no nearer now than it was when he left office. But his worldview is coloured by this vision and he can’t see that Africa cannot always solve its own problems, or that African solutions can be just as problematic as those coming from the West.]

[Libya enjoyed no heroic liberation struggle]

[And regardless of the rights or wrongs of the intervention, the fact remains that there will be elections in Libya’s near future.]

[This is the closest Libyans have ever come to self-determination]

[Some of Mbeki’s ire doubtless has its roots in the way the African Union was marginalised during the Libyan intervention. Its softly-softly approach was much-maligned, and ultimately irrelevant as NATO sent in the fighter jets. By denying the African Union its say, goes the logic, the West is trampling all over Africa’s self-determination. But let’s forget about lofty pan-African ideals for a second; after all, in recent times the flag of pan-Africanism was flown highest by none other than Muammar Gaddafi. The fact is, Libya is part of the Arab world too, and the Arab League has as much right to speak for Libya as the African Union does. And it was the Arab League that requested the UN resolution that so vexes Mbeki.]

Other western commentators and writers spoke on behalf their shady politicians and said a lot of pathetic defense for Obama’s NATO war in Libya. Among the statements they made to make Africans assume that “the West is the BEST” (in a lot of woeful aspects; I believe!) things like:

[Africa will remain in mess because of Africans]

[African leaders are corrupt]

[African Renaissance is useless]

Their fears; allegations; misinformation; accusations; and machinations are all aiming to how to stop Africans from controlling their countries and their continent; and not to stop Westerns looters in Africa. I am sure that the “worried”; the “troubled”; and the “unhappy” are definitely the westerns, including the author and publisher, in reaction to our dear leader’s speech and campaign.

The Daily Maverick website has a page called “Maverick Tribe”. That page has the following invitation: [If you are eager to engage with fellow intelligent and good-looking readers on this site, consider registering with us in the meanwhile.]! I cannot join them because I am ugly, stupid, and of course I am not a “fellow” whatever it means.

I feel very sorry for the South Africans for having such people and such opinions on their land.

Well done Thabo Mbeki; well done all African leaders who stand against the West and defend Africa. Our African leaders will remain honest and incorruptible as long as they distance themselves from the greedy and hypocrite and the financially and ethically bankrupt West.

Africa must the burial ground for any attempts for Neo-colonialism and Neo-imperialism and their cronies.

I invite you to read these three articles: “Save North Africa from Arab Emirs and NATO” ; “Return Libya & North Africa to Africa!” ; and “Was Gaddafi With or Against Africa? “

End Note:

I personally invite all Africans and Africanists to visit the Thabo Mbeki Foundation’s website of and read the speech “International Law and the Future of Africa” of Former President of the Republic of South Africa; which was delivered on November 5, 2011.

The Thabo Mbeki Foundation implements programmes and projects aimed at supporting the achievement of Africa’s Renaissance.

Contact and directions of Thabo Mbeki Foundation

Engage in Exploring, Writing, and Commenting:

I would like to invite readers of this blog to engage in exploring, writing, and commenting on any of the following topics which interest me most and I guess most of them might also be interesting for you:

1. Obama’s NATO and AFRICOM, and his masters the corporate globalists.
2. Dr. Ron Paul presidential candidacy.
3. Ralph Nader against the two-party system.
4. Threats of corporate globalization to Healthy Democracy.
5. Expose the origins and crimes of Western Liberal Democracy.
6. Re-Designing Democracy.
7. Occupy the lower and upper houses and the bureaucracy.
8. The greed triangle of bloated bureaucracy, detached legislators, and corporate globalists.
9. Non-ethnic nationalism.
10. The dangers of international secret societies.
11. Nationality laws and indigenous nationalism.
12. Create Three-dimensional democracy.
13. Universal religions are fighting faiths.
14. Spirit Of Swadeshi inner development.
15. Corporate globalists alliance with Islamism
16. Exposing the links between Globalism; Capitalism; Communism; & International Secret Societies.
17. Nations Must Trash Western Liberal Democracy?…..& Their Way of Life Too.
18. International Secret Societies & the New World Order.
19. Corporate globalists & Sunnite Islamism Attacking Nationalism.
20. Swindles of Modern Liberal Democracy.
21. All wars in the Middle East and North Africa are between two evils.
22. Colonial Arab and Western Abuses of Nationality and Nationalism.
Few lines of comments will be much appreciated.

Thanks guys.

Thabo Mbeki Urges Africans to Protect their Right of Self-determination from Neo-imperialism

…

Thabo Mbeki

Former President of the Republic of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki delivered the following great speech on November 5, 2011. The address “International Law and the Future of Africa” is posted on the Thabo Mbeki Foundation’s website.

[….(Africa have) “urgent obligation to use its enormous talents to defend the inalienable right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination and thus affirm the inviolability of an important principle of international law”.

Last year we celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the historic “Declaration on the Granting of independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.

Among other things, the Declaration says:  “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

For the colonised, the Declaration constituted an important step forward in terms of expanding the corpus of international law to the extent that it decreed that “all peoples have the right to self-determination”.

This proposition had been raised earlier in the context of the Second World War, when US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston adopted “The Atlantic Charter” in 1941, which served as the precursor to the UN Charter.

In this context they said they “deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world” and went on to say that:

“They desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”; and, “They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”

And yet the UN Charter which came into force in October 1945 suggested that the colonial powers could continue to hold onto their colonies. This was despite the fact that its Article 1, spells out that one of “The Purposes of the United Nations” is: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…”

In its Article 73 the UN Charter says: “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end…

“(agree) to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.”

To this extent the UN Charter gave legitimacy to continued colonial rule, of course with the proviso that the colonial powers would chaperone their wards towards self-government. It is self-evident that this was done at the insistence of the then colonial powers, principally the United Kingdom and France.

To the contrary, the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” made the peremptory determination that:

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

“Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.”

It goes without saying that the eradication of colonialism, apartheid and white minority rule is one of the great and historic achievements of the period since the end of the Second World War.

As an expression of this development, we too, as South Africans, won the rights “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”

I am certain that all of us present here at this AGM, other South Africans and all Africans throughout our Continent, place a high value on these rights and would defend them with our very lives.

I have spoken as I have because of troubling developments which suggest, ominously, that Africa’s right to self-determination, so unequivocally confirmed in the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”, and entrenched as an important part of international law, is under threat.

In hindsight, it would seem to me that we made a serious error as Africans when we paid virtually no attention to a particular and pernicious thesis advanced by various individuals in the countries of the North, and specifically the UK, arguing for the re-colonisation of Africa.

In a 2002 article on “The Post-Modern State”, the British diplomat and then adviser to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who now occupies an important position in the EU Commission, Robert Cooper, said that one of the “main characteristics of the post-modern world” is achieving “security (that) is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability.”

He went on to say: “Today, there are no colonial powers willing to take on the job, though the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment…

“All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism has dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth - all of this seems eminently desirable.

“What is needed, then, is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.”

This view was echoed by Bruce Anderson, columnist of The Independent (London), in a June 2, 2003 article, in which he wrote: "Africa is a beautiful continent, full of potential and attractive people who deserve so much more than the way in which they are forced to live, and die. Yet it is not clear that the continent can generate its own salvation. It may be necessary to devise a form of neo-imperialism, in which Britain, the U.S. and the other beneficent nations would recruit local leaders and give them guidance to move towards free markets, the rule of law and - ultimately - some viable local version of democracy, while removing them from office in the event of backsliding."

On April 19, 2008 The Times (London) published an article by Matthew Parris titled ‘The new scramble for Africa begins’, in which he said: “Fifty years ago the decolonisation of Africa began. The next half-century may see the continent recolonized. But the new imperialism will be less benign. Great powers aren't interested in administering wild places any more, still less in settling them: just raping them. Black gangster governments sponsored by self-interested Asian or Western powers could become the central story in 21st-century African history.”

Writing in the New Statesman magazine published on 15 January 2001, another British commentator, Richard Gott, writing to oppose this “new imperialism”, said: “What Africa really needs, Maier, (in his book This House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis), seems to suggest, is the advice of a new generation of foreign missionaries, imbued with the new, secular religion of good governance and human rights. Men such as Maier himself and R W Johnson would fit the bill admirably. Other contemporary witnesses, the innumerable representatives of the non-governmental and humanitarian organisations that clog the airwaves and pollute the outside world's coverage of African affairs with their endless one-sided accounts of tragedy and disaster, echo the same message.

“With the reporting and analysis of today's Africa in the hands of such people, it is not surprising that public opinion is often confused and disarmed when governments embark on neo-colonial interventions. The new missionaries are much like the old ones, an advance guard preparing the way for military and economic conquest.”

I am certain that all of us will not hesitate to denounce these arguments in favour of “a new kind of imperialism”, “a form of neo-imperialism”, “neo-colonial interventions” as constituting a direct and unacceptable challenge to international law, and equally repugnant justification for the repudiation of the solemn “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”

In the passages we have quoted from his article, Robert Cooper says ‘the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world - a world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth…’

In essence he is arguing that the mighty and powerful should use their might to determine the shape and content of ‘the new world order’, positioning themselves as the global but unelected law-givers, giving practical expression to the undemocratic and brutal principle and practice that ‘might is right’.

As South Africans we waged a protracted and costly struggle among other things to assert the primacy of the rule of law and to establish a law-governed society founded on respect for justice in all its forms. In this regard we sought to liberate ourselves from arbitrary rule and injustice and therefore the ineluctably negative consequences of the implementation of the principle that ‘might is right’.

I am certain that all other genuine liberation struggles elsewhere in Africa also sought to achieve the very same outcomes.

It therefore stands to reason that in our own country we have a fundamental obligation to defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, at the same time as we defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, in the ordering of the system of international relations, especially as it relates to Africa’s interactions with the rest of the international community.

It is in this context that I have raised the important matter of defending and safeguarding the right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination, and your tasks in this regard, as an important and vibrant segment of our country’s and Continent’s legal community.

On September 14 – 16, 2005, a World Summit Meeting of the UN General Assembly took place at the New York Headquarters of the UN and, inter alia, adopted important decisions about what has come to be known as “the Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).

As part of its “Outcome”, the Summit Meeting said: “Recognizing the need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at both the national and international levels, we: Reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law, which is essential for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among States.”

What threatens Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is precisely the contemporary disrespect for “the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law”, directly contrary to the decisions of the 2005 World Summit Meeting.

In the period since the end of the Second World War the world community of nations has built a corpus of international law precisely to avoid the catastrophe of lawlessness imposed by Nazism, which, among other things, led to the criminal murder of six million Jews, the death of twenty million Soviet citizens, and massive destruction of the accumulated wealth of nations.

As you know, in this regard the UN Charter contains important provisions of international law relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. The 2005 World Summit Meeting to which we have referred, which addressed the so-called Right to Protect, expanded the peace-making obligations of the international community.

Article 24 of the UN Charter says: “In discharging these duties (for the maintenance of international peace and security), the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.

“The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.”

For its part, the 2005 Summit Meeting resolved that: “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law.”

The critical and essential point I am making is that the UN Security Council understood and accepted that its own actions had to be conducted as prescribed by international law. This relates both to the task to maintain international peace and security as provided for in the UN Charter and the ‘responsibility to protect’ as defined by the 2005 World Summit Meeting.

In other words, the UN Security Council itself could only carry out its work, and demand acceptance of its decisions by the world community of nations, including the General Assembly to which it has to report, if it respected the rule of law and established international law, as these relate to its own decisions and operations.

Part of what has obliged us to ring the alarm bells about the threat to Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is the concrete reality that in the aftermath of the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and therefore the end of the Cold War, the UN Security Council has been open to abuse with regard to respect for the rule of law and international law in terms of its decisions and actions.

It seems obvious that a few powerful countries seek to turn the Security Council into an instrument in their hands, to be used by them to pursue their selfish interests, determined to behave according to the principle and practice that ‘might is right’.

The outstanding, but not only, exemplar in this regard is what has happened during the greater part of this year relating to Libya.

Before saying anything else about this issue, I must state this categorically that those who have sought to manufacture a particular outcome out of the conflict in Libya have propagated a poisonous canard aimed at discrediting African and AU opposition to the Libyan debacle on the basis that the AU and the rest of us had been bought by Colonel Gadaffi with petro-dollars, and therefore felt obliged to defend his continued misrule.

For example, as part of this offensive, relying on all known means of disinformation, the argument is advanced that Gadaffi’s Libya had supported the ANC during the difficult struggle to defeat the apartheid regime.

The incontrovertible fact is that during this whole period, Libya did not give the ANC even one cent, did not train even one of our military combatants, and did not supply us with even one bullet. This is because Gadaffi’s Libya made the determination that the ANC was little more than an instrument of Zionist Israel, because we had among our leaders such outstanding patriots as the late Joe Slovo.

Libya came to extend assistance to the ANC after 1990, when it realised that the ANC was a genuine representative of the overwhelming majority of our people.

Similarly, the false assertion has been made that the AU depended on Libyan money to ensure its survival. This is yet another fabrication.

The UN Security Council adopted the infamous Resolution 1973 on Libya on March 17, which imposed a ‘no-fly zone’ and authorised various Member States (NATO) “to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya…”

The Resolution said nothing about ‘regime change’. However the fact of the matter is that the NATO actions had everything to do with the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

And indeed in a 15 April, 2011 joint letter, Presidents Obama and Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron had openly declared their intention to achieve this goal.

In this letter they said: “Our duty and our mandate under Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force.”

And yet in the same letter they said: “But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadaffi in power…There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya: a future without Gaddafi…Colonel Gadaffi must go, and go for good.”

And indeed, as leaders of NATO they ensured that this objective was achieved, directly contrary to what the Security Council Resolution said. And yet the UN Security Council has said nothing about what was a clear violation of international law.

A week before Resolution 1973 was approved; the AU Peace and Security Council adopted a roadmap for the negotiated resolution of the conflict in Libya and conveyed this to the UN Security Council, as prescribed under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

To all intents and purposes the Security Council ignored the AU decision and later blocked the AU Panel on Libya from flying into the country to begin the process of mediating a peaceful resolution of the conflict in that country.

This was despite the fact that Resolution 1973 itself said the Security Council supports the “efforts (of the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General) to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis” in Libya.

The Resolution also noted the decision of the AU PSC “to send its ad-hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.”

Libya is an African country. In addition to this, in terms of international peace and security, the conflict in that country has impacted and will continue to impact directly and negatively on a number of African countries.

Despite this, the Security Council, in violation of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, which provides for cooperation between the Security Council and regional bodies, chose completely to ignore the African Union, preferring to accord a Chapter VIII status to the League of Arab States, simply because the League had called for the establishment of a ‘no-fly zone’.

Resolutions 1970 and 1973 of the Security Council imposed an arms embargo on Libya. The latter Resolution also specifically excluded “a foreign occupation of any form or any part of Libyan territory” and deplored and demanded an end to what it called “the continuing flow of mercenaries” into Libya.

And yet it is now known that Member States involved in the NATO operation sent weapons to the NTC rebel forces and deployed military and other personnel inside Libya to support these forces.

Again this was in violation of international law, and yet the UN Security Council did nothing to stop it.

The armed uprising in Libya started one week after the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations. This can only mean that preparations had taken place before hand to effect a military uprising. In its resolutions the Security Council says nothing about this.

In this regard, in a Report on Libya issued on June 6 this year, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said: “Much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the (Libyan) regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no real security challenge. This version would appear to ignore evidence that the protest movement exhibited a violent aspect from very early on…

“Likewise, there are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term “genocide”. That said, the repression was real enough, and its brutality shocked even Libyans. It may also have backfired, prompting a growing number of people to take to the streets.”

It is clear that the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations in Libya served as a signal to various Western countries to intervene to effect ‘regime change’, as clearly explained by Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron in the joint letter we have cited.

These countries then used the Security Council to authorise their intervention under the guise of the so-called ‘right-to-protect’.

Thus the ‘right-to-protect’ was abused and international law was violated to enable some of the major world powers to help determine the future of an African country. In this context all measures were taken to deny our Continent the possibility to help resolve the Libyan conflict without the death of many people and the massive destruction of property, and on the basis of the democratic transformation of that country.

It is clear to many on our Continent that what has happened in Libya has established a very dangerous precedent. The question has therefore been raised – which African country will be next?

As Africans we have a continuing responsibility to protect our right to self-determination as well as a duty to work together to resolve our problems, fully cognisant of the inter-dependence of our countries and the fact that we share a common destiny.

In this regard, to protect that right to self-determination, it seems obvious that we must engage in a sustained struggle to ensure respect for international law and the rule of law in the system of international relations. This must include ensuring that the UN Security Council itself respects international law, which prescribes the rule of law.

I therefore return to the appeal I made at the beginning, that you should use your considerable talents to join this struggle so that indeed, as Africans, we have the possibility “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”

I hope that you will find some space in your busy schedules to reflect and act on this important matter.  Thank you.]

For all the programmes and speeches of former President Thabo Mbeki please go to:

Thabo Mbeki Foundation

Was Gaddafi With or Against Africa?

…

The normal reactions of most people to Obama’s NATO war against Libya and the subsequent savage and humiliating assassination of Colonel Gaddafi ranged from support to indignation. But let us look at the whole globalist episode from purely African objective perspective. The common mistake made is to be emotional or biased right from the outset which definitely will result in subjective conclusion.

Ancient Africans of North Africa and Nubians

The purpose here is to make Africans answer essential questions. Was the war in Libya between the good against the evil? Or was it between bigger and lesser villains? What are the consequences of regime change in Libya to Africa and Africans? Is it better for Africa and Africans to reverse the course of events in Libya, as Obama’s NATO and the Arabs did?

Africans must seek and defend their interests first and not to react to such war as if they were spectators in a boxing arena. This is practical politics not a TV show.

Who was Gaddafi? And What were his Opinions About Africa?

The biggest problem and contradiction with Gaddafi and his Green Book, and also equally with all states of the so-called New World, like the USA and all similar states, is the atrocities committed against the indigenous people and their issues. The imbalances and injustices created in recent modern history of Libya should have been corrected by Gaddafi 42 years rule.

These serious issues are concerning the non-integration of invaders, colonizers, and immigrants into the fabric of the old states. Gaddafi knew history and calling Libya an Arab state and giving Arab identity state official bias was totally unfair and discriminatory. Why the Tamazight (Berber); the Tubu (Teda); and all other African tribes must accept that their ancient land is called Arab while they are definitely not Arabs. No people can talk about human rights, justice, and other values if they are enjoying bloody loots.

Libyans

I strongly believe that all North Africa belongs to Africa and not to the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and the so-called Arab World. North Africa must be returned back to Africa. Libya’s oil wealth is African oil, but oil revenues are spent mainly on the coastal parts of Libya. The so-called black Libyans are simply the true Libyans. The atrocities committed by the militias of the NTC in Libya against black Libyans; African workers, and the African Union brought into the surface the deeply seated and imbedded wrong orientation of the inhabitants of coastal Libya, and also Jamahiriya regime.

After a long time of being Nasserist Pan-Arabist, Colonel Gaddafi started the beginning of course correction. That was only after the Arabs regimes targeted him openly and covertly supported his isolation and embargo. He apologized to Africans for Arab involvement in slavery and he supported African development and institutions.

Greater actions were and are still needed in this direction from any government in Libya. These include among many policies the following in particular: recognition of native languages; purging the educational system and the media from racist and anti-African sentiments and inclinations; political and economic empowerment of indigenous Libyans especially in the vast inland; affirmative actions to level the socio-economic and political fields; and the gradual assimilation of Arab tribes’ members into original Libyan identity.

Was Gaddafi Genuine Africanist or was He Tactical Player?

Libyan Tuareg Girl

For many political analysts and nationalists the ideology of Pan-Africanism might not offer enough sovereignty to states and it is too ahead of time. They argue that Africans cannot just leap from the current deformed colonial inheritance to a United State of Africa which must be far advanced and healthier than the infamous US model.

The Vision of Muammar Gaddafi is not sacred or ideal to most Africans. You may look at it this way, each state must first establish a stable system and national solidarity then moves to African economic cooperation, integration, or union. Only after these prerequisites are met they can move forward and work on African federation, confederation, or total unity; otherwise it is unrealistic. Imagine that after establishing US of Africa something like what is happening in Bahrain occurred; shall we act like the Arab GSC and suppress our fellow Africans by sending troops, or topple a regime.

Genuine Africanism is a bottom-up approach not the other way around. Gaddafi tested and discovered the dangers of Islamism and Arabism to his system; but sadly he stopped short from Africanism, and instead he tried to make a domination at regional level and on the African Union.

The history of Federalism, as well as Democracy, is dirty but this is not the system itself. Correct Federalism is the unity of the welling. The amount of delegation of sovereignty is based on a negotiable constitution. The USA, Russia, India, Nigeria, and Sudan are very bad examples of totalitarianism disguised in Federalism. Very loose federation might be considered as a confederation, also a valid option. All depends on the negotiated constitution. The point is to reach a good balanced contractual relationship between strength in unity and freedom in sovereignty.

Colonial Arab and Western Abuses of Nationality and Nationalism:

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. Africanist identification of “nation” is based on the mind; the heart and the interests of individuals but not on ethnic, racial, or tribal basis. Nationality and nationalism are acquired and not inherited; they are dynamic and not static; they are individual choices and not a group right; this means you have to prove you allegiance every day whatever your origin is. Once you keep sharing your heart; mind; and interests with any indigenous group then you are entitled to nationality and you may politically be a nationalist. You cannot be an Africanist just because you are from African origin or with African genes.

To emancipate from Arab and European colonial eras free African governments are supposed to be considered as public servants only and with very specific delegation of authorities from the people. Governments and peoples too own nothing in this God created universe; but only the indigenous people are the custodians of their territories. Based on this definition, free African governments must not give nationality to anybody by birth, residence, marriage, or anyway else. It is only the indigenous institutions who have the right to instruct the public servants to issue documents upon current and accepted allegiances.

End note:

Gaddafi must have known very well that the inhabitants of the coastal parts of North Africa must realize that they are also Africans and their brethren in the inland are not getting their fair share in power and wealth.

Neither the Jamahiriya of Gaddafi nor the Obama’s NATO and AFRICOM and his masters the corporate globalists can bring peace and development to Africa. It is up to Africans, Libyans, and North Africans to make their future in Africa. The Arab League and the UN must not be allowed to act in any part of Africa without the leadership of the African Union.

Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

…

The American Dream website posted the following article:

Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

[The Al-Qaeda flag has been flying high over Libya and the governments of the western world that helped remove Gaddafi from power don't seem to mind at all.  The flag, which contains the phrase "there is no God but Allah" with a full moon underneath, has been photographed flying beside the new national flag of Libya at the courthouse in Benghazi.  The courthouse in Benghazi is where the "rebels" established their provisional government, and it is where the "media center" for communication with foreign journalists was located during the fight against Gaddafi.  So it isn't as if the al-Qaeda flag has been flying over some insignificant building.  But this should be no surprise.  It has been known all along that al-Qaeda was very heavily represented in the army of "the rebels" and among the leadership of "the rebels".  Now, thanks to Obama, they have taken over Libya and they intend to impose a brutal form of Sharia law on the entire Libyan population.

You can see more pictures of the al-Qaeda flag flying over Libya on the website of the Telegraph and on the website of the Daily Mail.

The following is video of the al-Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi....

So where is the uproar about this in the U.S. media?

The silence has been deafening.

I guess it would be hard to explain to the American people why they should be sacrificing their sons and daughters to fight al-Qaeda when we just spent billions of dollars helping them take over Libya.

Sadly, the flag of al-Qaeda is not just being flown at the Benghazi courthouse.  According to eyewitnesses, it is now being displayed all over Benghazi.  The following is an account from an eyewitness that has seen the flag flying over the Benghazi courthouse for himself….

It was here at the courthouse in Benghazi where the first spark of the Libyan revolution ignited. It’s the symbolic seat of the revolution; post-Gaddafi Libya’s equivalent of Egypt’s Tahrir Square. And it was here, in the tumultuous months of civil war, that the ragtag rebel forces established their provisional government and primitive, yet effective, media center from which to tell foreign journalists about their “fight for freedom.”

But according to multiple eyewitnesses—myself included—one can now see both the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of al Qaeda fluttering atop Benghazi’s courthouse.

According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the city’s streets at night shouting, “Islamiya, Islamiya! No East, nor West,” a reference to previous worries that the country would be bifurcated between Gaddafi opponents in the east and the pro-Gaddafi elements in the west.

So what in the world are we supposed to think about all this?

We were told that we had to invade Afghanistan because they were harboring “al-Qaeda” leaders.

We were told that it was necessary for us to stay in Iraq for so long so that “al-Qaeda” would not take over.

But now we have helped al-Qaeda take over Libya.

It isn’t as if the governments of the western world did not know what was going on in Libya.

According to the Telegraph, the leader of the Libyan rebels was very open about the fact that his “troops” included significant numbers of al-Qaeda fighters that were firing bullets at U.S. soldiers in Iraq….

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

According to a recent article by Kurt Nimmo for Infowars.com, al-Qaeda rebels had established an “Islamic emirate” in eastern Libya as early as February….

In February, it was reported that al-Qaeda had set-up an Islamic emirate in Derna, in eastern Libya, headed by a former prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Abdelkarim al-Hasadi.

Now that they have won the war, the “rebels” have announced that they will be imposing strict Sharia law all over Libya.

The head of the National Transitional Council in Libya, Moustafa Abdeljalil, has already made this very clear.  Just consider the following statements….

-”Sharia law is the source of all our laws.“

-”We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government“

-”The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion“

Shouldn’t the people of Libya have a say in all of this?

Sadly, one kind of tyranny has just been replaced with another.

In fact, some elements of Sharia law have already been implemented.

According to a recent article posted on the Telegraph, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil has already announced that the law banning polygamy has been repealed because it is not compliant with Sharia law….

Mr Abdul-Jalil went further, specifically lifting immediately, by decree, one law from Col. Gaddafi’s era that he said was in conflict with Sharia – that banning polygamy.

The American people were told that the system of government established by the Taliban in Afghanistan was so repressive that it needed to be overthrown, but now we are helping essentially the exact same system of government be set up in Libya.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Not only that, we have greatly destabilized the region and there will almost certainly be very bloody internal conflicts within Libya for many years to come.

The following comes from a recent report posted by The New American….

Gadhafi and the remnants of his regime are thought to have distributed vast stockpiles of weapons and wealth so anti-revolutionary forces could wage what the despot promised would be a long-lasting insurgency. Many of those fighters fled to the desert and are staging surprise attacks on roaming bands of militiamen.

The ongoing battles have sparked widespread speculation that the bloody conflicts will continue to rage far into the future.

In addition, as The New American notes, as a result of this conflict huge amounts of very dangerous weapons have fallen into the hands of potential terrorists….

Advanced weaponry including anti-aircraft missiles has also fallen into the hands of known terrorist organizations. The deadly stockpiles are turning up all over the region, but it remains unclear how much firepower has been smuggled out of the country so far.

But does the Obama administration seem alarmed by any of this?

No, they just want us all to praise them for a “job well done” in Libya.

Hopefully the American people will see right through this nonsense.

The flag of al-Qaeda has been flying over the headquarters of the provisional government in Libya, and yet the American people are the ones that are being treated as potential terrorists.

Our borders are wide open and anyone that wants to can sneak into this country, and yet we are told that we must have our private parts examined before we are allowed to get on to an airplane.

Something is very, very wrong.  Somehow the focus of national security has gone from protecting the American people to spying on the American people.

As I wrote about yesterday, the government has become absolutely obsessed with watching us, listening to us, tracking us, recording us, compiling information on all of us and getting us all to spy on one another.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has been spending billions of dollars to help al-Qaeda take power in Libya and is helping them enslave the entire Libyan population to a brutal form of Sharia law.

Can anyone explain how this makes any sense at all?]

Comment from Tarig Anter:

Corporations rule the USA and Europe and they want businesses with Islamists. War is business; and business is good. For them Gaddafi was too stingy and too nationalist to let them get a share; so, regime change; kill him; and bring his enemies the Islamists after striking a deal with them.
US and EU People must wait until corporations make profits and they must know that their security and that of the USA and Europe are subject and require future contracts. That is how capitalism and liberal democracy work. If you don’t like it then you must be insane anarchist or communist, and they have to deal with you too.

Please read the following:
1- The Globalists and the Islamists

2- Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State

3- Obama – Product of Illuminati Breeding Program?

4- Muslim Brotherhood- Illuminati Tools

5- Neoliberal Corporations & Sunnite Islamism Attacking Nationalism

6- Secret Societies & the New World Order

7- Exposing Capitalism; Communism; & International Secret Societies

8- Corporate Globalists Are Targeting Africa to Plunder